Grace Baldridge and Ana Kasparian talk about on of the largest shootings in the world, the Port Arthur Massacre, which became a pivotal moment in Australia’s gun control legislation.
Coincidentally, I am watching this in the wake of Alex Jones’ ban from multiple online platforms, him being yet another conspiracy nut who repeated claims Sandy Hook was a hoax.
In general you cannot carry around guns in New Zealand, nor can you get open or concealed carry licence like you have in the United States of America. Firearms licences are issued at the discretion of the police. The possession of firearms is considered a privilege, rather than a right in New Zealand.
There is a longer process to get a gun in New Zealand and the police have to approved your eligibility. They also have to inspect where you are going to store your weapons and your ammunition as these must be seperate locked containers and must have different locks so the same key can’t be used to open both containers. These keys must also be stored securely.
If you are going hunting then the guns are stored in locked boxes in your vehicle until your get where you are hunting. Ammunition has to be stored in a seperate locked box to the guns.
Even our police don’t openly carry guns, if they have been allocated them they are stored in a locked box in their police vehicle.
Most of our gun deaths result from hunting accidents mainly due to mistaken identify. Hence there is a lot of focus on reducing deaths from this means.
New Zealand has a lot of hunters and sport shooters and we support sensible gun control and restrictions to keep everyone safe.
So Ana wants a trial… whose purpose is to determine guilt or not… even though a guilty plea was entered?
That’s a very American outlook, which she acknowledges… so fair play.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.
However, if she meant as to help determine the course of events… you can have have post-sentencing/post-conviction interviews all you like, providing authorities grant permission.
And if she meant so the victims can have their say… that too can be genrally be considered before the court passes sentence via victim submissions pre-sentencing.
But like I said at the start, a trial even though there’s a guilty plea… we’ll agree to disagree.
There’s still the avenue of appeal if a criminal feels they have been wrongly convicted.
And if we want to have a discussion about improving the appeal system… making it faster, and more transparent… no problem.
Spending tax payer dollars on a ‘sentencing trials’… nah, build schools and hospitals, or boost veteran pensions instead, please.
As for sealing of evidence… it is not like it can’t be reviewed, or be petioned to be unsealed… it is just not available in the public domain at this point.
And personally, given that amongst the victims, there were children under 16 who lost their lives… like any case involving children, I’ve no problem with the records being sealed at this time.
I’m all for periodic reviews of our judicial system to ensure it’s stays up-to-date, relevant, and that is fair to our citizens… but, I see no point in having a trial to determine sentencing.
And that’s just my personal view.
Finally I will say… I remember this case very well… and while one can always ask questions surrounding the bigger “Why?” …the conspiracy nuts can just piss off.
Even a cursory understanding of our legal system debunks 99.9% of their ravings.
Love this episode, and all the others.
Although, in this case, I wasn’t so interested in the Martin Bryant story… given, well, I’m Australian, it’s and discussed, debated, and pondered here in certain circles, on a pretty regular basis…
I did however still find it very interesting, even though I respectfully disagree with some of Ana’s assessments, hearing an ‘outside’ perspectives, so to speak.
Now I’ll have to find another couple of episodes to re-watch.
“Murder with Friends” is one the few shows I can revisit, and find fresh food for thought each time around.
I was kinda surprised to see Port Arthur as a subject of your show, Grace. Thank you for going over this event, I didn’t even know what happened after Bryant was caught. Tho, your conversation with Ana, re gun control, is kinda typical for Americans. I really do hope that the American Government can put both the NRA, and the gun manufacturers, down and enact some sensible legislation for the American people. 2017 it has become a public health issue, no longer a constitutional one, and the deaths you suffer every year are heartbreaking.
Hey, you guys jail a LARGE portion of people who take a plea deal even if thier innocent and go to jail without a trial.
Also shit like this goes down. We actually do stuff about it.
Step off Ana
I think I Ana long enough that I believe she is aware of the over-zealousness of the American judicial system. I think her emphasis was on transparency, so as to guarantee, are try to, show that the accused was rightly judged, or otherwise there would need to be appeals.
I’m a little confused, and perhaps it stems from the fact that my knowledge of the American legal justice system is fueled almost entirely by fictitious legal tv shows. I was under the impression that it was common for there to not be a trial in the US when the person pleads guilty and accepts a plea bargain. For example, with the Charleston shooter, if the prosecutor had offered him life without parole for entering a guilty plea, wouldn’t there have not been a trial? I get that in this case the shooter didn’t take a plea, but is there really such an enormous difference between what happened in Australia and what might have happened in the US if the shooter had plead guilty and gone straight to jail without a trial?
Unless American TV has been lying to me for years, and that’s not how it works at all. If that is the case, what is the point of a plea bargain, if not to skip the expense of a trial?
This was really interesting and it’s noteworthy to see how conservatives will compare us to say, a country like New Zealand that has lax gun laws and also has very minimal problems… which is the opposite for the US. The US could clearly benefit from gun legislation reform, but when us crazy progressives compare the US to other countries that are doing really well with socialism or democratic socialism like Sweden or Canada all they can see is that it isn’t going to work because “look at how bad Venezuela is? It doesn’t work for them”. We need to fix what’s broken like Ana said. When you break your leg , go to the doctor to have them fix it and then let’s explore ways to avoid this from happening in the future. The US is the melting pot of other nationalities. Nothing is our own. As far as countries go, we are a baby. We have a lot to learn from other countries and we have strayed a great deal from the guidelines our founding fathers have set for us from the beginning and it’s hurting us.
I feel like this was a super rambling comment and it strayed a bit from the topic, but you get what I’m saying.
Grace and Ana, thank you. Really good job and super interesting.
Here in the U.S., contrary to what you both said, if you plead guilty there is no trial. There is no point in having a trial if the person has already pled guilty and it saves much money for the court and hence the citizens. Maybe what you are thinking of is cases where the death penalty is possible. In that case a jury hears evidence related to mitigating factors, remorse, etc. The jurors then decide if the defendant should be sentenced to death. Evidence is not readily available to the public. Sometimes a FOIA request is needed to see it. Australia does not have the death penalty. The state of Tasmania abolished it in 1946.
Regardless, great show! This is one of my favorites on TYT.
My mother knew one of the victims, it happened on my first birthday and my name is Allanah which considering this massacre is why we have the Alannah and Madeline Foundation, its weird watching the tv on my birthday and hearing my name.
Totally agree that the laws in the US need serious reform. I think that the reason why New Zealand’s approach worked is because policy makers were able to look at the various causal factors of gun violence in their country and tailor laws that were effective in addressing those specific concerns. The causal factors in the prevalence of gun violence are likely different for each country, therefore the laws addressing them are likely to take different forms, although I imagine drug decriminalization and public health treatment solutions would also be a major part of any objective American reform effort. In the US, researchers are effectively barred from conducting such research, and thus the issue of gun control is treated as a political football with no serious or effective measures being implemented.
I was hesitant to watch this one, coz any coverage of Port Arthur makes me cry but I got through it and you gals did a great job.
One thing to mention about John Howard, the Prime Minister at the time who carried out the gun buy back and installed new gun control laws, he is seen in light similar to that of how Republicans now view Reagan – as in his own party, the Liberal party see him that way (which is the right wing party in Australia, i know, confusing. Labor is our left wing, Greens are more left than that). He was super right wing, but the gun buy back makes even the left wing peeps grateful he was in office that day. With out current government, I miss him occasionally.
Also in regards to the young girls who were killed with their mother, their father set up a foundation in their name ‘The Alannah and Madeline Foundation’ which aims to keep kids from harmful situations https://www.amf.org.au/ they do good work. ugh. so horrible.
Great episode. And just as Alonso and Dave were perfect guests for the Ed Gein episode, Ana was perfect for this one. You are such a great host, Grace!
I do have to disagree that him identifying himself as “Jamie” on the phone indicated that he was having some kind of psychotic break. It could just as easily have been a stupid man’s attempt to throw the police off. It seems to me that he still thought he had a chance to get away at that point, so it makes an idiotic kind of sense. You’ve always got to keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of people think they are smarter than average, which is impossible.
It’s not unbearable to think that even a guilty plea deserves a fair trial. Regardless of Tasmania’s reasons for moving straight to sentencing from a guilty plea (which MAY have to do with saving victims and victims’ families from the hardship of trial, as that one statement Grace and Ana read said, but likely has more to do with cost-cutting and “efficiency”), cutting that corner could have consequences. If someone’s guilty plea were coerced and the person were innocent and no evidence supports the theory of guilt, or the person has severe mental illness and requires hospitalization rather than standard jailing, or other concerns, these are issues that can be hashed out in a trial. It’s not unbearable that Ana prefers US due process over another country’s straight-to-sentencing method, even if she doesn’t know that country’s rationale for it. It’s an understandable position: any time a step of accountability is absent from a system of checks and balances, it could be opening the doors for errors, corruption, and indifference to truth or facts.
Not to say that trials mean every “bad guy” (guilty) gets convicted and every “good guy” (innocent) gets acquitted, but its theory is on the right track even if its application is flawed.
Also, she does acknowledge that our system is highly flawed, even as she talks about preferring US due process… in case you missed it… So it’s not like she’s insisting that the U.S. is all perfect or something. She just views trial as an imperative step between confession and conviction, without which justice *could* be lost to *all* involved (victims; the accused, who may be innocent after all; AND the true guilty party, not to mention future victims who might not have been victims had the person been convicted).
It’s also not “unbearable” to prefer what one knows, either, depending on topic… most of us are guilty of often preferring that with which we’re familiar, whatever the category. So I don’t fault her for appreciating and preferring the flawed system she knows over the flawed system she doesn’t know. Most people seem to in the U.S.
If her stance is unbearable, then yours is equally so: you jumped to the assumption that Tasmania has good, valid reasons for skipping this check on the judicial process, while you apparently had no idea if that’s even true (you said “I’m sure [they’re legit reasons]”–which is the same as saying you don’t actually know, thus aren’t truly “sure”). For all anyone knows, their reasons could boil down to sheer laziness. You’re making an unsupported assumption even as you apparently admonish her for seemingly doing the same.
Well said! I’m so grateful that you took the time to really cover all the bases so that I don’t have to do anything but congratulate you on your mastery of observation and reasoning skills.
Haha they show John Howard, a long running “republican” leader who yes brought back guns. Good on you John, to bad you also introduced visa that allowed organisations to pay people from third world countries a lot less.
ah waleed. im constantly conflicted on waleed. he IS a good journalist, and mostly an objective journalist but he is also very conservative in his opinion on a lot of things and (anecdotally) kind of a dick, but yes according to friends who run in same circles, he can be a tool. but i am still grateful for his presence on mainstream ‘news’ show and that he can reach a broad audience – we need more journalistic output like that on the mainstream shows. less andrew bolt who makes me scream inside whenever i see his stupid face.
Slow down there, Ricky Bobby. Your overt bias against Ana is showing. She clearly references Australia multiple times as they are speaking about the Port Arthur Massacre, which can be found at 15:30, 32:38, 35:06, 35:57, 37:43, and 38:40. When both Ana AND Grace bring up New Zealand (funny how you only mention Ana) is at 41:35 when they change the focus of the conversation to compare the differences of Australia after the massacre to New Zealand after the massacre and then juxtaposed that to America and our current state of affairs with gun laws . . . Maybe instead of being a bitchy little troll, you could be a little more thorough in your viewing of the episode and not be so ignorant of the conversation at hand. How bout dat?
you’re right, but ana still sucks. how unbearable was she with the “i think the tasmanian supreme court is flawed because im american” comment? wtf would she know about the law in general or even the tasmanian supreme court? if they have it that way, i’m sure they have valid reasons that make it permissible.
Yeah, so you know how Ana keeps saying lately how difficult it is to not tell people their idiots? . . . Yeah, I can relate. But whatever, you keep on hating. You do you, boo. Ana is still getting paid by your membership either way.
Also, please see Progressive’s comment. I couldn’t agree more.
She didn’t say NZ thinking it was Australia you numb nut. She was using an off the cuff example comparing US gun laws to those of other countries. Why don’t you pull your ill-informed and opinionated head out of your ass for 1 second and apologise for being an a-grade cunt to Ana (who is undoubtedly far more intelligent, on her worst day, than you will EVER be)
Comments
Coincidentally, I am watching this in the wake of Alex Jones’ ban from multiple online platforms, him being yet another conspiracy nut who repeated claims Sandy Hook was a hoax.
In regards to New Zealand gun policy and gaining a gun licence check out these links. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_licence_(New_Zealand) and http://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firearms-and-safety
In general you cannot carry around guns in New Zealand, nor can you get open or concealed carry licence like you have in the United States of America. Firearms licences are issued at the discretion of the police. The possession of firearms is considered a privilege, rather than a right in New Zealand.
There is a longer process to get a gun in New Zealand and the police have to approved your eligibility. They also have to inspect where you are going to store your weapons and your ammunition as these must be seperate locked containers and must have different locks so the same key can’t be used to open both containers. These keys must also be stored securely.
If you are going hunting then the guns are stored in locked boxes in your vehicle until your get where you are hunting. Ammunition has to be stored in a seperate locked box to the guns.
Even our police don’t openly carry guns, if they have been allocated them they are stored in a locked box in their police vehicle.
Most of our gun deaths result from hunting accidents mainly due to mistaken identify. Hence there is a lot of focus on reducing deaths from this means.
New Zealand has a lot of hunters and sport shooters and we support sensible gun control and restrictions to keep everyone safe.
So Ana wants a trial… whose purpose is to determine guilt or not… even though a guilty plea was entered?
That’s a very American outlook, which she acknowledges… so fair play.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.
However, if she meant as to help determine the course of events… you can have have post-sentencing/post-conviction interviews all you like, providing authorities grant permission.
And if she meant so the victims can have their say… that too can be genrally be considered before the court passes sentence via victim submissions pre-sentencing.
But like I said at the start, a trial even though there’s a guilty plea… we’ll agree to disagree.
There’s still the avenue of appeal if a criminal feels they have been wrongly convicted.
And if we want to have a discussion about improving the appeal system… making it faster, and more transparent… no problem.
Spending tax payer dollars on a ‘sentencing trials’… nah, build schools and hospitals, or boost veteran pensions instead, please.
As for sealing of evidence… it is not like it can’t be reviewed, or be petioned to be unsealed… it is just not available in the public domain at this point.
And personally, given that amongst the victims, there were children under 16 who lost their lives… like any case involving children, I’ve no problem with the records being sealed at this time.
I’m all for periodic reviews of our judicial system to ensure it’s stays up-to-date, relevant, and that is fair to our citizens… but, I see no point in having a trial to determine sentencing.
And that’s just my personal view.
Finally I will say… I remember this case very well… and while one can always ask questions surrounding the bigger “Why?” …the conspiracy nuts can just piss off.
Even a cursory understanding of our legal system debunks 99.9% of their ravings.
Love this episode, and all the others.
Although, in this case, I wasn’t so interested in the Martin Bryant story… given, well, I’m Australian, it’s and discussed, debated, and pondered here in certain circles, on a pretty regular basis…
I did however still find it very interesting, even though I respectfully disagree with some of Ana’s assessments, hearing an ‘outside’ perspectives, so to speak.
Now I’ll have to find another couple of episodes to re-watch.
“Murder with Friends” is one the few shows I can revisit, and find fresh food for thought each time around.
Good job!
I was kinda surprised to see Port Arthur as a subject of your show, Grace. Thank you for going over this event, I didn’t even know what happened after Bryant was caught. Tho, your conversation with Ana, re gun control, is kinda typical for Americans. I really do hope that the American Government can put both the NRA, and the gun manufacturers, down and enact some sensible legislation for the American people. 2017 it has become a public health issue, no longer a constitutional one, and the deaths you suffer every year are heartbreaking.
Hey, you guys jail a LARGE portion of people who take a plea deal even if thier innocent and go to jail without a trial.
Also shit like this goes down. We actually do stuff about it.
Step off Ana
Still loves ya
I think I Ana long enough that I believe she is aware of the over-zealousness of the American judicial system. I think her emphasis was on transparency, so as to guarantee, are try to, show that the accused was rightly judged, or otherwise there would need to be appeals.
I’m a little confused, and perhaps it stems from the fact that my knowledge of the American legal justice system is fueled almost entirely by fictitious legal tv shows. I was under the impression that it was common for there to not be a trial in the US when the person pleads guilty and accepts a plea bargain. For example, with the Charleston shooter, if the prosecutor had offered him life without parole for entering a guilty plea, wouldn’t there have not been a trial? I get that in this case the shooter didn’t take a plea, but is there really such an enormous difference between what happened in Australia and what might have happened in the US if the shooter had plead guilty and gone straight to jail without a trial?
Unless American TV has been lying to me for years, and that’s not how it works at all. If that is the case, what is the point of a plea bargain, if not to skip the expense of a trial?
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence
This was really interesting and it’s noteworthy to see how conservatives will compare us to say, a country like New Zealand that has lax gun laws and also has very minimal problems… which is the opposite for the US. The US could clearly benefit from gun legislation reform, but when us crazy progressives compare the US to other countries that are doing really well with socialism or democratic socialism like Sweden or Canada all they can see is that it isn’t going to work because “look at how bad Venezuela is? It doesn’t work for them”. We need to fix what’s broken like Ana said. When you break your leg , go to the doctor to have them fix it and then let’s explore ways to avoid this from happening in the future. The US is the melting pot of other nationalities. Nothing is our own. As far as countries go, we are a baby. We have a lot to learn from other countries and we have strayed a great deal from the guidelines our founding fathers have set for us from the beginning and it’s hurting us.
I feel like this was a super rambling comment and it strayed a bit from the topic, but you get what I’m saying.
Grace and Ana, thank you. Really good job and super interesting.
Here in the U.S., contrary to what you both said, if you plead guilty there is no trial. There is no point in having a trial if the person has already pled guilty and it saves much money for the court and hence the citizens. Maybe what you are thinking of is cases where the death penalty is possible. In that case a jury hears evidence related to mitigating factors, remorse, etc. The jurors then decide if the defendant should be sentenced to death. Evidence is not readily available to the public. Sometimes a FOIA request is needed to see it. Australia does not have the death penalty. The state of Tasmania abolished it in 1946.
Regardless, great show! This is one of my favorites on TYT.
My mother knew one of the victims, it happened on my first birthday and my name is Allanah which considering this massacre is why we have the Alannah and Madeline Foundation, its weird watching the tv on my birthday and hearing my name.
On gun control:
Totally agree that the laws in the US need serious reform. I think that the reason why New Zealand’s approach worked is because policy makers were able to look at the various causal factors of gun violence in their country and tailor laws that were effective in addressing those specific concerns. The causal factors in the prevalence of gun violence are likely different for each country, therefore the laws addressing them are likely to take different forms, although I imagine drug decriminalization and public health treatment solutions would also be a major part of any objective American reform effort. In the US, researchers are effectively barred from conducting such research, and thus the issue of gun control is treated as a political football with no serious or effective measures being implemented.
I was hesitant to watch this one, coz any coverage of Port Arthur makes me cry but I got through it and you gals did a great job.
One thing to mention about John Howard, the Prime Minister at the time who carried out the gun buy back and installed new gun control laws, he is seen in light similar to that of how Republicans now view Reagan – as in his own party, the Liberal party see him that way (which is the right wing party in Australia, i know, confusing. Labor is our left wing, Greens are more left than that). He was super right wing, but the gun buy back makes even the left wing peeps grateful he was in office that day. With out current government, I miss him occasionally.
Also in regards to the young girls who were killed with their mother, their father set up a foundation in their name ‘The Alannah and Madeline Foundation’ which aims to keep kids from harmful situations https://www.amf.org.au/ they do good work. ugh. so horrible.
Great episode. And just as Alonso and Dave were perfect guests for the Ed Gein episode, Ana was perfect for this one. You are such a great host, Grace!
I do have to disagree that him identifying himself as “Jamie” on the phone indicated that he was having some kind of psychotic break. It could just as easily have been a stupid man’s attempt to throw the police off. It seems to me that he still thought he had a chance to get away at that point, so it makes an idiotic kind of sense. You’ve always got to keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of people think they are smarter than average, which is impossible.
The next installment should be titled “Murder With Friends: Bowling Green Massacre”
lmao
bm3racer,
It’s not unbearable to think that even a guilty plea deserves a fair trial. Regardless of Tasmania’s reasons for moving straight to sentencing from a guilty plea (which MAY have to do with saving victims and victims’ families from the hardship of trial, as that one statement Grace and Ana read said, but likely has more to do with cost-cutting and “efficiency”), cutting that corner could have consequences. If someone’s guilty plea were coerced and the person were innocent and no evidence supports the theory of guilt, or the person has severe mental illness and requires hospitalization rather than standard jailing, or other concerns, these are issues that can be hashed out in a trial. It’s not unbearable that Ana prefers US due process over another country’s straight-to-sentencing method, even if she doesn’t know that country’s rationale for it. It’s an understandable position: any time a step of accountability is absent from a system of checks and balances, it could be opening the doors for errors, corruption, and indifference to truth or facts.
Not to say that trials mean every “bad guy” (guilty) gets convicted and every “good guy” (innocent) gets acquitted, but its theory is on the right track even if its application is flawed.
Also, she does acknowledge that our system is highly flawed, even as she talks about preferring US due process… in case you missed it… So it’s not like she’s insisting that the U.S. is all perfect or something. She just views trial as an imperative step between confession and conviction, without which justice *could* be lost to *all* involved (victims; the accused, who may be innocent after all; AND the true guilty party, not to mention future victims who might not have been victims had the person been convicted).
It’s also not “unbearable” to prefer what one knows, either, depending on topic… most of us are guilty of often preferring that with which we’re familiar, whatever the category. So I don’t fault her for appreciating and preferring the flawed system she knows over the flawed system she doesn’t know. Most people seem to in the U.S.
If her stance is unbearable, then yours is equally so: you jumped to the assumption that Tasmania has good, valid reasons for skipping this check on the judicial process, while you apparently had no idea if that’s even true (you said “I’m sure [they’re legit reasons]”–which is the same as saying you don’t actually know, thus aren’t truly “sure”). For all anyone knows, their reasons could boil down to sheer laziness. You’re making an unsupported assumption even as you apparently admonish her for seemingly doing the same.
Well said! I’m so grateful that you took the time to really cover all the bases so that I don’t have to do anything but congratulate you on your mastery of observation and reasoning skills.
And Ana is awsome, :)
Haha they show John Howard, a long running “republican” leader who yes brought back guns. Good on you John, to bad you also introduced visa that allowed organisations to pay people from third world countries a lot less.
Omg you showed waleed Aly on your show, our only mainstream media Muslim and a pretty great journalist :) very happy Australian TYT member.
ah waleed. im constantly conflicted on waleed. he IS a good journalist, and mostly an objective journalist but he is also very conservative in his opinion on a lot of things and (anecdotally) kind of a dick, but yes according to friends who run in same circles, he can be a tool. but i am still grateful for his presence on mainstream ‘news’ show and that he can reach a broad audience – we need more journalistic output like that on the mainstream shows. less andrew bolt who makes me scream inside whenever i see his stupid face.
Waiting for them to bring up the killers obsession with child’s play 2 though
Yes I’m halfway through and haven’t heard her refer to Tasmania as NZ, Anna and grace are my fav hosts :)
Sad!
boo
haha tasmania is NZ thats bad,
For Christ’s sake Ana, Tasmania is a state in Australia. Why did you keep saying New Zealand? You bitch about ignorance all the time. Here you go, being ignorant. Be thorough.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmania
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand
Slow down there, Ricky Bobby. Your overt bias against Ana is showing. She clearly references Australia multiple times as they are speaking about the Port Arthur Massacre, which can be found at 15:30, 32:38, 35:06, 35:57, 37:43, and 38:40. When both Ana AND Grace bring up New Zealand (funny how you only mention Ana) is at 41:35 when they change the focus of the conversation to compare the differences of Australia after the massacre to New Zealand after the massacre and then juxtaposed that to America and our current state of affairs with gun laws . . . Maybe instead of being a bitchy little troll, you could be a little more thorough in your viewing of the episode and not be so ignorant of the conversation at hand. How bout dat?
you’re right, but ana still sucks. how unbearable was she with the “i think the tasmanian supreme court is flawed because im american” comment? wtf would she know about the law in general or even the tasmanian supreme court? if they have it that way, i’m sure they have valid reasons that make it permissible.
Yeah, so you know how Ana keeps saying lately how difficult it is to not tell people their idiots? . . . Yeah, I can relate. But whatever, you keep on hating. You do you, boo. Ana is still getting paid by your membership either way.
Also, please see Progressive’s comment. I couldn’t agree more.
She didn’t say NZ thinking it was Australia you numb nut. She was using an off the cuff example comparing US gun laws to those of other countries. Why don’t you pull your ill-informed and opinionated head out of your ass for 1 second and apologise for being an a-grade cunt to Ana (who is undoubtedly far more intelligent, on her worst day, than you will EVER be)