news

There are some freedoms worth giving up. And access to guns is one.

“When there’s a driving accident, you don’t ban cars, you try to prevent drunk people from driving.”

This is the view that Fox & Friends television host Tucker Carlson shared with his American audience on Monday night. Carlson argued that the discussion of gun restrictions in the wake of the Oregon college shooting last week — where nine people died — were an “infantile focus on the tool of the violence.”

“The idea that taking guns away from the law-abiding will make us safer is insane and childish,” Carlson said.

When his co-host Clayton Morris countered with the view that Australia has effectively controlled guns and gun violence by limiting access, Carlson was quick to interrupt.

“They also have no freedom,” Carlson said.

“You can go to prison for expressing unpopular views in Australia and people do… No one ever says that.”

It is true that here in Australia we don’t have ready access to guns, but it’s a freedom worth waiving. It comes with a compelling upside.

In 2012, a total of 226 Australians were killed with guns. In America in the same year, 33,536 were killed with guns.

Australia is estimated to be home to three million firearms owned legally and illegally. America is home to between 270 million and 310 million firearms. America’s population is roughly 13 times Australia’s. They have almost 300 times as many guns and 148 times as many gun-related deaths.

At the end of the segment in which Carlson criticised Australia’s lack of freedom, he referred to an article he’d read in which the author had proposed banning guns.

“She asked rhetorically, ‘what about the second amendment? It was written by white men 200 years ago. Who cares?’ That’s where the left is right now. It’s scary,” Carlson said.

Here in Australia, guns laws weren’t overhauled by the left. It was the decisive action of John Howard, a conservative Prime Minister, that resulted in a rapid and sustained reduction in gun violence. And as strange as it might seem to many gun-loving American citizens, strict guns laws are far from ‘scary’.

The truth is we’re pretty free because of it.

We are free to send our kids to school everyday safe in the knowledge that a mass shooting is highly highly unlikely. We are free to drive, knowing it’s very very unlikely that our fellow drivers will be armed. We are free to head to the shopping centre or go to a football game or visit a uni, without giving gun violence a second thought. And that’s pretty liberating.

Of course, Australia is not free from gun crime; the shooting of police accountant Curtis Cheng in Parramatta on Friday is a tragic reminder. But gun deaths are rare and they will remain rare if we remain committed to gun control.

This is anathema for Americans and obviously the fact we don’t have a bill of rights that enshrines the right to bear arms, like they do, makes this easier for us to accept. But the truth is some freedoms are worth trading in for others.

Australia is, on the whole, tightly regulated. Earlier this year Canadian journalist and publisher Tyler Brûle delivered a pretty scathing assessment of Australia’s ‘Nanny state’. He highlighted fastidious rules around lockouts, airport curfews and council regulations for alfresco dining as proof.

“This country is on the verge of becoming the world’s dumbest nation. There will be a collapse of common sense here if health and safety wins out on every single discussion,” he said while speaking at the Vivid Ideas festival. “People think it’s a little bit nuts here.”

It’s a very valid point. Do we want to live in a total nanny state? Nope. But are there exceptions? Absolutely.

All in favour of a total-nanny-state in relation to guns, say ‘I’.

Tags:

Related Stories

Recommended

Top Comments

Steve 8 years ago

Oh my, what a load of nonsense, you need proof Australia is a nanny state? How about demanding adults wear a bicycle helmet? How about little boys not allowed to have a slingshot, how about needing a category A license to own a BB gun! Thats a gun that fires literally small plastic pellets that would struggle to go through a sheet of paper at 10m. I could go on and on.

I would like to know how many women have rolled an ankle in high heels, or thrown one at someone, completely avoidable no need for high heels.

How about high power vehicles? Drive a V8 through a crowd kill twenty people so mass murder is possible. I remember the campaign about cars being a one ton missile.

Now should honest, non criminal people be allowed access to firearms damn right, what right do you or any govt on the face of the earth have to tell me how to live my live AS LONG as it does not interfere with your life.

When I am guilty of killing terrorising or whatever prosecute me then but just because you do not like my hobby so what.

No we do not need machine guns, but rifles, pistols should all be OK with a reasonable background check. Freedom by nature has risk that is the price of it. If you were a Christian you would know God gave freedom with the risk of rebellion which is what occurred but for true freedom you will have risk.

I know what I want. I should say some mental nutter tried to car jack my 50kg wife and son on country road by running car off of road, why should she not have the tools even pepper spray to defend herself? You can sacrifice your family with your self righteous attitude but not mine.

I keep to myself and worry about my well being you should worry about yours.

This country is well on the way to becoming a dictatorship/police state another prisoner was Pauline Hanson jailed for nothing other than an opinion.


sleepy and confused 9 years ago

If they keep referring to the 1st Amendment then they should have a gun from that era, which is what the Amendment would have referred too - you can't match a 100+yr old statement with modern warfare.

Snorks 9 years ago

You mean the 2nd amendment, it's about having a militia being necessary to secure a free state and the right to bear arms. It's supposed to be about defending your country, not arming everyone for 'protection' which seems to be how most people use it.
The amendment has an interesting history really.

DQ 9 years ago

*2nd

sleepy and confused 9 years ago

Oops :/

sleepy and confused 9 years ago

Sorry, yes I do mean the 2nd.
And that's what I mean; people today are just taking it out of context and applying the idea of 'I am entitled, nay, encouraged to have a gun, so I'm going to get myself the biggest damn gun I can!'. What they are doing today is absolutely not in the spirit of the Amendment.