Australian Gun Law Update

[fredball]

Australia





Joe
Faso
Australian Gun Law Update
Here's
a thought to warm some of your hearts....
From: Ed Chenel, A
police officer in Australia
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would
like to see the real
figures from Down Under.
It has now
been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a
new law to
surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be
destroyed by our own
government, a program costing Australia
taxpayers
more than $500 million dollars.
The first year
results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2
percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6
percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent
(yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria.....
lone,
homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.(Note
that
while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not
and criminals still possess their
guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a
steady
decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has
changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the
criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.There
has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins andassaults of the elderly, while
the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss
to explain how public
safety has decreased, after such
monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully
ridding Australian society of guns....' You won't see this on
the American evening news or hear your governor or members of
the State Assembly disseminating this information.
The
Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the
hands of
honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control
laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note
Americans, before it's too late!
Will you be one of the sheep
to turn yours in?
WHY? You will need it.

Read More

 

[Mark W.]

So that's an old report? Since the Australian gun confiscation started in 1996 and concluded in 1997. So when is this report from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia

 

[etrain16]

That story is at least 15 years old now (reported back as far as 2000/2001), and has been debunked several times already. Here is one response to is from a somewhat more reliable source: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

The real problem is getting the true numbers. The best real stats I could find show that, for 2-3 years after the ban, homicides did go up slightly, but have been on the decrease, steadily, since then. Suicides have been reported down dramatically by some sources, but others report they have remained steady over the last 80 years - with gun suicides down (makes sense, if there are fewer guns), but suicides themselves remain at a flat rate.

Unfortunately, it is really hard to nail down easy cause and effect relationships in complex issues like this one. The existence of guns doesn't necessarily mean there will be more or less crime. Why people commit crimes, how people commit crimes, what tools they use or don't use, are all interrelated, and not necessarily directly so.

The fact is that this is a complex issue, one that should be treated as such. The real problem is that the anti-gun folks don't really want to delve into the complex. They, like Australia, want to make a quick, knee-jerk reaction the norm and just 'do something' while people are angry, sad and depressed - just so they can say they made a difference. You may reduce certain crimes or some suicides if you ban guns, but you may also raise the rates of deaths during violent acts if you take away people's right to defend themselves.

But what if Australia's rates of violent crime, homicides, etc. are down after the ban. Does that necessarily mean that gun bans work? What about England? Their rate of violent crime is higher than the U.S., and is climbing, or is it? It's really hard to get correct data because everything you get tends to be filtered and presented to support one side versus the other. For example, here is just one site that claims less guns does not mean less violent crime in the U.K. - are they right? http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/ Honestly, I don't know without doing much more research.

But messing with people's rights should never, ever come without serious and deep thought to all of the potential impacts, both positive and negative. And maybe that's where we need to focus at the moment. Everyone wants to act NOW. Don't stop to think, ACT NOW! ACT NOW or we'll punish you!! The founding fathers set up our style of government with a system of checks and balances that is supposed to prevent just that type of thing.

The point to all this is that it is a very complex issue that should be considered from all angles, not just the few that appear to support the pro or anti position. Until we can get politicians to slow down and really talk this out, there should be absolutely no discussion from them about enacting any new gun laws or putting any restrictions into effect. There is no excuse for legislating out of your a$$ instead of your head.

 

[elsie]

I just go to the source ( <broken link removed> ):



"The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued a declining trend which began in 1969. In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms. The figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44% in 1968."


elsie

 

[Medic!]

I'm more concerned with my %. And so I see things this way.

''I could be wrong? But Think I'm reporting good numbers''.

A man defending his home and property with a gun can be killed in the process.
But a man trying the same with no gun can't even shoot back!

So 50%/50% chance. VS. 0% chance?

 

[albin25]

...and how are those homicides determined? is shot by cop a homicide, how about shot by a potential victim in self defense.?
...and Homicides by other methods are trending...?

If all hammers were confiscated, I would expect to see % of homicide by hammer decline but offset by an increase in the percentage of homicide by tire iron or golf club.