It has now been over 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Astralian taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The frst year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, 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 criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
ELDERLY. 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.
The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
It seems all of Europe and Australia have taken their shots at the need for restrictive gun control in the U.S. as of Monday. The UN would have started gun grabbing years ago and we'll have to get past this new hurdle too....breakemall....Bob Dodd
Absolutely, the UN has been pushing for the US to eliminate personal firearm ownership for years. Thank goodness for the NRA and NSSF for there rigid stance protecting our second amendment rights and the right to manufacture arms.
The source of the figures in grnberetc's post is the letter from an Aussie policeman that "Snopes" uses to illustrate how reality has been distorted by a selective omission of facts. Checks the "Snopes" link.
If these "liberals" are "anti-gun" as you contend, why the hell would they even bother to write a piece that refutes the argument that gun control in Australia led to huge rises in crime. Why would they present their statistics in a way that proves guns NOT to be the source of crime in Australia and shows that the removal of some types of guns from the hands of Australians has NOT lead to a wholesale increase in gun-related crimes.
If you want to make an argument, at least make sense first!
If you follow the related links out of Snopes, you'll see that the Australian government provided the stats that are the basis for Snopes rebuttal of the letter. Snopes hasn't taken a stand on gun ownership and I would be disappointed if they did. They have simply pointed out that the information collected by the Australians themselves proves the inaccuracy of the pro-gun argument. It's not a matter of whether or not I believe what the Mikkelsons say about gun crime it's a matter of whether or not I believe the Aussies whim they quoted...and that I do.
The statment about the United Nations is abosolutly true! The United Nations would never be able to send in its TROOPS to the United States because the poplation is armed. Say the members of the UN got together and said "We don't like the way your country is run Mr. President so we are going to send in our PEACE KEEPERS to force a regime change." Guess what UN troops become the number one targets of every gun owner in America.
I take it that you do not own a gun nor do you want me or anyone else to own a gun, am I correct in that assumption?
Some stats that I heard on the Glenn Beck radio show this morning that are never reported by the Anti-Gun media. THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF VIOLENT CRIMES STOPPED IN THIS COUNTRY EVERY YEAR BECAUSE A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN USED A GUN…. 500,000. COMMUINTIES THAT HAVE NOT IMPLAMENTED STRICT LOCAL GUN CONTROL LAWS HAVE A SUGNIFICANTLY LOWER CRIME RATE INVOLVING GUNS THAN THOSE CITIES OR COMMUNITIES OF SIMILAR DEMOGRAPHICS THAT HAVE IMPLAMENTED THEIR OWN STRICTOR GUN LAWS.
Did you know that in this country knives are used 40 times more often in domestic violent crime then guns are? So Mac V why are you not making an argument for knife control?
As for this case, I’m not sure how this guy got through the existing gun control laws. In 2005 this guy was interviewed by law enforcement and was sent to a mental hospital for evaluation. The result of the evaluation was a restraining order. So how is it that a person that had a known mental problem and had a restraining order placed against him was able to pass the background check to purchase a handgun? We don’t need stricter gun laws we just need to fire some incompetent employees of various governmental agencies that rendered the current laws inept.