Furious at the killing of an Australian college baseball player in Oklahoma, a senior figure in the victim's home country blamed the “gun culture” of United States for the death, saying it was “corrupting the world."
“The U.S. has chosen the pathway of illogical policy with regard to guns," Australia’s former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer said Friday. "They cannot expect not to have any criticism of it worldwide.”
“I am angry because it is corrupting the world, this gun culture of the United States.”
His remarks came as the family of slain catcher Christopher Lane struggled to understand why three teens killed him, apparently telling cops they were bored.
"He was a kid on the cusp of making his life," the victim’s father, Peter, told The Age newspaper in Melbourne. "He gave up a lot to follow his dreams. There's not going to be any good come out of this because it was just so senseless."
Lane, 22, had left Melbourne to attend East Central University in Ada, Oklahoma, where he was on a baseball scholarship.
Fischer said the lack of gun control in the U.S. had led to a massacre “each and every year since 1996” - in contrast to Australia, which has restrictions on firearms ownership.
He said the majority of illegally obtained guns used in crimes in Australia and Mexico had come from the U.S.
He added that he was not against guns, and kept weapons at his rural home, but added: "I am in favor of firearms sensible regulations to have the best of both worlds.
Fischer is free not to come here. He's also free not to own icky guns, which is his Australian freedom. Beyond that, he's free to express his opinion, not that we're going to do anything about it.
ReplyDeleteYou should be proud of yourselves, you and all the other gun-rights fanatics. You're making the US a laughing stock.
DeleteOne sign of maturity is when you stop being obsessed with what others think of you.
DeleteOr we could always offer to give Australia to the Japanese, if the Aussies aren't grateful.
Ah, yes. The killing was caused by mind rays from the gun. If they didn't have a gun, there's no way that the three bored reprobates would have decided to run someone over, beat them to death with a baseball bat, etc. Shooting is the only thing you can do to someone just to watch them die.
ReplyDeleteThat's one of your weakest arguments. Guns have a lethality that puts them in a class of their own. It's what they're made for.
DeleteScrew the lethality; that's not even in issue here. You and the Deputy PM are acting like this killing wouldn't have happened if the US had "better" gun laws. Sorry, but these kids decided to kill someone, then went out and did it. Happening to have a gun didn't make a difference, and their lack of a gun would have done nothing.
DeleteYou're using this case to make an emotional connection that it wouldn't have happened if it weren't for guns, but that makes no sense in this case. Your attempt to bring up lethality is just an attempt to distract from the weakness of the connection to gun control here.
If it weren't for guns, we would have far fewer murders. Do you deny that? This is a yes or no question.
DeleteI deny it.
DeleteI deny it. It's unknowable and possible that the numbers could go either way.
DeleteNot just "far fewer", there wouldn't be ANY fewer. Do I need to redirect you to my posts on the subject, or do you want to deny the math of correlation coefficients?
DeleteYes, TS, I deny that.
DeleteMikeb, why do you deny the mathematics when applied to one situation, but accept them when applied to another?
DeleteI know the answer. You accept things only when the conclusion agrees with what you've already decided.