Australian gun ban results in increased crime

[Speer4]

This is very interesting. Australia gun ban resulted in huge increase in crime.

LiveLeak.com - Watch what happens when Guns are banned in Australia

Like everything else you see on the internet, the statistics could be flawed, but you can be the judge of that for yourselves.

We cannot lose any of our constitutional rights.

 

[66Park]

Of course it did, because only the law-abiding citizens give up their guns when guns are made illegal. Criminals keep their guns after guns are banned, then have free reign to terrorize and commit crimes upon the unarmed population.

Fewer legal guns = more crime. Armed criminals do not worry about unarmed victims fighting back.

More legal guns = less crime. Criminals do not want to get shot when they are committing crimes.

Australia, England, NY, Chicago, Washington, DC crime statistics all prove this.

Chicago guy here...I lived in Georgia and moved to Chicago for my career several years ago. I had a concealed carry permit in GA. I did not somehow know that my guns were illegal here until after I moved. So, what does a law abiding citizen like me do? I sent my guns back to GA with a buddy who sold them for me. All that did was make me defenseless against all the criminals who had no problem obtaining and carrying their guns illegally. The gun bans are idiotic and dangerous to responsible, law abiding citizens who have no way to defend themselves from the predatory criminals.

 

[Augen]

I lived in Oz for 6 years. So I can tell you the criminals kept their guns during the turn in. And when they need more they smuggle them in or as I recall they'll rob police. I remember when thieves robbed a police storage locker once.

Of course the ban did create an underground market for collectors who didn't want classic pieces cut up and melted down.

 

[Austin357]

Be United to Retain Your Rights

Australia currently has some of the toughest gun laws anywhere. For reasons politicians can't fathom, the crims don't care, and gun crime in Aus is rampant. Every time a crims gun goes off they tighten the laws for genuine shooters even further.

Some political parties have a "no guns at all policy" and spread deliberate lies in order to scare citizens. There has been for some years now a system of endoctrinating young school children that guns are only used to shoot people, and as such has been quite successful in brain washing the current generation of children, to a point it is becoming very difficult to get young folk into the sport. In fact the big majority of clubs members here (including myself) are getting pretty long in the tooth.

Stick together and fight the most minor of changes to your laws, because once they start, little by little your rights will be erroded away untill you don't have any left.

 

[Steve in Vermont]

One man said "I turned in 3 guns". If I had to comply I'd gladly turn in 3 guns....and keep the 10 others in a discrete location. If I was forced to defend my home I'd rather be armed and face a jury than defenseless and face the funeral director. And these folks are descendants of people who once ruled an empire? Won the Battle of Britain? What has happened to them?

 

[badguybuster]

The same thing that's happening here in a lot of states.

 

[InolaOK]

It seems that if you defend yourself or your home in England with any type weapon you will be charged, tried, convicted & jailed. As Steve posted, "What happened to them?". We hear the term "Gun Control" constantly. My opinion is there's one too many words in the phrase. "Control" is the objective of the left, total control in all aspects of our lives. "Gun Control" is just one rung in their ladder plus it has a snappy (to them) ring to it. Total Control, birth to burial, Total Control is the true objective.

 

[The Big D]

NOT EXACTLY TRUTHFUL

snopes.com: Australian Guns Stats

I do believe the original post was presented in this Forum before. The above suggests the statements alleging a "huge increase in crime" are not entirely "factual."

Be safe.

This is very interesting. Australia gun ban resulted in huge increase in crime.

LiveLeak.com - Watch what happens when Guns are banned in Australia

Like everything else you see on the internet, the statistics could be flawed, but you can be the judge of that for yourselves.

We cannot lose any of our constitutional rights.

 

[jaykellogg]

snopes.com: Australian Guns Stats

I do believe the original post was presented in this Forum before. The above suggests the statements alleging a "huge increase in crime" are not entirely "factual."

Be safe.

Snopes leans hard to the left, so you have to add that to your BS filter. I would comment that one thing Snopes pointed out is that before the law, Australia had nowhere near the kind of gun ownership that the USA does. As I read the article, Snopes points out that crime hasn't climbed much and the rate hasn't changed. I guess by that measure in my book the law was a failure since the stated purpose was to reduce crime. Australia spent millions of dollars to buy up guns with IMO nothing positive to show for it. If you deny the citizens the ability to legally own and shoot, then the military has to do all the training and in a time of dire need there may not be enough trainers.

If you want to look at a country where every citizen is armed, look at Switzerland. Almost zero gun crime.

If you want to look at a country where guns are banned, look at Northern Ireland.

 

[quneur]

Parties throw out myths but I find the anti-gun side typically throw out the worst skewed statistics. Even the pro-right will throw out some skewed information. Take two states, California and Texas which have similar immigration but contrasting views on gun laws. The FBI statistics (which I'm too lazy to look up again) shows CA has a higher crime rate but less chance of involving a gun. TX has a lower crime rate but a 50% chance a gun will be involved.

It could be because TX pro-gun view chances are likely perpetrators are going to cross someone armed and only armed perpetrators are more likely 'empowered' to attempt a robbery. Speculation on my part.

But I like to say, once you are unlucky enough to face a perpetrator (armed or not), all those statistics are not going mean anything. The safest neighborhood in the US statistically can become the most personally dangerous place to live. The most gun control city/state can become the most personally dangerous place to live.

 

[jaykellogg]

Regarding CA and TX, just comparing data can lead to false conclusions. Then if you look at "crime rate" or the actual number of incidents you can get a different impression. It could be that TX and CA have similar rates of "armed" crime but TX has a lower rate of unarmed crime. We simply cannot tell from the post. If you go around the USA and compare murder rates you will find that Chicago's is a lot higher than Phoenix. I watched an interview with (white) Catholic Priest father Flager and one of his suggestions was to pass more restrictive gun laws for the Chicago area. My reaction is "Oh great, pass more laws that will not be enforced." I would suggest instead that they put more resources into identifying gangs and gang members, try and make it not cool to be in a gang, engage the gang bangers and try to redirect them. Asheville has a very active gang program. They photograph all tatoos and brands. they interview gang members to find out what each means. They pretty much know how many "hard core" gang members are here and where they are and how many wannabees are here.

If you read all the posts here IMO you would conclude that Australia's new laws have so far failed to reduce crime or even armed crime. The numbers have increased, but the rate remains about the same.

One side has it in their minds if we could eliminate guns we could reduce crime. Well the fallocy is you probably cannot completely eliminate guns. Certainly not without trampling on a lot of other rights people hold dear and spending a lot of resources the state may not have.

Our side says if you cannot control crime, I need to be armed to protect myself. We also say, the chance of meeting an armed person has a dampening effect on crime. This seems like it is true, but probably impossible to prove. I have read that in the past jailed criminals have been intervied and they say that they fear encountering someone who is armed.

Since this is a 2nd ammendment forum I will point out that the purpose of the 2nd is to protect all our other rights. It is to ensure that the USA is never taken over by a coup.

When I worry late at night I worry that the true motives of (some) progressives for wanting to disarm the USA is to allow a takeover. As evidence I point to their wanting to pass laws against owning or possessing firearms and then being reluctant to enforce them.

 

[andrewb70]

....

Since this is a 2nd ammendment forum I will point out that the purpose of the 2nd is to protect all our other rights. It is to ensure that the USA is never taken over by a coup.
.....

The purpose of the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with the US being taken over by a coup. The purpose of the second amendment is to assure that the people have a means of defending themselves should the federal government steps outside its sphere of control. That sphere of control is clearly defined in the constitution. Unfortunately, the federal government has been overstepping its bounds since 1798.

As for crime statistics, they can and have been misused by both sides of the "gun control" issue. Also, with regard to Switzerland, it is true that every house has a gun, but it is also true that they do not have bullets. In case of a national emergency the individuals are instructed to proceed to designated armories to acquire ammunition. The reason that that Switzerland has low crime is that it is largely a homogenous society with a relatively small government and it ranks quite high on the economic freedom index:

Index of Economic: Promoting Economic Opportunity and Prosperity

Countries with high economic freedom have higher standards of living, and thus low crime. The top two countries (cit states actually), Singapore and Honk Kong have rather draconian "personal freedom" atmospheres, but again, these are quite homogeneous cities, and so the cultural norms are in accord with the personal behavior laws.

Bottom line is that if a country wants to reduce crime, it needs to allow citizens a means of earning a living (economic freedom).

Andrew

 

[MH8675309]

It has been said that if the guns were ever taken away that only the criminals would have them. But if I didnt surrender mine I sure wouldnt consider myself a criminal. And neither should anyone else that believes that the constitution means what it says.