Guns in Australia

  • Thread starter Thread starter HHGT
  • Start date Start date

H

HHGT

Guest
Dont know how true this is, but I thought it was worth posting.

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.

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 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 the criminals now are guaranteed that their

prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults 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!

FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST. [I DID ]

DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY.

BE ONE OF THE VOCAL MINORITY WHO WON'T LET THIS HAPPEN IN THE U.S.A
 
Give 'em your guns... bullets first!
 
The state of Utah just enacted a law making it OK to apply for a permit to carry concealed weapons on college campus. I wonder if the nut balls would be as inclined to attack a school in that state?

Oh, and the liberal response to the above story from Australia would be that its takes time for guns to be weaned out of the criminal population. So, even though a program doesn't work and has dire consequences, there would never be an admittance that a law born out of "good intentions" failed miserably and should be abolished.
 
So, even though a program doesn't work and has dire consequences, there would never be an admittance that a law born out of "good intentions" failed miserably and should be abolished.


Well said Cuda. :thumbsup Just look at prohibition.
 
As a college student, I would feel safer if guns were allowed on campus. If I'm a criminal, I'd rob the dorms first, because I KNOW I can't get shot (guns aren't currently allowed).
 
Liberalism 101...NEVER examine results.

ONLY examine intentions.

californiacuda said:
the liberal response.....it takes time.....So, even though a program doesn't work and has dire consequences.....a law born out of "good intentions" that fails miserably will never be abolished
Click to expand...

In over 3000 years of recorded history, liberalism and the socialism that results from it has failed every time it's been tried. It has never succeeded. It can never succeed because it attempts to both defy and deny human nature on many fronts. The 2 core Liberal Principals involved in Australia's gun ban folly are:

1. Evil does not exist, only unfortunate circumstances that cause good people to do bad things.----This leads liberals to believe we can negotiate with Iran, N. Korea, et.al. and show them we "mean them no harm", then they'll be good to us. This is as foolish as telling a woman who has just been raped and beaten that she should examine what she did to cause that man to act the way he did. That she should have shown him that she meant him no harm. Further negotiations will bring about a better result next time.

2. Nobody has the right to judge the behavior of another, i.e. "Who are we to judge?"---Hey, NAMBLA, beasteality, and child porn aren't so bad. Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. And while they have great tolerance for deviant, criminal, and destructive behavior, liberals want to have "0" tolerance for inanimate objects like guns, cigarettes, or public displays of Christianity.

He's probably not such a bad guy, if he didn't have a gun he wouldn't have committed the crime. We don't want to put him in prison for life, who are we to judge, we gotta get rid of those guns!!

Mandatory tough sentences for criminal behavior have reduced crime every time they're enacted. They work BUT they involve judging others behavior, acknowledging evil and putting it in prison. Liberals won't do that.

Banning or restricting inanimate objects like guns or alcohol has never reduced crime BUT it does not involve judging behavior. It does not involve acknowledging that evil exists not in an object, but in the heart of a man or woman. It's much easier to ban the guns to show we're "doing something" about crime. We're "good people" with "good intentions" so if our new gun laws result in more crime and deaths it's just gonna take more time. It's OK. The road to hell on earth is paved with the "good intentions" of liberalism.

Chip
 
Chip Beck for President !

I volunteer to work in your campaign.
 
ChipBeck said:
ONLY examine intentions.



In over 3000 years of recorded history, liberalism and the socialism that results from it has failed every time it's been tried. It has never succeeded. It can never succeed because it attempts to both defy and deny human nature on many fronts. The 2 core Liberal Principals involved in Australia's gun ban folly are:

1. Evil does not exist, only unfortunate circumstances that cause good people to do bad things.----This leads liberals to believe we can negotiate with Iran, N. Korea, et.al. and show them we "mean them no harm", then they'll be good to us. This is as foolish as telling a woman who has just been raped and beaten that she should examine what she did to cause that man to act the way he did. That she should have shown him that she meant him no harm. Further negotiations will bring about a better result next time.

2. Nobody has the right to judge the behavior of another, i.e. "Who are we to judge?"---Hey, NAMBLA, beasteality, and child porn aren't so bad. Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey. And while they have great tolerance for deviant, criminal, and destructive behavior, liberals want to have "0" tolerance for inanimate objects like guns, cigarettes, or public displays of Christianity.

He's probably not such a bad guy, if he didn't have a gun he wouldn't have committed the crime. We don't want to put him in prison for life, who are we to judge, we gotta get rid of those guns!!

Mandatory tough sentences for criminal behavior have reduced crime every time they're enacted. They work BUT they involve judging others behavior, acknowledging evil and putting it in prison. Liberals won't do that.

Banning or restricting inanimate objects like guns or alcohol has never reduced crime BUT it does not involve judging behavior. It does not involve acknowledging that evil exists not in an object, but in the heart of a man or woman. It's much easier to ban the guns to show we're "doing something" about crime. We're "good people" with "good intentions" so if our new gun laws result in more crime and deaths it's just gonna take more time. It's OK. The road to hell on earth is paved with the "good intentions" of liberalism.

Chip
Click to expand...


here-here! as usual, very well said!
 
FlorIdaho Chris said:
Chip Beck for President !

I volunteer to work in your campaign.
Click to expand...

+1:thumbsup
 
Does anyone have a source for this info because it would be very ueseful for my debate coming up.

Thanks,
Nate
 
I have just finished reading an article by R. J. Rummel, who has done extensive research concerning the number of people who were killed by their own government under COMMUNIST regimes in the 20th century.

The number is over 100 million.

The road to hell is paved with the bodies off the poor souls sacrificed for "good intentions"
 
Guns and statistics are always something read with interest from the UK.

We don't have a 'gun culture' here - they don't really feature in daily life and nor of course do they feature in a constitution.

In 1996 there was a school shooting (Dunblane) which resulted in 16 deaths of 5 and 6 year-old children. Terrible - as you might imagine.

It lead to the banning of privately held handguns (pistols) and since then, there has not been an event of that type in the UK. Criminals carry guns, but mass shootings don't occur.

However......

In the US there are something like 200 million guns in private ownership and I don't think that it would practical or workable to tighten legislation - indeed, and as previously posted, it would merely have the effect of leaving the victims unarmed.

I can't say I really understand every angle of gun ownership - but the fact that 'combat' features so highly in gun marketing seems faintly alarming. I shoot and have two shotguns but the notion of using them in 'combat' seems a bit alien somehow as they are for shooting pheasant, grouse and partridge. One gun I saw advertised in a magazine as helping the owner 'live out his emotions'. :eek

A tricky and highly charged subject.
 
A few comments.

Neilda,

You seem to have a pretty good handle on it. I have a few comments.

Neilda said:
We don't have a 'gun culture' here - they don't really feature in daily life...
---In a way, it does feature in your daily life. As an American who has been to England 8 times I was stunned by the crime rate there. Auto theft and home invasion while the homeowners are present are much higher than they are in America. Burglars do not break into occupied homes here because they fear (for good reason) getting shot. Surveys of criminals in prison confirm that they fear armed victims far more than they fear the police.

In 1996 there was a school shooting (Dunblane) which resulted in 16 deaths of 5 and 6 year-old children. It lead to the banning of privately held handguns (pistols) and since then, there has not been an event of that type in the UK. Criminals carry guns, but mass shootings don't occur.
---Since 1996, handguns have not been banned in the U.S. AND no event of that type (mass shooting of grade school kids) has occurred here either. A shooting of this type occurred in CA in the early 1980's which lead to our first "assault weapon ban".

Banning "assault weapons" is as foolish as banning "getaway cars". Neilda's two double shotguns are far more powerful and deadly than the 9mm and .22 mouse guns that the VA Tech shooter used. ANY weapon used to commit a crime is an assault weapon. Any car used to flee is a getaway car. A liberal would ban "black Buick 4 door sedans" because they look like getaway cars and AR-15's because they look like assault rifles. That any other car/gun can be substituted with equal effectiveness is of no concern because we "did something".

However......

I don't think that it would practical or workable to tighten legislation....it would merely have the effect of leaving the victims unarmed.----BINGO

I can't say I really understand every angle of gun ownership - but the fact that 'combat' features so highly in gun marketing seems faintly alarming. I shoot and have two shotguns but the notion of using them in 'combat' seems a bit alien somehow as they are for shooting pheasant, grouse and partridge. One gun I saw advertised in a magazine as helping the owner 'live out his emotions'. :eek

----Here in Arizona I compete in Cactus League Combat Matches from time to time and I carry a Colt .45 Auto Commander all day every day at work. My store security guard is also armed to the gills. My store is the only one in our area that has NEVER been robbed (we've been in business for 7 years). Our store motto at Team CB Chevron, "We're fast, we're friendly, and we shoot back!" I see firsthand every day a criminal element that cannot be appeased or reasoned with. Evil takes any form of negotiation or appeassment as a sign of weakness that emboldens the criminal. Witness Iran today. Evil can not be negotiated away, it can only be defeated with force.

Note the British response to the London bombings. The festering sores of hate that dot London (otherwise known as Mosques) with their martyr producing Imams have, with a few exceptions, been left alone. The British are REALLY CRACKING DOWN however, on..............backpacks.:bored

A tricky and highly charged subject. ---To be sure.
Click to expand...

I always enjoy your posts Neilda, next time I'm in London perhaps we can have lunch. All the best.

Chip
 
One of my favorite quotes is from Neville Chamberlain, former Prime Minister of England.

In 1938 after Hitler had annexed Austria and the Sudetenland portion of Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain went to Germany and following his own policy of appeasement, signed the Munich Agreement. This pact allowed Germany to keep the countries that it had already over run for a promise of no further aggression. When Chamberlain returned to England he gave a speech which included the following words,

"I believe it is peace in our time. Go home and get a nice quite sleep."
 
In the wake of the V.T. massacre, our local paper asked it's readers to recommend actions that could be taken to avoid more such events.

The three suggestions I made brought every "lib" around here out of the woodwork - and, of coarse, their obligatory flood of ranting insults as well. Those recommendations were:

1. Anyone judged BY A COURT to be a danger to himself or others should IMMEDIATELY be listed with the FBI so that his name would pop up when a gun dealer did his 'checks.
2. Aliens - legal or otherwise - should be prohibited to own, buy, possess, or carry ANY firearm. Period. If caught doing so, 10 yrs in jail, a heavy fine, and deportation when the jail term has been served. Manditory. No exceptions. (Carrying arms is a U.S. CITIZEN'S RIGHT, not a right of non citizens.)
3. Eliminate all "gun free zones". (That one REALLY set 'em off!) All a "Gun free zone" does is create a "free fire zone" for nut jobs.

'Ever notice "gun free zones" are the ONLY places these whackos hit? Schools, colleges, office buildings, Post Office, restaurants, etc? It's very obvious they pick said targets for one reason - they KNOW there's a 99.9999% chance they're be no armed opposition to 'em until the police show up ...and by then it's already way too late. (And God help anyone licensed to "carry" who IS carrying a gun in said zone anyway and kills the whacko in self defense!!!!!!!)

If it had been legal to carry at V.T., and there had been just ONE person in any of the rooms Cho hit who had both a concealed weapon AND THE SPINE TO USE IT, the body count would almost certainly have been far less.

No one will ever change my mind on any of the above.
 
Last edited:
Empty Pockets said:
In the wake of the V.T. massacre, our local paper asked it's readers to recommend actions that could be taken to avoid more such events.

The three suggestions I made brought every "lib" around here out of the woodwork - and, of coarse, their obligatory flood of ranting insults as well. Those recommendations were:

1. Anyone judged BY A COURT to be a danger to himself or others should IMMEDIATELY be listed with the FBI so that his name would pop up when a gun dealer did his 'checks.
2. Aliens - legal or otherwise - should be prohibited to own, buy, possess, or carry ANY firearm. Period. If caught doing so, 10 yrs in jail, a heavy fine, and deportation when the jail term has been served. Manditory. No exceptions. (Carrying arms is a U.S. CITIZEN'S RIGHT, not a right of non citizens.)
3. Eliminate all "gun free zones". (That one REALLY set 'em off!) All a "Gun free zone" does is create a "free fire zone" for nut jobs.

'Ever notice "gun free zones" are the ONLY places these whackos hit? Schools, colleges, office buildings, Post Office, restaurants, etc? It's very obvious they pick said targets for one reason - they KNOW there's a 99.9999% chance they're be no armed opposition to 'em until the police show up ...and by then it's already way too late. (And God help anyone licensed to "carry" who IS carrying a gun in said zone anyway and kills the whacko in self defense!!!!!!!)

If it had been legal to carry at V.T., and there had been just ONE person in any of the rooms Cho hit who had both a concealed weapon AND THE SPINE TO USE IT, the body count would almost certainly have been far less.

No one will ever change my mind on any of the above.
Click to expand...

I'm with you, Pockets, as well as with CB, "When guns are outlawed - only outlaws will have guns". Most all of the sickos that perpetrate these crimes do so in the "assumed safe environment" provided them buy our society. Chip's point that criminals fear breaking into occupied dwellings in this country has a basis in our 2nd amendment rights - many of us are armed for the sole purpose of self protection and it works pretty well IMHO.
 
I never heard of any mass killings, or even a single murder in a gun store or shooting range, or police stations. Sometimes the safest places are those with lots of guns.
 
Fortunately, I do not see a nationwide gun ban in my lifetime. Maybe in CA, but not in all states. I will move state to state as they start banning them. I guess this is how I will see the rest of America, one gun carrying state at a time.:wink
 
Chip - definitely look me up next time you're in London and I'll buy you lunch... :cheers

Chamberlain was naiive - and many thought so at the time. History proved them right. 'Peace in our time' became a cruel and ironic joke.

Yes there is hatred in London and yes gun crime too. There's a news broadcast as I write that someone's just been shot somewhere - it's still headline news when a gun is involved. We didn't have many handguns in private ownership so it was easy to ban them - I believe it's had a positive effect. And, as I mentioned above, it cannot and would never work in America. I agree with the sentiment that William Burroughs expressed "After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it." A proportionate response to a thug with a gun is a gun - don't bring a knife to a gun fight!

It's a hard line to argue as I have supported the ban in the UK - but I maintain that it's a mix of culture, demography and scale that made it work here.

The hatred thing is interesting and I think I understand one of the reasons why. In the UK there's no requirement to 'pledge allegiance'. I know that sounds really silly and simple - but I've been to America dozens of times. The vast majority are proud to be American, they pledged every morning at school, some struggled to get to America and are delighted to pledge and become an American citizen etc

Over here we have a young disinfranchised ethnic youth who hate the UK - they fight for the other side, refuse to fit in, refuse to observe our laws, speak our language etc It has created a culture of 'us and them' - 'we' don't understand religious fanaticism, we want to blend in, 'they' insist on wearing black bags on their heads and celebrating when our troups are killed.

As my wife and I often say when watching television "Well if you hate it so much, why don't you f*ck of back to your own country then?".

Breath deeply..............


.......and relax..............
 
I hate guns...
I have not fired one in twenty plus years...
I have several, shot gun loaded with buck shot behind bedroom door...
I am a life member of the NRA...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top Bottom