Now i know what's going on in Seattle, all the great ideas come from comedians! Don't forget to give Chris Rock credit for the bullet tax.

But seriously though, if you need a comedian to make a point for you there's a problem, especially when its one as woefully ignorant as this guy.

@ 1 - If you'd watched the video, you'd know that the Aussie comedian shredded your argument. In the video.

Did you even watch that, SB? He nailed the likes of you. All of his bases were covered. Great find, Dan. Probably wouldn't have seen it otherwise,

@2 Ignorant? Seriously? In just under 16 minutes he demolished you.

@4&5: If they don't like the message, they attack the messenger.

@3

His arguments boiled down to 'I don't like guns. Fuck you.'

If he hates America so badly I 'd suggest he keep out of our business. This will shock leftist nutjobs, but we run this nation by and for Americans.

@6
You mean like attacking in the grossest and most vulgsr terms the family name of a politician whose views you dislike? You mean a decade long campaign of vile personal abuse of a man long out of office?

That what you mean?

Ha, I watched this last night while cleaning my guns for a trip to the range on Saturday.

Can't wait. :)

@5 Are you aware of bio-metric safes? Or better yet, what is an assault rifle?

Seeing as how this fellow is not, i think the qualifies as ignorant.

Many do not like guns. I also am an American. Just as a side, Bill Hicks who would pillory you in short order died after a stint in Australia. Comedians must come and go doing shows hither and yon. Who would have thought?

I don't like guns. Fuck you. (you know who you are)

I recently had a home invasion. The town where I live has the highest per capita gun ownership in the state. The cops told me that the guy who came in picked pretty much the only house in town without a shotgun and they gave me every indication short of explicitly saying so that they would have been fine if, under the circumstances, I had cut the guy in half. Now I ask you: For whom would that have been a better outcome? Would he be better off dead? Would that be better for his parents or his friends or his siblings or any or the teachers he'd had? Would I be better off having to live with having killed someone? Would my son be better off having watched his father kill someone? Whatever you may theorize, the fact is that I got him to leave without harm, he was later arrested, and now, if he's listening to what the universe is trying to tell him, he has the opportunity to turn his life around. It sure seems like a better outcome to me.

The genius of this comedian is he perfectly anticipates the irrational responses that come from those represented by SeattleBlues @1. The whole video is great, but if you don't watch the whole thing, go watch a few seconds at 8:10 and you can get a sense of the irony of the argument @1.

@13

He didn't. He won a lottery of sorts.

Hey Seattleblues:

We may not get along, but if there is one thing I love about SLOG, it is reading all of your impotent and puerile tantrums when things do not go your way, or when people disagree with you.

Now, you seem to hate it when your comments are deleted, and I do too, since I do not get to laught about them.

So here is the deal: All you have to do is NOT call out Dan Savage specifically with anti-gay bigoted statements, and your comments will stay up. Homosexuality did not even have anything to so with this, but you have to keep bringing up your obession with Dan and homosexuality.

The mods let a lot on here that probably could get taken down (anti-semitic speech, as well as hate speech towards christians and whites is well accepted here by the mods), so just stop making bigoted comments towards gay and Dan specifically and your comments will not be deleted!

@18

I don't know where you get "doh." It seems like the incident is a study in confirmation bias. If you like guns, you say "see, you should have had a gun so you could shoot that guy." If you don't like guns, you say "see, it's good that you didn't needlessly shoot that guy."

It seems to me that people who like guns really have bought the Hollywood myth that it's super cool and easy to kill people. I don't think they've really thought through the reality. The threats they see don't exist. The consequences that exist have not occurred to them.

Good points, all, Ghost of Mr. J.

@15 Liberals don’t want gun prohibition, they want gun regulation. They want stricter access to firearms, to mentally ill loons. They don’t have access to semi automatic weapons, and extended ammunition clips.
They want to ban guns from certain areas, like bars, churches, schools. Much like guns are ban from Congress, or near the President or Vice President. They want to put some sort of consequences for gun manufacturers, so they can be sued, or have taxes to pay for healthcare costs for firearms do.

Liberals wants an honest debate about 300 million firearms in circulation, and why can an event like Sandy Hook or Cafe Racer shooting happened.. There are too many common occurrences of mentally ill gunmen, killing many people in less than 10 minutes, like the Sandy Hook massacre.

The Second Amendment was written as a response to Congress having the power to raise a National Army. One reason why the US has had huge crime rates since the late 1860s compare to other nations, was the Industrial Revolution, when mass production of guns made mass production of crime.

We are not going to get rid of 300 million firearms for circulation, we are not going to get rid of Gun Clubs or the Paranoid NRA. What US needs is regulation that most gun owners are acting in good faith, but get a license, much like most people are not crazy drivers, but they can get their right to drive yanked if they don’t pass basic requirements. We need some sanity, so little children don’t get massacre by mentally ill loons, or bible study groups, don’t get massacre by mentally ill loons who already have pending cases in the criminal justice system..

From what I've been able to find, Australia's gun laws enacted in 1996 haven't had much of an effect on violent crime. People can spin the numbers all they want, but one of the best summaries on the subject I've found is from author John Lott.

Here's a link to his very thorough blog post:
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/so…

My overall position hasn't changed: If you don't like guns, fine, don't buy one. I can respect that. Just don't try to restrict my ability to protect myself and my family from violent attackers.

Guns per se aren't the problem. If only women owned guns, would there be all these gun massacres? When was the last time a young woman went into a movie theatre or a school and mowed down dozens of people? The problem is guns owned by men. The problem is testosterone. "Don't take away my penis".

He caricatured the mentally ill in a way I'm uncomfortable with, but otherwise he was pretty well on the mark.

@8: "You mean like attacking in the grossest and most vulgsr terms [sic] the family name of a politician whose views you dislike?"
This from the guy who not only insists on talking about "little Danny Boy the Savage" (using his family name as a slur), but also referring to him (and other liberals and queers) with terms like "perverts" "deviants" "loonies" "barbarians" "fags and dykes" "disgusting traitor" "hatred for honorable men" "petulant child" "decay" "simpering morons" "narcissistic little boy" "subhuman thing" "[d]eranged perverted deviant" "seriously mentallly [sic] ill" "trash" "filthy bit of human debris" "repulsive bit of scum" "filthy pervert" "spoiled junior high school girl" and "freak".
Those are all words that you not only use to describe people you don't like, but insist are objective statements of fact whenever someone calls you out on your baseless invective. And you say this not only about people who are no longer in office, but who have never held or even run for elective office! It all comes down to the same old double standard of "it's okay when Seattleblues does it", just like your selective support for the rule of law (only when it's laws you like).

(Oh and Rick Santorum is running for President this year, just like he did 4 years ago. He's fair political game, and the infamous "man-on-dog" comment should be brought up as an argument against him. It would be an extremely boring election cycle if candidates not currently holding office were off limits.)

@23

I don't know whether he was armed, he wasn't here long enough to establish what he was after, and I've never met him. I don't know why he picked my house. I live in a semi-rural area. He was from the nearest large city. He had a car full of heroin when they picked him up. My house was not the first "stop" of his day. Other crimes preceded his visit (in broad daylight). My driveway attracts a disproportionate amount of people who need to turn around. I know this because I seldom leave my house and I have a view of the street from my office. I delayed responding to his obvious plan to come in as long as I was comfortable, given that my son was in the house, because I was on the phone with 911 and I hoped they would get there sooner. They are underfunded because people don't want to pay taxes and so they had to come a long way. I could hear the conversation of the dispatcher and I understood that the cops went to the wrong address. You know that scene in "The Shining" where the bathroom door is being chopped down? Well in real life that shit seems to take ten years. I could hear that the guy was in the house so I put my son behind me (which is hilarious if you could see us; he has 3 inches on me and I'm a pacifist) and went to confront the guy. Again, you don't know me, but apparently I'm a scary motherfucker. So apparently not liking ghosts or spooky behavior he fled.

@24

"Why does everything I whip leave me?"
-The Simpsons Movie

@21: Exactly.

@22: You lost the argument as soon as you cited John Lott. He's used faulty methodology, massaged data, referenced a key study which mysteriously seems to not exist anywhere (Lott claims that all copies were lost in a computer crash), posed as a former student of his in order to defend his ideas online, and failed to account for large-scale patterns in crime rates attributable to factors unrelated to guns. He's a fraud, honestly; his supporters are not fellow economists and statisticians, but rather the uneducated masses looking for confirmation of their opinions about guns.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/21/why_is_t…

@25 Look up Brenda Ann Spencer, the Boomtown Rats song, “I don’t like Mondays”, and Cleveland Elementary School shootings in San Diego in the late 1970s.. Ditto with the Shooting at Triad Center in Salt Lake City in 1999 by De-Kieu Duy..

@29

We're going to have to agree to disagree then. Even if you don't like the messenger, I think his points regarding Australia were reasonable and well thought out.

One could probably even say that the anti-gun crowd is cherry picking their case with Australia, when one should probably be looking at violent crime rates both pre- and post-gun law in other countries as well.

@31: the point is not that there are absolutely no female mass gun murderers, the point is that there are considerably fewer of them. Take away mental illness (which occurs even in countries with strict anti gun laws) and you are still left with testosterone.

the trap has been sprung a long time ago by the gun manufacturers. there's no way out of this box; you can't easily amend that amendment, the "militia" is so broadly defined as to be meaningless, the conservative SCOTUS got DC vs. Heller through (among other decisions), and the states are one-upping each other making guns more free. the political will is decades from changing on this issue. a lot of angry white people need to pass away.

basically, the carnage will continue. the terror will continue. and the pervasive fear that having 40% of the world's private firearms spread among 4.4% of the world's population engenders will just make more people buy guns to protect themselves from the other gun owners.

we're being terrorized into a domestic arms race.

Without having an outlet like abortion, men only have hunting and gang warfare to get their kill-fix. MMA doesn't quite cut the mustard, either.

@33 “Take away mental illness (which occurs even in countries with strict anti gun laws) and you are still left with testosterone.”

when you take away mental illness, you don’t have mass shootings, no matter the gender..

Mass Shootings happen most of the time because the mentally ill have easy access to firearms and extended ammunition clips. We have to do something to prevent the very mentally ill, whether it is Seung Hui Cho, Elliot Rodgers or Jennifer San Marco..

Oh Danny Bo-yyyyy!
A comedian! From Australia. You're adorable!

I do agree with him about one thing: The 2nd Amendment is an...Amendment. You've gone on record on Slog as stating that you would like the 2nd Amendment repealed. I actually respect your for your honesty in this case.
I just wish the other anti-2nd Amendment cunts on this board would quit trying to conceal the fact that what they really want - like you - this a complete ban on all civilian ownership of all guns.
I suggest you go for it, campaign for it, stop this pussy-footing around with background checks, magazine limits, assault rifle bans, ...FUCK!!! Just say what you want already! You want ALL GUNS BANNED, amirite?
Go ahead do it :)

Man has small dick so he needs a big gun. Man needs big gun so he can wave it around to show how big his gun is. Big gun equals big dick to Man. America has the most small dicked men, so America has the most need of guns. Until America either makes more big dicked Men or stops fetishizing/worshipping dick size, guns will always represent masculine power to small dicked American Men. SB is tormented by his micro penis, as are his NRA brothers.

@37: Yup. I want all guns banned. All. Gone. No more. I don't want to regulate guns, I want to eliminate them.

@37 - I don't believe that people should smoke crack in the alley outside my apartment complex, but I have no issue with consumers of proper age and who don't appear to already be intoxicated walking into a store and purchasing coca-laced soft-drinks, chewing gum, or liqueurs.

By that same token, I have no issue with citizens purchasing shotguns or hunting rifles, or even some forms of handguns and "assault rifles," if they are of proper age and sound mind, and the number of weapons and rounds is subject to reasonable limits (a tough and, in some measure, subjective distinction, to be sure ... like all legal limits, which require triangulation of multiple subjective viewpoints to achieve something like objectivity).

I always find it interesting that people seem so certain what I, or people like me, "really want."

Also, what @38 said.

Honestly, Jeffries's summary of NRA's only real argument ("Fuck off; I like guns") is the most convincing pro-gun argument I've ever heard. Not saying I'd ever join the NRA, but if they went with that I'd certainly like them a lot more.

Hackneyed and trite. He has a good delivery, but he is just spouting the same gun control lobby propaganda that has been kicking around for 20 year or more.

His 'data' is inaccurate and his logic deeply flawed.

For example, New Zealand also had a mass attack around the same time. However they didn;t change their gun laws, which were far less repressive than Australia's were, and guess what?

They haven't had a mass shooting since that time either.

Meanwhile Australia went through the worst crime wave they've ever seen right after this forced confiscation.

And does he really think he would have been held captive and his girlfriend 'almost raped' if he had access to a firearm to defend himself.

A quick release gun safe can be opened in second, if you know the code. Millions of people keep them handy and and yet they still keep firearms safe and secure. That whole part of the skit was funny, but willfully ignorant.

In short, this guy doesn't 'demolish' anything. He just spouts out the same gun control propaganda that you would hear from one of Bloomberg's gun control lobbyists. Although he does have a better sense of comedic timing.

You know, the gun nuts have gotten so weird in this country that I worry about Jim Jefferies' safety just talking about gun control in such an effective manner.

There was an excellent, excellent Frontline this season about the NRA and how it became so wack and so powerful. If you haven't seen it, it's probably available on the PBS website.

I'm amazed that so many important people shiver in their boots at the mention of Wayne LaPierre's name. It's true that the NRA has put people out of office. It shouldn't surprise me, I guess, that politicians put their own re-elections before what's decent and right for the country.

Little fact check: Martin Bryant's record has been well and truly broken by Anders Breivik. And it wasn't truly a record, as Korean Woo Bum-kon killed more than him.

This does not affect the argument, just ruins a joke.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XOylvD_kV5…

The Newswipe by Charlie Brooker on mass murder is also a good watch.

@44: They have a highly organized voting bloc and 3-400 million dollars in operating budget. I'm not surprised that people fear them.

@44

Right... Because everyone who owns a gun or merely believes that a right is just that- a right- is a homocidal 'gun nut.'

Nope. No paranoia there.

And the arguments aren't effective. They change no mind. Know why? Because they're they're just tired rehash of anti 2nd Amendment rhetoric in an Australian accent.

Here's the thing. But I could own none or a dozen guns. And in none of those cases do I have to justify that choice to you or Jeffries or the government. I have the right to own or not own guns. Let me repeat that so it gets into your paranoid delusional head. I have THE RIGHT to own or not own guns. How you feel about doesn't matter. At all.

Why does someone who owns a gun want one? Not your damn business. For hunting or self defense or as an heirloom? Not your damn business. Are my reasons logical to you or Jeffries? Not your damn business. How many rounds of ammunition do I have? Not your damn business. Are my gun(s) in a safe or trigger locked? Not your damn business.

Clear enough?

@48: Do you believe that you have THE RIGHT to own a shoulder-fired missile launcher with HEAT munitions?
If so, how do you explain the fact that courts, including ones with conservative-leaning judges, consistently uphold bans on civilian ownership of military hardware? If not, you admit that the government has the power to set reasonable limits on personal ownership of weapons.
Which is it, Seattleblues?

(Also, Bauhaus I didn't claim that all gun owners are gun nuts, only that there are enough gun nuts out there that he might actually be targeted. Nice strawman, you weaselly imbecile.)

One problem I had with Jim Jefferies is his assertion that Australia somehow benefited from banning guns. That isn't what happened. His superior and obnoxious attitude where he acts like a supercilious ass didn't help matters either, particularly when I know for a fact--based on Australia's own violent crime statistics from 1993 to 2012--that a trade off in crime occurred, and that a reduction in murders really wasn't that dramatic in Australia.
But, numbers don't lie. So here they are. http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vi…
What do these statistics show? Well, in 1996 Australia bans citizens from owning guns. Handguns and "assault weapons" in particular, but more generally permissions to own firearms were more greatly restricted. One year before, in 1995, there were 14,564 robberies in Australia, and 355 murders. Then gun control happens in 1996. In 1997...robberies jump to 21,305 cases. A nearly 50% increase in the total number of additional robberies. Quite a strange coincidence, eh? In previous years robberies had increased by 1000 additional cases, or 500 cases the next year, but then suddenly they jump up by 7000 new cases within 1 year of a gun ban.
Here's another odd "coincidence". Rapes. The sexual assault rate in Australia went from 14,000ish cases to 18,000 cases by 2002. And has remained high. In fact, Australia's rape rate has risen over the years at a time when most other nations were seeing falling rates. Including the US. If you do a search now on news articles about rape and Australia, you will find dozens describing the unusually high rape rate for Australia. Do I attribute this high rate of rape with disarmed females unable to induce fear in male attackers because they lack firearms with which they could intimidate those who would assault them? You damn right I do. Likewise I attribute the sudden 7000 extra robberies that happened within one year of a gun ban to criminals suddenly realizing they faced an unarmed and non-threatening population.
So, to me, Australia is now a place where women get raped, and can't fight back, and robbers take advantage of citizens whenever they wish without fear of injury to themselves.
What offends me is that Jim Jefferies touts his weak-kneed cowardice as a virtue. Robbers break in to steal from him and he treats it as a joke. If they had come to rape his woman too, you get the idea he would have given her over to them as well. Taking a stand effectively with a firearm isn't as important to him as having a good reason to do nothing. "Oh, I didn't nothing because all they wanted was my TV." Next time they might want your girlfriend. That happens all too often...and in Australia it happens more than in many other modern Westernized nations.
Oh, and the vast reduction in murders that was promised by doing away with gun ownership in Australia..? In 1996, the year of the massacre at Port Arthur, Australia had 354 murders. In 2012, the last year this data set was tabulated, the murder rate had dropped an astonishing amount to....297. So a whole 57 person difference between 1996 and 2012. But with many thousands of extra rapes and robberies added to the crime statistics of Australia.
"But Australia hasn't had a mass killing since the ban!" Yeah, that sounds impressive. But Australia really didn't have much or any mass killings before the ban either. And the murder rate has only dropped from 354 to 297. Which, again, sounds great. A 20% drop in murders. Except...the US has had an even greater percentage drop in murders in the same time...and that's while US states have been adopting "concealed carry" laws, wherein more and more Americans are walking around on a daily basis armed with handguns.
If the ready availability of guns is the sole cause of violence, why is it that even with more and more Americans carrying guns on a daily basis over the last 25 years, our murder rates have been dropping? Shouldn't more guns on the street being carried have caused murder rates to skyrocket? Well they didn't. The FBI records the death figures from states annually, and the trend is quite clear...murders in the US have been going down across the last 25 years.
So Jim Jefferies comedy skit comes off sounding A. ignorant of what happened to the other crime statistics in Australia, which is fine if they are willing to let themselves be robbed and their women be raped (it's their country after all) but I think Americans would be far less willing to make the same trade off, and B. cowardly and a championing of limp-wristed mediocrity when it comes to protecting what is within his domain. Again, not an attitude that many Americans will willingly embrace.
Basically he is doing a comedy skit that promotes a flawed view not born out by even the simplest examination of his countries statistics, and then seeks to ridicule our nation for what he sees as our perceived flaws while ignoring the raping of defenseless women at levels that have garnered quite a lot of commentary from both inside and outside of Australia, with estimates that as many as 1/6th of Australia's female population may have been raped in the last 20 years since the gun ban passed.
His smug superiority in trying to foist off his championing of weakness and surrender in the face of criminality...and treating it like it is some sort of damned virtue when he does so...is the most annoying aspect of his stupidity.

The Australian govt's figures on violent crime from 1993 to 2012. For some reason it didn't post in my article above.
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/
vicViolentCol.html

Um, Streinikov, with regards to the apparent increase in rapes in Australia following '96, I am guessing that the number of Australian women who pre '96 were gun owners at all, let alone the type that actually carried their guns around with them at all times, was next to nil. Hence, any rapist's decision to rape or not to rape would have had zilch to do with whether or not the woman was going to blow his head off if he tried it.

In future, please refrain from using terms such as 'his woman' and 'their women' - news flash: It's 2015. Women aren't the property of the men they are with, or of any men.

Thanks.

didn't make any jokes about 3d printing guns

Also, more than 30,000 people are killed in the US by guns PER YEAR, either by accident, suicide, or homicide. THIRTY THOUSAND PEOPLE EVERY YEAR. For no goddamn reason, unless you think having a hobby and a toy that sure be fun and cool and sporty and manly is a good reason. And don't throw out the stat at me about the number of people who die in car accidents every years. Cars are actually goddamn useful and certainly in modern day America, in most places, necessary to get to work, school, the grocery store, the hospital, to visit the grandparents out of town, take the kids to daycare, etc.etc. etc. Cars aren't an unnecessary idiot hobby, a product designed with the single intent of carnage, either self inflicted or otherwise.

If Australia decided, and if people here decide, that gun fellating is maybe a thing to curb, if it's not worth the risk and the carnage guns pose all in the name of letting the boy-men have their violent, completely unnecessary toys, then that to me seems like an entirely and inarguably sane thing.

@52 at least the australian govt took away any chance that women who would like to defend themselves with a gun cannot, but you know greater good and all, guns can't be used in any manner that would provide safety for people.

please refrain from using terms that announce ownership such as 'her man', 'my family', and please stop using emasculating terms like 'boy friend'. this is a gender neutral post racial bio positive make your own adventure progressive society where everything must be tolerated, unless it's unliked.

k? thx

Issues with the adoption of gun control in the USA based on the experiance of other nations.

1. We have over 300 million guns in private hands nearly all are unregistered. In other nations that adopted strong gun control guns were first registered then many years then were much later banned using the registration records to find the guns. Americans are well aware of this and so national registration has become politically unacceptable. Even with a national gun registration system, the number of people who would simply refuse to comply would number in the tens of millions, and it would be a practical impossibility to enforce such a law.

2. Gun owners are very numerous in american politics, over the whole nation they are in fact a majority of adult voters. Antigun advocates try to claim otherwise with misleading statistics, but even they acknowledge the opposition is very numerous and politically very strong, nor is the political support based on "gun industry" donations. The gun industry is tiny set next say the alcohol or tobacco industries, they simply do not have the deep pockets needed to sustain a large scale political effort over many years. The opposition to gun control is in fact a grass roots popular movement in the USA based on very strongly held beliefs of the majority of the people. Claims otherwise are just nonsense. Also very critical, people opposed to gun control tend to be hard core and in it for the long haul and will use this one issue as a litmus test on a political candidate, supporters of gun control are very wishy-washy and flip-floppy on the issue.

3. A large fraction of the "gun culture" in the USA hold a quasi-religious belief in the right of Americans to "keep and bear arms". To them gun control is a foreign/alien attempt to subvert and take over their culture, and that Americans who take part in this are seen as traitors. This tends to make coming out in favor of gun control political suicide in the USA.

4. The statistics on crime do not actually support gun control as an effective means of control of traditional crime by private individuals and small gangs.

The poster child for this is the use of "gun crime" statistics by advocates of gun control. If the evidence of overall murder and assault rates supported their position, they would use that. The fact that they must cook the books and only count murders committed with guns in a place where guns are illegal, vs. murders with guns in places where guns are legal shows the dishonesty of the argument. Murder is murder whether with a club, knife poison or gun. The fraud in this argument is insultingly obvious.

When looked at objectively crime statistics show gun control is at best a wash, and more realistically a small negative effect on crime control. The only sort of private crime that such gun control laws have a positive effect on are those called mass shootings, and those are just not statistically significant. If you hold that lives are of equal value, then what matters is the overall murder rate, not newsworthy crime only. In other nations the effect of draconian gun control is at best a wash, and at worst a negative effect on small scale private crime.

5. The big issue that gun control advocates seek to evade, and is I think the real motivation for gun control, is large scale crime by government.

Having the people be armed, and having strong legal and cultural prohibitions on disarming the people is a very effective means of control of violent crime by leaders of governments. In the 20th century approximately 262 million people were murdered by governments, that excludes death by war.

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.H…

That corresponds to an annual murder rate by government of 100.8 per 100,000. That is 2 to 3 times the worst private murder rates to be found in the world of the highest murder rates in any nation, and about 10 or more times that of nations considered to have "high" murder rates, and about 20 times the murder rate in the USA.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.I…

The commonly stated (and totally wrong) counter-argument to to this is that a modern military will automatically win any conflict with armed civilian militia. The facts of recent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Vietnam, and other nations show this is an absurd and specious argument.

@50. If you asked Australian women, I'm pretty sure you would find the majority support our strict gun laws. Most Australians are proud of our former Prime Minister John Howard's gun reforms. I, as an Australian woman, would prefer to have a rapist attack me with a knife (instead of us both carrying a gun and shooting at each other). I find the idea of everyone owning a gun terrifying. I live in Melbourne (the second most populated city in Australia) and I don't know ANYONE who owns a gun..... (Except maybe a police officer girlfriend). And I think that's awesome! I work as a nurse in a busy city hospital ER and I have only ever seen one gun related injury. I am so proud of our anti-gun culture.