Why Australian Style Gun Control Wouldn’t Work in America

Australian gun confiscation wouldn't work in the US

courtesy americanrifleman.com

Gun control advocates love to point to Australia as a model for why gun control — or more accurately gun confiscation, which is really their end goal — will work in the United States. The Aussies took away a lot of the guns, goes the refrain, and they achieved positive results. We should do the same!

Hogwash.

While we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, a right few other nations enjoy, the reality is that what “worked” somewhere else (or rather deprived those people of the means to defend themselves) won’t necessarily work here. Correlation is most certainly not causation and even a cursory examination of a few additional metrics for context indicates that Australian-style gun control would fail in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

For starters, homicides (including those by firearm) have declined in Australia following the gun buybacks and restrictions passed after the Port Arthur Massacre. However, according to data from Australia’s Institute of Criminology (their Bureau of Justice Statistics) both overall homicides and homicides by firearm were already starting to decline by the late 1980s and early 1990s.

As of 2013/2014, Australia’s homicide rate was roughly one per 100,000 residents, according to The Guardian. In 1989, the rate was 1.9 per 100,000.

Homicide rates fell while the number of guns rose in the US

Mises.org report using FBI data, the homicide rate in the United States in 1991 was just under 10 per 100,000 residents. By 2104, it had been cut in half, falling to 4.5 per 100,000 residents.

Homicide rates fell while the number of guns rose in the US

And that homicide rate decline occurred at the same time the umber of civilian owned firearms in the US increased dramatically. In other words, far fewer people are being killed by guns today than they were 30 years ago despite more far guns in circulation.

What effect did the Australian gun control law have? It arguably had some, but how much is impossible to determine to a certainty. However, the homicide rate in the United States fell at about the the same rate over the same period despite far looser restrictions on owning and carrying firearms. Not only that, but all violent crime in the developed world has been falling since the early 1990s, according to The Economist.

There may simply be more violent crime in the United States than elsewhere in the developed world. Violence, like any issue afflicting a society, has many unique causes. Why the US should have more violent crime than other industrialized nations is difficult to determine. When compared to anywhere else in, say, the G20 nations, our violent crime rate is several times that of most other countries.

While stricter gun control measures might, at least on paper, reduce mass shootings, that doesn’t necessarily mean overall violent crime or even homicides would be reduced at all. Note that the murder rate in the United Kingdom has risen since their handgun ban was implemented in 1997.

So, it would appear that while the great Australian gun grab may have had some sort of positive effect, there were many other factors at work as well. It would seem that the US doesn’t have a gun problem, we may just have a violence problem, one that isn’t going to be solved by confiscating Americans’ firearms. Merely adopting other countries’ laws and forsaking our Second Amendment freedoms isn’t a solution.

 

Sam Hoober is a contributing editor at Alien Gear Holsters and Bigfoot Gun Belts. He also contributes regularly to Ammoland, Daily Caller and USA Carry.

 

comments

  1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    Also, most gun owners wouldn’t comply. See: NY, CA, CT.

    And while actual confiscation is a no-go, inter-generational banning (I.e., your guns are grandfathered for now, but they have to be surrendered after your death) would sort-of work over time. Make very public examples of a few and most would comply or bury.

    Just my $0.02.

  2. avatar Bruce says:

    Pointing out the unmentionable, the elephant in the room, but Australia doesn’t have our demographics. In particular, they don’t have a large population of slavery descended Blacks (of African descent) who commit roughly half of all violent crime in this country, despite being maybe 1/5 of the population. Or a large immigrant Hispanic community, which contains a large number of violent drug and human smuggling gangsters. Or, really even the large number of Scott’s-Irish, whose culture is significantly more violent than that of other whites. Esp, of all those slave descended Blacks. Remove them from the statistics, and the US looks much like Western Europe statistically. Instead, Australia is pretty homogeneously white.

    1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

      Blacks are roughly 1/8 of the population. Right around 13%

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Yes BUT…violent crimes are committed mostly by young black males between 14 and 30. By age 30, the members of the crime committing demographic either reformed, in jail, or dead. I think that accounts for something like 5% of the overall population.

        1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          While I merely posited a fact, that is the kinda the point. It isn’t even a chunk of a fifth, but an eigth. A tiny percent of our population is driving violent crime in this country but God forbid we do something about it, or even call it out for what is is. -___-

      2. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

        Blacks in Australia…and elsewhere in the world…are NOT the same as African-Americans…in no way, shape or form. Just sayin’…
        Even in America…most people are great…regardless of color or religion or political party…but there is that small group within every group that ruins it for everyone else…
        Like those pesky terrorists within the muslim community…a tiny percentage…but they get all the press…

      3. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

        If you add all of the racial groups together which I think of as “not-white” (Chinese, Vietnamese, Sri Lankan, Indian, Filipino, Vietnamese, Aboriginal, Maori) then Australia is 91.2% white.
        https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-racial-demographics-of-Australia

    2. avatar Hank says:

      It should not be controversial or “racist” at all the bring up the fact that black men in America are killing eachother in droves. That’s the heart of what the mainstream media calls the “gun violence epidemic.” The “leaders” of the “black community” and the democrat head honchos are aware of this, but use it as a political hammer to weild against the white boogey man, the GOP, the NRA, and police. It’s an ongoing, convient problem that they don’t want solved.

    3. avatar Southern Cross says:

      From an Aussie, the Australian style Gun Control wouldn’t work because of the following:

      1. Gun ownership was always at a MUCH lower rate than the US.
      2. Our gun ownership on a statistical basis was concentrated in the rural areas.
      3. Urban gun ownership is based on hunting and competitive shooting.
      4. The buy back had the carrot of now prohibited firearms being paid for. And the stick of fines and/or imprisonment.
      5. Such a buy back would be very expensive in the US with the number of guns to turn in. An estimate of citizen gun ownership in the US varies from 300 to 450 million. What percentage would be the same type as banned in Australia (Pump-action and semi-auto shotguns, self-loading rifles including rimfires, various types of pistols (greater than .38 caliber, plus other limits), and others that escape my attention for now)? Even a conservative estimate of 30% would require a buy back of 100 to 150 million guns. Could the economy afford this?

      Plus too many historical and other factors to consider.

      Australians are similar to Americans, but we are not exactly the same.

    4. avatar AgingDisgracefully says:

      Not to be a pedant, but isn’t it Scots-Irish? I think their violent cultural tendencies can be much exaggerated. It is more about circumstance than culture. They are derived from people who faced repeated serious invasions/incursions/pressure (from, roughly, Rome, Ireland (Dal Riata), Saxons (Northurmbrians), Vikings, Normans, English (for political and then political and religious reasons)), were then transported to Ireland where they faced my ancestors (who, no shrinking violets themselves, basically wanted to kill them and would later go on to produce such hits as the IRA) and then moved to the U.S., where the only place they could find land was the pretty violent frontier of the time.

      But, having said that, your basic point is still taken: they are pretty good at fighting at this point in their story.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        There are *plenty* of Irish in the urban areas of the USA.

        Where a good percentage of them became cops or lawyers…

        1. avatar AgingDisgracefully says:

          You mean Irish (as in Irish Catholics/native Celt, not the same as Scots-Irish), I assume? Sure, lot’s live in urban areas. And the cliche is certainly that they become cops and lawyers.

          I am Irish. Grew up in the urban northeast and now live in the southeast. Mine is a family of professors (more mathematical fields).

        2. avatar Aging Disgracefully says:

          Let me rephrase: I think your confusion might be Irish versus Scots-Irish. The former usually refers to the native (a tricky term, but for working purposes lets say roughly the population living in Ireland by the end of the Viking migrations period) Irish. By settling on this definition I sweep away a lot of messy Dark Ages interaction between those living in modern Scotland (confusingly enough named for an Irish tribe) and those living in contemporary Ireland. Scots-Irish are basically Scottish people who were transported from Scotland to Ireland as part of the ongoing British effort to solidify control over Scotland. They were scattered all over Ireland but were concentrated in the North, in Ulster. In Ireland some native Irish did indeed assimilate with them (partly there were some tricky questions of religion involved). The Scots Irish migrated heavily to the 13 colonies in the 1700s, settling particularly on the frontier in Appalachia, especially in the Carolinas, Virginia (defined as then), South Carolina, and to a lesser extent more northerly areas of the Appalachian range. These Scots-Irish were overwhelmingly different shades of Protestant. Native Irish also trickled into the 13 colonies and early United States, but the flood came with the Irish Potato Famine of the 1840s. These people, the ones I think you refer to, became a major force particularly in the cities of the Northeast through mid-Atlantic. They were overwhelmingly Catholic.

          Different populations altogether, although with a complicated and intertwined history, particularly before the coming of the Normans.

        3. avatar AgingDisgracefully says:

          Since we are on the topic and the OP is about Australia (and, by extension, Australian versus US gun culture), Australia received a pretty large (relative to the base at the time) influx of both Scots-Irish Protestants and native Irish Catholics early in the 19th century in the wake of several big, failed rebellions against British rule in Ireland.

      2. avatar YaDaddy says:

        Case in point:

        “I think their violent cultural tendencies can be much exaggerated.”

        I’m of Scottish decent and when I read the above it made me want to become violent. After I read the rest of the passage I started feeling substantially less violent.

        Matters not, because if Scottish folk aren’t fighting others they are fighting with each other.

    5. avatar Toni says:

      actually australia does have a large percentage of scotts-irish in the population. as for the stats australias homicide rate has been on the same general downward decline since about the 60’s so it started well before. what is not made clear is that rate has since port arthur been slowing down and as much as i hate to say it but personally i expect it will soon start to rise especially with one group of illegals that have been known for violence in their own countries and they are bringing them here. you are getting them in your own country as well (Dearborn Michigan anyone?) and they are taking over little by little. maybe only a suburb here and a suburb there but that is how they have always worked even going back to the dark ages just before the crusades. in fact what most don’t realize is that the crusades were in response to 4 centuries of that groups infiltration of Europe and the enslavement and murder of whites who would not submit. i do agree that diversity does cause its own problems though and we have them out here in central australia with the “locals” who are constantly causing problems

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “what most don’t realize is that the crusades were in response to 4 centuries of that groups infiltration of Europe and the enslavement and murder of whites who would not submit.”

        The far left in America will be in for a *very* rude surprise when Europe inevitably reacts as they have historically to Muslim invaders doing what Muslims naturally do when devout to the Islamic teachings of their ‘Prophet’.

        (Peace *not* be upon ‘Him’…)

    6. avatar Kyle says:

      I get your point but the “descended” angle does not hold up so good. Much of Australia is descended from criminals.

      I go with the Urban center aspect, which sadly, is where a vast majority of african americans are from. Crime is very much an urban center problem. We have over 500 of them. Australia has roughly 28.

      Population centers i’m defining as cities with pop’s over 50k.

    7. avatar MoreRacism101 says:

      Bruce and RetMSgt in Pa. the phrase “the elephant in the room” means a serious problem that no one wants to discuss, so clearly the idea that a disproportionate percentage of crimes are committed by black folks is not the elephant in the room. Obama acknowledged this on national television in his famous Trayvon Martin speech, and you and your racist pals all over the internet are constantly talking about this, not one day or even one hour passes without yall revelling in this reality.

      Now Stank Hank and Kroglikepie, acknowledging this sad reality is of course not racist, what is racist however is yall constantly gleefully citing this reality as if it is evidence that black folks are inherently dangerous and/or criminal, and never giving any context ie systemic institutionalized racism in the job market (black unemployment 2X white unemployment for the last 70 years, identical resumes with black names invited to interview 50% less etc) and the fact that only a tiny percentage (2%) of young black men commit those crimes, while you racists cite the stats to smear all young black men and black folks generally.

      I hope this is clear to you, the black crime stats of course do NOT document anything inherently criminal about black folks as yall racists like to pretend and imply, they document a radically unequal society, a racial chasm that shames us all…

      Or as your superior Obama explained for yall years ago:

      “… this isn’t to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact — although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country… so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent — using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.”

      1. avatar J Willis says:

        Yeah, see, it’s “racist” cuz “muh institutionalized raycisms”

        Blacks have the same opportunities every other demographic does. You want a causative factor, look to IQ, higher testosterone, etc. Genetic factors in other words.

        Yeah, go ahead, call me “racist” — that and a dollar will just about get you a cup of coffee.

  3. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    The biggest thing to me is the “developed nation” thing is a sham when comparing homicides. The reason for this is crime is part of the criteria used to determine if a nation is developed. That means that we are ultimately being fed comparisons on crime in a group of nations that are selected based on being low in crime.

    I mean shit, wouldn’t Chicago or other big cities love it if they could generate their crime statistics based on the low crime parts of the city?

  4. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

    Hoober’s point is moot. We have seen that compliance with some states’ new firearm ownership criminalization efforts has been hearteningly low. It is reasonable to assume that any national laws of a similar nature would also be obeyed by a very few. The government’s supply of JBTs needed to force compliance is rather limited and I would expect the attrition rate among them would be so high that such confiscation efforts would grind to a rapid and bloody halt.

  5. avatar Ross says:

    Sam,

    As a Kiwi who moved to Australia in 1996 during the ban then on to the US (I’m now a US citizen) I can tell the real reason why Australian style Gun control wouldn’t work in America……… In both New Zealand and Australia you do not have a lawful right to self defense. If you were to put Self Defense on a firearms license application you would be denied that application and blacklisted for life. You can use no force that causes grievous bodily harm or death in your defense or the defense of another.

    Owning firearms in both New Zealand and Australia has always been about hunting or sport, here in the US hunting and sport are simply by-products of firearms ownership.

    1. avatar ironicatbest says:

      Oh my gawd, Ross is from Australi, and he’s got guns……..RUNNN./ sarc

      1. avatar Ross says:

        You sound like the voices in my head…………..

    2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      There are two things I have never understood about UK affiliated countries: Their determination to have undamaged criminals, and why more of those criminals aren’t found in a shallow grave some years after inexplicably ceasing their criminal carriers (S, S, & S). The other problem with not allowing people to defend themselves is if the criminal surrenders after having been shot or bludgeoned. The innocent victim is then placed in the position of deciding to surrender themselves to the authorities, leaving their loved ones to the mercy of proven criminals and their families, or finishing the job and dumping the body. Not a happy choice.

      1. avatar Toni says:

        as an aussie i agree heartilly and if it came to that for me i would dissapear. fuck society i am over it anyway. go bush deep in a national park (we have plenty that are big enough) and dissapear

    3. avatar Ing says:

      The way Australia and England treat self-defense makes me livid. They take something natural and good — the inborn desire to protect self and loved ones — and treat it like a criminal act. They transfer guilt to the innocent, empower the guilty, and encourage criminal aggression.

  6. avatar jwm says:

    Australian style gun control doesn’t work in Australia. Why would it work here?

    1. avatar Ross says:

      Your right, I was there in July and they were having their forth amnesty to get more guns back (they were not paying anything for firearms handed it).

    2. avatar Rick says:

      Its working, or had no effect, or its not working, that’s why statistics between different countries may measure the same thing, but the culture getting there is pretty different. My wife’s from Sydney, and their history with firearms is just vastly different, almost like its another country.

      Australia is damn safe, I’d much rather bumble around an any neighborhood in Sydney than in quite a bit of Chicago, especially after dark.

      1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

        Very few Africans…or African-Australians,…correct? How about latinos?
        Asians here in USA are pretty low on the violent crime scale…at least in most areas.
        You guys don’t really have ghettos in your cities…or “no go” areas.
        Harder to sneak in to an island…like NZ…Japan…Australia.
        They walk across the borders here in the USA by hundreds/thousands every DAY.
        20M or so illegal aliens in the USA…real number unknown of course.
        And we STILL allow birthright citizenship…even if the mother is an illegal alien…shame on us for THAT!

        1. avatar Toni says:

          we are starting to get them…. with the moslems

    3. avatar jwmInternetHoaxParrot says:

      Your post is a well-known smear you picked up from your similarly dumb/dishonest online pals, a smear famously debunked 16 years ago!
      https://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

      Way back in 2001… and yet its nearly 2018 and youre still parroting this bullsheet, how is this possible?!

      Now a reasonable person would be shocked to find out that something theyve been claiming in a condescending smart alecky way for a decade and a half is actually a myth they gullibly imbibed… so I cant wait to see how you respond!! : D

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        Hi there, name changer.

        Violent crime dropped in Australia following NFA (after climbing first for short period). Fact.
        Violent crime in US during the same period dropped MORE AND FASTER, while gun ownership reached record levels. Fact.
        Make your own conclusion from these two facts.

        Lion’s share of violent crime in U.S. is committed by blacks and Hispanics. The number usually cited is over 50%, but that only accounts for solved crimes. For example Chicago police solved about 16% of this year’s murders. (You can guess who commited majority of those left unsolved. “Meh, just another drive-by, gang bangers shooting gang bangers,
        who cares.”) There just isn’t as many blacks and Hispanics in Europe and Australia to give their respective countries the diversity benefits (murder rates) we enjoy here.

        Btw. the word is bullshit, as bovine excrement, not -sheet as bed cover.
        You’re welcome. I just thought you should know as you are full of it.

        1. avatar OneDelusionAtATimeSweetCorpseOfJesus says:

          So I cited a peer reviewed study to document for you and FedUp that the “…evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans…”
          http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

          And you both stupidly said that black folks higher crime rates accounts for this disparity, so I again documented for you that your excuse certainly did NOT account for the disparity:

          “There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates.”

          And then you both took your ball an went hom…

          Scooter on my program we take one dellusion at a time and only after I give you a documented correction and you acknowledge it, than I may remedy your sprawling ignorance on another topic…

          So we are still waiting for you to acknowledge the evidence I posted documenting that unarmed black follks are disproportionately shot by police, and the evidence I posted refuting your stupid claim that a high black crime rate accounts for this…

          FLAME DELETED

        2. avatar donkeys says:

          So I cited a peer reviewed study to document for you and FedUp that the “…evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans…”
          http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

          And you both stupidly said that black folks higher crime rates accounts for this disparity, so I again documented for you that your excuse certainly did NOT account for the disparity:

          “There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates.”

          And then you both took your ball an went hom…

          Scooter on my program we take one dellusion at a time and only after I give you a documented correction and you acknowledge it, than I may remedy your sprawling ignorance on another topic…

          So we are still waiting for you to acknowledge the evidence I posted documenting that unarmed black follks are disproportionately shot by police, and the evidence I posted refuting your stupid claim that a high black crime rate accounts for this…

      2. avatar ComradeMoreDeadSoldiersTheRacistPOS says:

        It’s actually only your posts, and your posts alone, that even contain any smears in the first place. A smear famously debunked a mere decade after Australia passed its gun-grabbing laws!

        Way back in 2006, and yet you’re still parroting demonstrably false and outdated bullshit from Snopes?

        Now, an actually reasonable person would be shocked to find out something they’ve been claiming for 22 years, and in the same condescending and smart-alecky way that you like to us (NOT the other way around), is actually a myth you gullibly imbibed. So, I can’t wait to see how you respond! : D

        As you may know, many Australians (and people from all around the world in general) think that your country (among others) is a role model that the U.S. should follow. However, two very important studies of your 1996 National Firearms Agreement completely disagree with this statement.

        http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html

        A ten-year study, lead by Dr. Samara McPhedran and published in the British Journal of Criminology, found that the $500M AUD spent on the mass confiscation and destruction of previously-legal firearms had absolutely no reducing effect whatsoever on homicide or suicide rates.

        https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf

        Yet another five-year study, produced by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi from the University of Melbourne and published in the Melbourne Institute’s Working Paper series, confirmed Dr. McPhedran’s conclusions and no others.

        Dr. McPhedran even testified to this fact before the Australian Senate Inquiry, which had looked into – among other things – banning semi-automatic handguns. Needless to say, gun control advocates were rightly and completely humiliated.

        Before that same Senate Inquiry, Australian Federal Police Assistant Commissioner Julian Slater had freely admitted that not only do they have no clue what exactly what kinds of contraband were getting through, but they only know about what they somehow by some miracle manage to intercept. As I’m sure you may be well aware, and even if you’re not you will be now, Australia’s porous borders and low population density – coupled with deeply corrupt postal and customs services – make it a veritable smuggler’s paradise.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjPEdEaS8eY

        More analyses of U.S. domestic and Australian gun control laws have been done besides the brilliant work of Dr. McPhedran, and Wang-Sheng and Saudri, on both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific. Their findings match those of the former researchers almost exactly.

        http://www.smh.COM.AU/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/revealed-australias-suicide-epidemic-20090820-es3p.html

        aph.GOV.AU/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2008_10/suicide/submissions/sub42_pdf.ashx

        http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm

        A Deputy Director from the Australian Institute of Criminology also testified before the Senate Inquiry, and explicitly stated that only 5 of the 48,000+ handguns in the Australian state of Victoria had been stolen. To complicate matters further, the AFP even admitted they had not even bothered to examine the AIC’s report on gun thefts at all.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P3Etjp_WK0

        After the Port Arthur shooting, there were also the Quakers Hill and Childer’s Palace arson attacks, the Black Saturday Bushfires – which were deliberately lit in case you needed a reminder – the Cairns Stabbings, the Lockhart Shooting, and the Monash University Shooting. The 1996 NFA didn’t stop the massacres from happening, but only changed the methods in which they are carried out. Especially not when many thousands of guns handed over to the government for destruction in 1996 were then illegally resold to criminals – many of which have still never been recovered, and have very likely been used in crimes since. Some were indeed recovered though, in the private collections of police officers.

        http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-big-sting/2007/02/09/1170524303995.html?page=fullpage

        http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/ravenshoe-police-sergeant-resigns-after-discovery-of-surrendered-guns-in-his-private-collection/story-fnihsrf2-1226705185355

        Guns are taken from Melbourne’s own ‘Red Zone’ every two days – all from “prohibited” persons – and by the thousands every single year — and that’s just one metropolitan area in one city.

        http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/gun-found-every-two-days-in-melbournes-red-zone-20150618-ghrak9.html

        Even police and military armories are broken into with mind-boggling regularity, to the tune of dozens of times – and that’s just in the state of Victoria and the port of Sydney.

        http://www.skynews.com.au/news/local/melbourne/2015/05/12/vic-gun-thieves-eavesdrop-on-cops.html

        http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/no-sign-of-stolen-rocket-launchers/story-e6frg6o6-1225787746734

        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-30/navy-base-security-breach-larrakeyah-darwin/4400646

        Isn’t it any wonder that only after the states of Victoria, Queensland, and Tasmania were excluded from all crime statistics reports by both the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Institute of Criminology from 2010 onwards there begins an appreciable drop in Australia’s violent crime rates across the board?

        Indeed, wonders never cease. Especially when criminals receive hundreds of pistols at a time through the mail and several times every year, made especially easy by Australia’s institutionalized corruption of its Customs services – not to mention that of individual officials, as well.

        http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/guns-imported-through-sylvania-waters-post-office-linked-to-crimes-in-sydney/story-fnpn118l-1227252669241

        http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/customs-staff-charged-over-alleged-drug-smuggling-ring/story-e6frg6nf-1226576397568

        http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/03/24/cocaine-customs-cop-caught/

        http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3675337.htm

        Even if criminals couldn’t receive their guns through the Sunday Post, they can just as easily make them or have them made-to-order. These aren’t those shoddy rusticles of zip-guns you’d expect to find in a jail cell, either, but finely machined MAC-11 sub-machine guns – complete with 32-round magazines and silencers.

        http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/homemade-gun-factory-shutdown-by-police-in-sydneys-southwest-20140618-zsd4a.html

        http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/jeweller-angelos-koots-admits-to-making-submachine-guns-at-his-seven-hills-home-and-supplying-them-to-bikie-groups/story-fni0cx12-1226760983916

        In conclusion, no, America would not benefit from Australia’s gun control laws. (Even Australia didn’t seem to benefit from them.) This is for a wide variety of reasons. Given the level of sophistication of the criminal enterprises that were created by Prohibition in the U.S., and now during the morbidly hilarious failure of the “War on (Some) Drugs” around the world, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn about a prohibition on guns – which is what you have by-and-large in Australia – is that equally large and sophisticated criminal enterprises will arise to fulfill the demand for guns. This can, as quite thoroughly demonstrated above if I do say so myself, can and will be accomplished in a number of ways: clandestine domestic manufacture, surreptitious importation from abroad, and widespread theft.

        Australia is plagued by the first and the second. America is plagued by the second and third.

        To give you an example of the futility of banning an item to which is attached very high demand, some 1.6 million pounds of marijuana was seized by the U.S. DEA in 2010 – and that’s only a very small percentage of what is believed to have made it across the border. It is reasonable to assume that the shear amount of arms, ammunition, and accoutrement that can occupy the same space as 800 tons of plant matter is quite sufficient to arm a significant portion of the U.S. criminal element.

        These dreadful shortcomings demonstrate a basic and willful failure of Prohibitionists to understand or even acknowledge the market forces governing anything for which there is significant demand. It is the primary reason why central economic planning has only proved an unmitigated disaster everywhere it’s been tried. More basically, they fail to realize or consciously ignore the fact that when people want something, someone will get it for them. The harsher the ban, the higher the profit motive. The higher the profit motive, the more risks criminals will be willing to take to satisfy their market. A market that WILL be satisfied and in full, regardless of whatever laws are passed and how strictly they are enforced. There are deeper reasons for this failure than simply flat-out flunking ECON 101. Those who trade in prohibited goods are, by definition, criminals who are engaged in a criminal enterprise without the benefits of redress the courts or any other avenue of dispute resolution or of police protection. When an enterprise can’t: take out a loan, open a bank account, establish credit, file a lawsuit, or have police respond to an alarm, it becomes necessarily more violent to protect its financial and territorial interests and to affect resolutions over contractual disputes. Essentially, prohibition of highly desirable goods can only function to increase overall violence and disregard for the law as a basic factor of prohibition. One must accept this as a basic premise and then try to reconcile the increased violence and criminality coupled with the inevitable encroachment on individual liberty with any perceived utility of the prohibition.

        As the world slowly comes to the realization that prohibition of drugs, with the focus now being primarily on cannabis, has very little if any utility in the face of extremely high demand we begin to move away from banning it.

        Considering that those who smuggle, steal, and manufacture weapons and their customers will obviously still be armed, the level of violence in the wake of an Australian-style prohibition would be unprecedented. Once one factors in the unique culture surrounding guns and civil rights in the U.S., the increasingly ubiquitous support for the Second Amendment and the right it protects, and American’s historical resistance to tyranny, the violence may very well escalate into that of armed insurrection.

        http://rt.com/usa/269362-assault-guns-control-ny/

        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3115418/posts

        Mass civil disobedience is already the order of the day, and police departments are already realizing the logistical absurdity of such an endeavor in actually enforcing registration or, Heaven forbid, a mass confiscation. In fact, many law enforcement officials have already announced their intentions to not enforce such laws at all.

        http://www.policeone.com/chiefs-sheriffs/articles/6435415-NY-sheriffs-We-wont-enforce-gun-laws-magazine-limits/

        http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news437.htm

        http://www.examiner.com/article/conn-police-refuse-to-enforce-new-gun-laws

        Also given that firearms are very durable items, with many examples lasting 500 years or more with proper care and maintenance, and that upwards of 406 million (as of 2015) are already thought to be present in the hands of up to 128 million Americans, it’s highly unlikely that any prohibition would succeed at all as confiscation must immediately follow – as it did in Australia – to realize any utility at all.

        http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/Clics2013A/commsumm.nsf/b4a3962433b52fa787256e5f00670a71/c4b73dc817da609e87257b24005ef7f8/$FILE/13SenState0304AttachC.pdf

        All this having been said, advocacy for prohibition of firearms can only be seen as either ill informed (as in being simply unaware of the consequences) or malicious (aware of the inevitable and invariable failure of the prohibition and the increased criminality and violence and potential to destabilize society and government and possibly to result in violent revolution). It’s either one or the other. There is NO third option.

        Pick one.

        1. avatar GoodbyeBoringFool says:

          So I cited a peer reviewed study to document for you and FedUp that the “…evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans…”
          http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

          And you both stupidly said that black folks higher crime rates accounts for this disparity, so I again documented for you that your excuse certainly did NOT account for the disparity:

          “There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates.”

          And then you both took your ball and went home…

          Scooter on my program we take one dellusion at a time and only after I give you a documented correction and you acknowledge it, than I may remedy your sprawling ignorance on another topic…

          So we are still waiting for you to acknowledge the evidence I posted documenting that unarmed black follks are disproportionately shot by police, and the evidence I posted refuting your stupid claim that a high black crime rate accounts for this…

        2. avatar ComradeMoreDeadSoldiersTheRacistPOS says:

          So, I cited an actual peer-reviewed study for you — not the other way around — that “white suspects are more likely to be shot by police than black suspects.”

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/why-a-massive-new-study-on-police-shootings-of-whites-and-blacks-is-so-controversial/?utm_term=.f79d8e618d5d

          And you stupidly said that black folks are more likely to get shot than white folks. Oh, and we again accurately surmised that a higher rate of reported criminality among blacks DOES account for apparently “disparity” that you thought existed, but actually doesn’t.

          And then you went and tried to make the same rim shot and missed…

          Junior, on my program we take one delusion at a time, and only after I gave you a documented correction and acknowledge it, then I may remedy your sprawling ignorance on another topic…

          Se, we are actually waiting on you to acknowledge the actual evidence that I posted conclusively proving that white folks are more likely to be shot by police than black folks, and the evidence that I posted refuting your stupid claim that a high black crime rate doesn’t account for this…

          You did NOT give us any “evidence.” ONLY more SJW snowflake bullshit that’s already been debunked three ways to Sunday.

    4. avatar AQuestionOfALackOfMoralCourage says:

      Your post is a well-known smear you picked up from your similarly dumb/dishonest online pals, a smear famously debunked 16 years ago!
      https://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

      Way back in 2001… and yet its nearly 2018 and youre still parroting this bullsheet, how is this possible?!

      Now a reasonable person would be shocked to find out that something theyve been claiming in a condescending smart alecky way for a decade and a half is actually a myth they gullibly imbibed… so I cant wait to see how you respond!! : D

      1. avatar LiberalsHaveNoMoralCourage says:

        It’s actually only your posts, and your posts alone, that even contain any smears in the first place. A smear famously debunked a mere decade after Australia passed its gun-grabbing laws!

        Way back in 2006, and yet you’re still parroting demonstrably false and outdated bullshit from Snopes?

        Now, an actually reasonable person would be shocked to find out something they’ve been claiming for 22 years, and in the same condescending and smart-alecky way that you like to us (NOT the other way around), is actually a myth you gullibly imbibed. So, I can’t wait to see how you respond! : D

        As you may know, many Australians (and people from all around the world in general) think that your country (among others) is a role model that the U.S. should follow. However, two very important studies of your 1996 National Firearms Agreement completely disagree with this statement.

        http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html

        A ten-year study, lead by Dr. Samara McPhedran and published in the British Journal of Criminology, found that the $500M AUD spent on the mass confiscation and destruction of previously-legal firearms had absolutely no reducing effect whatsoever on homicide or suicide rates.

        https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf

        Yet another five-year study, produced by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi from the University of Melbourne and published in the Melbourne Institute’s Working Paper series, confirmed Dr. McPhedran’s conclusions and no others.

        Dr. McPhedran even testified to this fact before the Australian Senate Inquiry, which had looked into – among other things – banning semi-automatic handguns. Needless to say, gun control advocates were rightly and completely humiliated.

        Before that same Senate Inquiry, Australian Federal Police Assistant Commissioner Julian Slater had freely admitted that not only do they have no clue what exactly what kinds of contraband were getting through, but they only know about what they somehow by some miracle manage to intercept. As I’m sure you may be well aware, and even if you’re not you will be now, Australia’s porous borders and low population density – coupled with deeply corrupt postal and customs services – make it a veritable smuggler’s paradise.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjPEdEaS8eY

        More analyses of U.S. domestic and Australian gun control laws have been done besides the brilliant work of Dr. McPhedran, and Wang-Sheng and Saudri, on both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific. Their findings match those of the former researchers almost exactly.

        http://www.smh.COM.AU/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/revealed-australias-suicide-epidemic-20090820-es3p.html

        aph.GOV.AU/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2008_10/suicide/submissions/sub42_pdf.ashx

        http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm

        A Deputy Director from the Australian Institute of Criminology also testified before the Senate Inquiry, and explicitly stated that only 5 of the 48,000+ handguns in the Australian state of Victoria had been stolen. To complicate matters further, the AFP even admitted they had not even bothered to examine the AIC’s report on gun thefts at all.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P3Etjp_WK0

        After the Port Arthur shooting, there were also the Quakers Hill and Childer’s Palace arson attacks, the Black Saturday Bushfires – which were deliberately lit in case you needed a reminder – the Cairns Stabbings, the Lockhart Shooting, and the Monash University Shooting. The 1996 NFA didn’t stop the massacres from happening, but only changed the methods in which they are carried out. Especially not when many thousands of guns handed over to the government for destruction in 1996 were then illegally resold to criminals – many of which have still never been recovered, and have very likely been used in crimes since. Some were indeed recovered though, in the private collections of police officers.

        http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-big-sting/2007/02/09/1170524303995.html?page=fullpage

        http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/ravenshoe-police-sergeant-resigns-after-discovery-of-surrendered-guns-in-his-private-collection/story-fnihsrf2-1226705185355

        Guns are taken from Melbourne’s own ‘Red Zone’ every two days – all from “prohibited” persons – and by the thousands every single year — and that’s just one metropolitan area in one city.

        http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/gun-found-every-two-days-in-melbournes-red-zone-20150618-ghrak9.html

        Even police and military armories are broken into with mind-boggling regularity, to the tune of dozens of times – and that’s just in the state of Victoria and the port of Sydney.

        http://www.skynews.com.au/news/local/melbourne/2015/05/12/vic-gun-thieves-eavesdrop-on-cops.html

        http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/no-sign-of-stolen-rocket-launchers/story-e6frg6o6-1225787746734

        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-30/navy-base-security-breach-larrakeyah-darwin/4400646

        Isn’t it any wonder that only after the states of Victoria, Queensland, and Tasmania were excluded from all crime statistics reports by both the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Institute of Criminology from 2010 onwards there begins an appreciable drop in Australia’s violent crime rates across the board?

        Indeed, wonders never cease. Especially when criminals receive hundreds of pistols at a time through the mail and several times every year, made especially easy by Australia’s institutionalized corruption of its Customs services – not to mention that of individual officials, as well.

        http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/guns-imported-through-sylvania-waters-post-office-linked-to-crimes-in-sydney/story-fnpn118l-1227252669241

        http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/customs-staff-charged-over-alleged-drug-smuggling-ring/story-e6frg6nf-1226576397568

        http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/03/24/cocaine-customs-cop-caught/

        http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3675337.htm

        Even if criminals couldn’t receive their guns through the Sunday Post, they can just as easily make them or have them made-to-order. These aren’t those shoddy rusticles of zip-guns you’d expect to find in a jail cell, either, but finely machined MAC-11 sub-machine guns – complete with 32-round magazines and silencers.

        http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/homemade-gun-factory-shutdown-by-police-in-sydneys-southwest-20140618-zsd4a.html

        http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/jeweller-angelos-koots-admits-to-making-submachine-guns-at-his-seven-hills-home-and-supplying-them-to-bikie-groups/story-fni0cx12-1226760983916

        In conclusion, no, America would not benefit from Australia’s gun control laws. (Even Australia didn’t seem to benefit from them.) This is for a wide variety of reasons. Given the level of sophistication of the criminal enterprises that were created by Prohibition in the U.S., and now during the morbidly hilarious failure of the “War on (Some) Drugs” around the world, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn about a prohibition on guns – which is what you have by-and-large in Australia – is that equally large and sophisticated criminal enterprises will arise to fulfill the demand for guns. This can, as quite thoroughly demonstrated above if I do say so myself, can and will be accomplished in a number of ways: clandestine domestic manufacture, surreptitious importation from abroad, and widespread theft.

        Australia is plagued by the first and the second. America is plagued by the second and third.

        To give you an example of the futility of banning an item to which is attached very high demand, some 1.6 million pounds of marijuana was seized by the U.S. DEA in 2010 – and that’s only a very small percentage of what is believed to have made it across the border. It is reasonable to assume that the shear amount of arms, ammunition, and accoutrement that can occupy the same space as 800 tons of plant matter is quite sufficient to arm a significant portion of the U.S. criminal element.

        These dreadful shortcomings demonstrate a basic and willful failure of Prohibitionists to understand or even acknowledge the market forces governing anything for which there is significant demand. It is the primary reason why central economic planning has only proved an unmitigated disaster everywhere it’s been tried. More basically, they fail to realize or consciously ignore the fact that when people want something, someone will get it for them. The harsher the ban, the higher the profit motive. The higher the profit motive, the more risks criminals will be willing to take to satisfy their market. A market that WILL be satisfied and in full, regardless of whatever laws are passed and how strictly they are enforced. There are deeper reasons for this failure than simply flat-out flunking ECON 101. Those who trade in prohibited goods are, by definition, criminals who are engaged in a criminal enterprise without the benefits of redress the courts or any other avenue of dispute resolution or of police protection. When an enterprise can’t: take out a loan, open a bank account, establish credit, file a lawsuit, or have police respond to an alarm, it becomes necessarily more violent to protect its financial and territorial interests and to affect resolutions over contractual disputes. Essentially, prohibition of highly desirable goods can only function to increase overall violence and disregard for the law as a basic factor of prohibition. One must accept this as a basic premise and then try to reconcile the increased violence and criminality coupled with the inevitable encroachment on individual liberty with any perceived utility of the prohibition.

        As the world slowly comes to the realization that prohibition of drugs, with the focus now being primarily on cannabis, has very little if any utility in the face of extremely high demand we begin to move away from banning it.

        Considering that those who smuggle, steal, and manufacture weapons and their customers will obviously still be armed, the level of violence in the wake of an Australian-style prohibition would be unprecedented. Once one factors in the unique culture surrounding guns and civil rights in the U.S., the increasingly ubiquitous support for the Second Amendment and the right it protects, and American’s historical resistance to tyranny, the violence may very well escalate into that of armed insurrection.

        http://rt.com/usa/269362-assault-guns-control-ny/

        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3115418/posts

        Mass civil disobedience is already the order of the day, and police departments are already realizing the logistical absurdity of such an endeavor in actually enforcing registration or, Heaven forbid, a mass confiscation. In fact, many law enforcement officials have already announced their intentions to not enforce such laws at all.

        http://www.policeone.com/chiefs-sheriffs/articles/6435415-NY-sheriffs-We-wont-enforce-gun-laws-magazine-limits/

        http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news437.htm

        http://www.examiner.com/article/conn-police-refuse-to-enforce-new-gun-laws

        Also given that firearms are very durable items, with many examples lasting 500 years or more with proper care and maintenance, and that upwards of 406 million (as of 2015) are already thought to be present in the hands of up to 128 million Americans, it’s highly unlikely that any prohibition would succeed at all as confiscation must immediately follow – as it did in Australia – to realize any utility at all.

        http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/Clics2013A/commsumm.nsf/b4a3962433b52fa787256e5f00670a71/c4b73dc817da609e87257b24005ef7f8/$FILE/13SenState0304AttachC.pdf

        All this having been said, advocacy for prohibition of firearms can only be seen as either ill informed (as in being simply unaware of the consequences) or malicious (aware of the inevitable and invariable failure of the prohibition and the increased criminality and violence and potential to destabilize society and government and possibly to result in violent revolution). It’s either one or the other. There is NO third option.

        Pick one.

    5. avatar TheTruthAboutjwmsLies says:

      In fact Australias murder rate has significantly DECREASED during the two decades since the passage of the 1996 National Firearms Agreement(NFA).
      http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

      And heres a couple graphs to help you visualize reality
      http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/21-40/mr23/04_homicide-2010-12.html

      Anyone with integrity would thank me for this correction and apologize for disseminating bullsheet… you naturally are too small of a man to EVER do this, I bet youve NEVER acknowledged ANY wrongdoing… like your lack of moral courage in the military…
      Have a joyous Kwanzaa by the way, I wont be buckling under to the “War on Kwanzaa” this year, I will be #@!*ed if I say happy holidays : D

      Seriously though have a great one, I hope SantaChrist fills your stocking with some honesty and integrity : D

      1. avatar Toni says:

        i am an aussie and the only reason it decreased is suicides. they accounted for 70% of the firearm death statistics. otherwise it has continued the same downward trend at the same rate as it had been since the 60’s. as for suicides they have not gone down at all, rather they have gone up even with the introduction of more and supposedly better support systems, it is just the methodologies that have changed. as with everything govt funded you cant see the trees for the bullshit.

      2. avatar TheTruthAboutRacistLiberalsLies says:

        In fact, Australia’s murder rate decreased SLOWER and LESS during the two decades following the passage of their 1996 NFA. Not only that, but it had absolutely NO reductive effect on the homicide or suicide rate whatsoever. Here are some ACTUAL facts to help you visual reality.

        http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html

        A ten-year study, lead by Dr. Samara McPhedran and published in the British Journal of Criminology, found that the $500M AUD spent on the mass confiscation and destruction of previously-legal firearms had absolutely no effect whatsoever on homicide or suicide rates.

        https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf

        Yet another five-year study, produced by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi from the University of Melbourne and published in the Melbourne Institute’s Working Paper series, confirmed Dr. McPhedran’s conclusions and no others.

        Anyone with any integrity would thank me for correcting you and you’d further apologize for knowingly disseminating bullshit to people that also know are better-informed than you. You are naturally too small of a man to EVER do this. I can bet that you’ve NEVER acknowledged ANY wrongdoing yourself. Like your own lack of moral courage to join the military…

        How a joyous Christmas, by the way. We won’t be buckling under to the War on Christmas this or any other year, and we’ll be damned if we say “Happy Holidays,” too. : D

        Seriously, though, have a great one. I hope whatever deities you’re celebrating fill you with some honesty and integrity. We would give you some of ours, being that you completely lack any and all, but you’d just throw it away. : D

    6. avatar Badwolf says:

      Best comment ever

    7. avatar jwmMoralCowardAndMoron says:

      Your post is a well-known smear you picked up from your similarly dumb/dishonest online pals, a smear famously debunked 16 years ago!
      https://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

      Way back in 2001… and yet its nearly 2018 and youre still parroting this bullsheet, how is this possible?!

      Now a reasonable person would be shocked to find out that something theyve been claiming in a condescending smart alecky way for a decade and a half is actually a myth they gullibly imbibed… so I cant wait to see how you respond!! : D

      1. avatar Toni says:

        i am an aussie and i see what is going on in my country day to day. snopes etc are F^%&$@g bullshit artists that post what their NWO masters want them to tell people.

        after 96 the crime rate continued the same downward trend it had been on since the 60’s, nope , no massive drop which considering suicide made up about 70% of our gun crime statistics it should have….. but it did not?!?! how can that be especially when suicide with firearms dropped to almost being non-existant in this country? well actual crime has to have gone up for there to have been no sudden drop. there has also been a marked increase in other sorts of crime and pre 96 home invasions were completely unheard of. within 5 years max home invasions made up 25% of the crime statistics. accidents with firearms were also included in the crime stats. those have also dropped since the gun laws were brought in possibly in part due to the fact that there are also training courses to be done and not just background checks done to get your license in the first place. the emphasis of these courses is safety….. however a 5 year old in a household with firearms should know those basics and know them well and it is not the govts place to restrict what you can and cant have or do so long as you are doing no ACTUAL crime eg it MUST involve actual harm to another. theft, rape, home invasion, physical assault, murder etc are all actual crimes. pretty much anything else the govt should not have any power over. if you say otherwise you are a traitor to liberty

    8. avatar jwmMoralCowardAndMoron says:

      Youre too dumb/dishonest to understand/acknowledge this, but heres why your post is inane…

      1. Your post is typically evidence-free, because no evidence exists for your smear of Australias 1996 legislation

      2. And your smear is meaningless to educated folks who can only guess what you mean by “doesn’t work”.

      3. And your smear is downright dumb as it betrays your simpletons conception of a facile relationship between legislation and murder rates, when the reality of this complex issue is that of course it is VERY complicated to document how various factors intermingle to influence the murder rate>

      <Your post is a well-known smear you picked up from your similarly dumb/dishonest online pals, a smear famously debunked 16 years ago!
      https://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

      Way back in 2001… and yet its nearly 2018 and youre still parroting this bullsheet, how is this possible?!

      Now a reasonable person would be shocked to find out that something theyve been claiming in a condescending smart alecky way for a decade and a half is actually a myth they gullibly imbibed… so I cant wait to see how you respond!! : D

      1. avatar jwmMoralCowardAndMoron says:

        n fact Australias murder rate has significantly DECREASED during the two decades since the passage of the 1996 National Firearms Agreement(NFA).
        http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

        And heres a couple graphs to help you visualize reality
        http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/21-40/mr23/04_homicide-2010-12.html

        Anyone with integrity would thank me for this correction and apologize for disseminating bullsheet… you naturally are too small of a man to EVER do this, I bet youve NEVER acknowledged ANY wrongdoing… like your lack of moral courage in the military…
        Have a joyous Kwanzaa by the way, I wont be buckling under to the “War on Kwanzaa” this year, I will be #@!*ed if I say happy holidays : D

        Seriously though have a great one, I hope SantaChrist fills your stocking with some honesty and integrity : D

  7. avatar former water walker says:

    Funny quip about Aussie white folks being so docile…they’re (mostly) descended from convicts and criminals who practiced genocide on the decidedly dark Aboriginal inhabitants. Oh and Australia has NO bearing on America. Huge country with a tiny population. Subjects and peons…

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      I take issue with that. To equate natural clash of cultures to industrialized genocide of the 20th century cheapens the term. The Australians didnt’t exactly set out to exterminate the locals. Not something that could be said about most national and international socialist regimes in the past century.

      1. avatar John in AK says:

        To the contrary, Australia’s history contains numerous instances of early White settlers setting out to exterminate Aboriginals.
        In the first years, when the ‘settlers’ were still convicts, Government troops strictly enforced the laws against killing Aboriginals, for multiple reasons. The least altruistic one was that Government officials used Aboriginals to track escaped convicts, Aboriginals often killed on sight those convicts that wandered into their territories; Escaped convicts raped Aboriginal women, stole Aboriginal’s tools and food, and summarily killed them in revenge for their cooperation with the hated Government authorities and their killing of escaping convicts. Let’s say that the feelings were mutual.
        As more and more of the territory was settled, and freed convicts began to establish homesteads, the Aboriginals were slowly driven from their lands, and did what American native tribes did–they took revenge on the encroaching settlers.
        In turn, bands of settlers organized to launch punitive expeditions against Aboriginals, and tried most sincerely to eliminate them as a threat by killing entire tribal family groups.
        There were also instances of Government-organized campaigns, using militia and Government troops, to expunge ‘uncooperative’ Aborigines from areas desired for White settlement.
        Just as the US Government had no organized plan to perform genocide on the previous inhabitants of our country, the British government had no specific overall plan to eliminate their Aborigines; That really didn’t matter.
        For a good read on the subject, I suggest “The Fatal Shore” by Robert Hughes.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          I would argue that it matters quite a bit. Intent is important. Civilizations have clashed for millennia. Nothing the Brits did in Australia is fundamentally different from other campaigns of conquest in world history. Equating this conquest with deliberate acts of evil like the Holocaust, Holodomor, or the Cultural Revolution is ignorant at best.

        2. avatar former water walker says:

          Yes YOU ARE WHAT YOU DO…not what you “intend” to do. Just ask my ex-wife. The road to hell is paved with well you know. And it continues in Aussieland.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          I didn’t say their intentions were good. I said their intentions weren’t drastically different from literally dozens of empires over thousands of years. That’s a long way from deliberately setting out to exterminate an entire group of people.

        4. avatar Toni says:

          there is also plenty of evidence that the reason for a good many whites doing that was because of their own people being attacked and eaten, yes cannibalism. there is also evidence that the predominate black tribes here only came here about 4-600 years before the british did though you mention that and the fact that there was a pygmy race here before that and you get called every name under the sun. there was a mission that closed in the 60’s up near townsville and there was a group of those pygmies there. only about 100 of them. they were deathly afraid of the aboriginals and claimed that the aboriginals killed and ate them. after the mission closed they were never seen again.

    2. avatar MoreBSFromLyingIgnoramuspwsserge says:

      There is of course nothing “natural” about colonial violence, nothing natural about presuming to force your way into someone elses home and rape and enslave and kill and plunder. Only racist eugenicist Social Darwinists like pwrserge make such tranparent excuses for imperial violence

      And White Australians treated and continue to treat aboriginal folks egregeously, and the evidence of ethnic cleansing and genocide is clear. Perhaps most infamously white australians exterminated all of the original inhabitants of Tasmania, though owing to white colonials regularly raping Aboriginal folks they have many descendants.

      And if you were less devoted to smearing socialism (a concept you dont even understand) you would recognize the irrelevance of contrasting Australia to Russia and China, and more naturally look to white Americans ethnic cleansing and genocide of indigeneous folks (but this is not in harmony with your cult of American Exceptionalism delusions)

      1. avatar Toni says:

        read my reply above as to why some of the whites likely embarked to wipe them out. today they hold (as do african americans) a disproportionate percentage of crime statistics. the aboriginal kids at least where i live have a huge game going on as to how many houses they can break into, and also no vehicle that is not behind locked gates is safe from vandalism (smashed windows etc). many of the govt programs while on the surface appear to be trying to help them are actually a more insidious form of genocide as the pride that they as a people once had is now gone and they drink heavily, do drugs etc and are given far more money to be able to do so than most whites get by working full time jobs. shove your socialist principals where the sun dont shine

      2. avatar MoreBSFromLyingLiberalIgnoramuses says:

        Except that the very savagery you describe accurately documents Human nature and history long before and even long after the colonial powers spread across the globe. Only racist eugenicist Social Darwinists like you utter such transparent lies.

        And White Australians actually continue to treat Aboriginal folks as human beings, with Aboriginal lands continually being returned to their rightful owners. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jun/21/at-last-kenbi-land-returned-to-aboriginal-owners-after-37-year-fight

        And if you were less devoted to promoting socialism (a concept you yourself don’t even understand — otherwise you simply wouldn’t be a socialist), you would actually recognize the serious relevance that does in fact exist between Australia and Russia and China in that respect — the latter two killing and cleansing far and away a great many more people than in your wildest dreams, and in the name of socialism. But, this is not in harmony with your cult of Socialist Innocence delusions (i.e. “that’s not real socialism!!1!1!!).

        1. avatar Toni says:

          yes traditional lands are being given back to them but so are many huge handouts of other kinds. and the funny thing is most of the time even if houses are built on those lands for them they either dont live there (they turn around and live in town) or the houses get destroyed to where they become dangerous. before all this mabo shit started the aboriginals were a proud people. there are still a handful like that but for the most part now they are useless drunken layabouts that just cry for more and more to be given to them. here in alice we already have a huge aboriginal arts center (could be used to hold a convention it is that big) along with at least 20 small ones and all of them govt funded and the labour govt is funding the building of another one that is supposed to be bigger than the other big one!?!?! i will also add that crime amongst the blacks here is very high. if you dont have a decent sized dog in this town you WILL get broken into. and all this is coming from someone who has worked with some of the old school aboriginal stockmen (quite a reasonable stockwoman in my own right) and i have been awed by their skills as stockmen. it is not that i hate the aboriginal people there are some and were many many more that were great and wonderful people before all this govt handouts and land rights started. nope anything the govt touches turns to shit. get the govt the fuck out of all our lives and we will be far better off. all these handouts to them (and it is no different for white people unless it is done as a hand up not a hand out) is no more than a slow form of genocide.

  8. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Also have to look at who is doing the crimes…and where…
    young blacks…and larger cities…seem to correlate well with crime numbers…but it COULD just be a coincidence
    do other developed nations have the slave descendant population we have in the USA?
    How about education? Health care?
    Imagine if we did not have abortion…60M+ more people or more here…many unwanted in the first place…
    imagine all the crimes they would be committing

    1. avatar ironicatbest says:

      Man, your on that Black thing pretty hard. Yeh crime stats an what not, it’s not skin color it’s environment. As poverty increases you’ll see the same from whites eventually, it’s already happening.,

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        Except that crime causes poverty, not the other way around. And it’s actually the double-wammy of the two failed “War on (Some) Drugs” and “War on Poverty” that is breaking up families and causing the bulk of the crime in the first place.

        Who does this predominantly effect? Blacks, and to a lesser extent, Latinos. Though, you are correct in that it is starting to drag whites down, too. What happens to minorities eventually happens to everyone as the spider web of the state’s laws, institutions, and policies eventually ensnare the whole population.

    2. avatar David says:

      Or Leighton Cavendish maybe we fix things and eliminate Democrat policies so that those 60 million murdered babies could be productive citizens. One of them could have cured cancer or something but we won’t know cause they were never given a chance in this world.

      1. avatar Chad says:

        Sadly, I read or heard something a few years back that potentially tied the drop in violent crime in the early 90s to the legalization of abortion in the late 70s, as all of a sudden there were less unwanted young adults running around. Honestly haven’t ever heard any other argument that made as much sense. Think for a minute, who commits the most crime? And then who has the most abortions?
        I’m pro-life, but I’m not naive enough to think that abortion is the only problem. Having 60 million children whose parents would’ve preferred to have an abortion would not be all that rosy… Abortion is just a symptom of social decay.

    3. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      So, Leighton… the socialist government “schools” that have taught generations of people that they are entitled to whatever they want from productive people, that they have no responsibility for their own lives and the world owes them a living, and “respect,” and … So, where is the incentive for self reliance, integrity, productivity? If you produce, it will be stolen from you. If you hold up a bank or convenience store, it is very likely you will walk away with other people’s money and go on to do it again and again. Same with killing your competitors.

      The moral and physical poverty all this causes, along with the destruction of the economy by the non-voluntary government, is at the base of this mess.

      But wait! There is more. The desire/compulsion to control the lives and property of others is the ROOT of all evil. Who controls you? Are you OK with that?

  9. avatar TX Gun Gal says:

    Australia does not have a 2nd Ammendment, USA does. Case closed.
    BTW: Women, especially older people should carry where legal! I have fragile bones and bad knees. If I fall down I have to have someone help me up. I will not live in a state that does not respect my right to armed inside and outside my house.
    Next step for Texas is Constitutional Carry

    1. avatar ironicatbest says:

      Absolutely, this is America. Case closed

    2. avatar Arizona Free says:

      Arizona has blended open carry, cc, presenting a firearm to prevent an escalation of violence. There is no “wild west” atmosphere at all. Other than having a local police chief leaving his pistol in a restroom while changing AZ is not noted for random shootings. Much less than California or illinois.

  10. avatar Hank says:

    America simply cannot be compared to most other countries in the world, in anyway. When you account for our physical size, cultural make up, and history, there’s very few comparisons. The only ones that come close are Russia, China, and Brazil. And out of those, Brazil is the closest relative. America is a massive multicultural empire, and up until now, is the only country of its size and power to remain united through cultural tensions. Similar multicultural empires such as Ottoman Turkey, Austria Hungary, and Rome, all violently divided along ethnic lines. America may or may not face a similar future. But the point is, several cultures living in one area causes violence. Always have and always will. When you compare countries more like ours in make up, the good ol US of A starts to look pretty damned good.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Oh, the Balkanization of America is well on its way to completion. Just take a look at the results of any national election. The left coasts still can’t get it through their skulls that they lost, well over a year later.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “The left coasts still can’t get it through their skulls that they lost, well over a year later.”

        Oh, they know full well they lost.

        They simply refuse to accept it. (‘Not my president’, ‘The Resistance’, etc, etc, ad nausium)

        For proof, look at Mississippi just today. Pitching a temper-tantrum, behaving like petulant two-year-olds who didn’t get their way, stamping their little feet and shrieking…

  11. avatar Excedrine says:

    As I’ve said before, and I’ll say again as many times as it takes for it to sink in, Aussie gun-grabbing laws don’t even work in Australia.

    As you may know, many Australians (and people from all around the world in general) think that your country (among others) is a role model that the U.S. should follow. However, two very important studies of your 1996 National Firearms Agreement completely disagree with this statement.

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html

    A ten-year study, lead by Dr. Samara McPhedran and published in the British Journal of Criminology, found that the $500M AUD spent on the mass confiscation and destruction of previously-legal firearms had absolutely no effect whatsoever on homicide or suicide rates.

    https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf

    Yet another five-year study, produced by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi from your University of Melbourne and published in the Melbourne Institute’s Working Paper series, confirmed Dr. McPhedran’s conclusions and no others.

    Dr. McPhedran even testified to this fact before a recent Australian Senate Inquiry, which had looked into – among other things – banning semi-automatic handguns. Needless to say , gun control advocates were rightly and completely humiliated.

    Before that same Senate Inquiry, Australian Federal Police Assistant Commissioner Julian Slater had freely admitted that not only do they have no clue what exactly what kinds of contraband were getting through, but they only know about what they somehow by some miracle manage to intercept. As I’m sure you may be well aware, and even if you’re not you will be now, Australia’s porous borders and low population density – coupled with deeply corrupt postal and customs services – make it a veritable smuggler’s paradise.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjPEdEaS8eY

    More analyses of U.S. domestic and Australian gun control laws have been done besides the brilliant work of Dr. McPhedran, and Wang-Sheng and Saudri, on both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific. Their findings match those of the former researchers almost exactly.

    http://www.smh.COM.AU/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/revealed-australias-suicide-epidemic-20090820-es3p.html

    aph.GOV.AU/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2008_10/suicide/submissions/sub42_pdf.ashx

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm

    A Deputy Director from the Australian Institute of Criminology also testified before the Senate Inquiry, and explicitly stated that only 5 of the 48,000+ handguns in the Australian state of Victoria had been stolen. To complicate matters further, the AFP even admitted they had not even bothered to examine the AIC’s report on gun thefts at all.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P3Etjp_WK0

    After the Port Arthur shooting, there were also the Quakers Hill and Childer’s Palace arson attacks, the Black Saturday Bushfires – which were deliberately lit in case you needed a reminder – the Cairns Stabbings, the Lockhart Shooting, and the Monash University Shooting. The 1996 NFA didn’t stop the massacres from happening, but only changed the methods in which they are carried out. Especially not when many thousands of guns handed over to the government for destruction in 1996 were then illegally resold to criminals – many of which have still never been recovered, and have very likely been used in crimes since. Some were indeed recovered though, in the private collections of police officers.

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-big-sting/2007/02/09/1170524303995.html?page=fullpage

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/ravenshoe-police-sergeant-resigns-after-discovery-of-surrendered-guns-in-his-private-collection/story-fnihsrf2-1226705185355

    Guns are taken from Melbourne’s own ‘Red Zone’ every two days – all from “prohibited” persons – and by the thousands every single year — and that’s just one metropolitan area in one city.

    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/gun-found-every-two-days-in-melbournes-red-zone-20150618-ghrak9.html

    Even police and military armories are broken into with mind-boggling regularity, to the tune of dozens of times – and that’s just in the state of Victoria and the port of Sydney.

    http://www.skynews.com.au/news/local/melbourne/2015/05/12/vic-gun-thieves-eavesdrop-on-cops.html

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/no-sign-of-stolen-rocket-launchers/story-e6frg6o6-1225787746734

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-30/navy-base-security-breach-larrakeyah-darwin/4400646

    Isn’t it any wonder that only after the states of Victoria, Queensland, and Tasmania were excluded from all crime statistics reports by both the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Institute of Criminology from 2010 onwards there begins an appreciable drop in Australia’s violent crime rates across the board?

    Indeed, wonders never cease. Especially when criminals receive hundreds of pistols at a time through the mail and several times every year, made especially easy by Australia’s institutionalized corruption of its Customs services – not to mention that of individual officials, as well.

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/guns-imported-through-sylvania-waters-post-office-linked-to-crimes-in-sydney/story-fnpn118l-1227252669241

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/customs-staff-charged-over-alleged-drug-smuggling-ring/story-e6frg6nf-1226576397568

    http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/03/24/cocaine-customs-cop-caught/

    http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3675337.htm

    Even if criminals couldn’t receive their guns through the Sunday Post, they can just as easily make them or have them made-to-order. These aren’t those shoddy rusticles of zip-guns you’d expect to find in a jail cell, either, but finely machined MAC-11 sub-machine guns – complete with 32-round magazines and silencers.

    http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/homemade-gun-factory-shutdown-by-police-in-sydneys-southwest-20140618-zsd4a.html

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/jeweller-angelos-koots-admits-to-making-submachine-guns-at-his-seven-hills-home-and-supplying-them-to-bikie-groups/story-fni0cx12-1226760983916

    In conclusion, no, America would not benefit from Australia’s gun control laws. (Even Australia didn’t seem to benefit from them.) This is for a wide variety of reasons. Given the level of sophistication of the criminal enterprises that were created by Prohibition in the U.S., and now during the morbidly hilarious failure of the “War on (Some) Drugs” around the world, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn about a prohibition on guns – which is what you have by-and-large in Australia – is that equally large and sophisticated criminal enterprises will arise to fulfill the demand for guns. This can, as quite thoroughly demonstrated above if I do say so myself, can and will be accomplished in a number of ways: clandestine domestic manufacture, surreptitious importation from abroad, and widespread theft.

    Australia is plagued by the first and the second. America is plagued by the second and third.

    To give you an example of the futility of banning an item to which is attached very high demand, some 1.6 million pounds of marijuana was seized by the U.S. DEA in 2010 – and that’s only a very small percentage of what is believed to have made it across the border. It is reasonable to assume that the shear amount of arms, ammunition, and accoutrement that can occupy the same space as 800 tons of plant matter is quite sufficient to arm a significant portion of the U.S. criminal element.

    These dreadful shortcomings demonstrate a basic and willful failure of Prohibitionists to understand or even acknowledge the market forces governing anything for which there is significant demand. It is the primary reason why central economic planning has only proved an unmitigated disaster everywhere it’s been tried. More basically, they fail to realize or consciously ignore the fact that when people want something, someone will get it for them. The harsher the ban, the higher the profit motive. The higher the profit motive, the more risks criminals will be willing to take to satisfy their market. A market that WILL be satisfied and in full, regardless of whatever laws are passed and how strictly they are enforced. There are deeper reasons for this failure than simply flat-out flunking ECON 101. Those who trade in prohibited goods are, by definition, criminals who are engaged in a criminal enterprise without the benefits of redress the courts or any other avenue of dispute resolution or of police protection. When an enterprise can’t: take out a loan, open a bank account, establish credit, file a lawsuit, or have police respond to an alarm, it becomes necessarily more violent to protect its financial and territorial interests and to affect resolutions over contractual disputes. Essentially, prohibition of highly desirable goods can only function to increase overall violence and disregard for the law as a basic factor of prohibition. One must accept this as a basic premise and then try to reconcile the increased violence and criminality coupled with the inevitable encroachment on individual liberty with any perceived utility of the prohibition.

    As the world slowly comes to the realization that prohibition of drugs, with the focus now being primarily on cannabis, has very little if any utility in the face of extremely high demand we begin to move away from banning it.

    Considering that those who smuggle, steal, and manufacture weapons and their customers will obviously still be armed, the level of violence in the wake of an Australian-style prohibition would be unprecedented. Once one factors in the unique culture surrounding guns and civil rights in the U.S., the increasingly ubiquitous support for the Second Amendment and the right it protects, and American’s historical resistance to tyranny, the violence may very well escalate into that of armed insurrection.

    http://rt.com/usa/269362-assault-guns-control-ny/

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3115418/posts

    Mass civil disobedience is already the order of the day, and police departments are already realizing the logistical absurdity of such an endeavor in actually enforcing registration or, Heaven forbid, a mass confiscation. In fact, many law enforcement officials have already announced their intentions to not enforce such laws at all.

    http://www.policeone.com/chiefs-sheriffs/articles/6435415-NY-sheriffs-We-wont-enforce-gun-laws-magazine-limits/

    http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news437.htm

    http://www.examiner.com/article/conn-police-refuse-to-enforce-new-gun-laws

    Also given that firearms are very durable items, with many examples lasting 500 years or more with proper care and maintenance, and that upwards of 406 million (as of 2015) are already thought to be present in the hands of up to 128 million Americans, it’s highly unlikely that any prohibition would succeed at all as confiscation must immediately follow – as it did in Australia – to realize any utility at all.

    http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/Clics2013A/commsumm.nsf/b4a3962433b52fa787256e5f00670a71/c4b73dc817da609e87257b24005ef7f8/$FILE/13SenState0304AttachC.pdf

    All this having been said, advocacy for prohibition of firearms can only be seen as either ill informed (as in being simply unaware of the consequences) or malicious (aware of the inevitable and invariable failure of the prohibition and the increased criminality and violence and potential to destabilize society and government and possibly to result in violent revolution). It’s either one or the other. There is NO third option.

    Pick one.

  12. avatar RetMSgt in Pa. says:

    When comparing Country A against Country B, the first item dropped is Cultural Differences. Even in this country, nobody wants to talk about the elephant in the room, blacks killing blacks. Just look at Chicago, Baltimore or Philadelphia. What are the odds that both the killer and victim are from the same cultural group?

    Nope, it’s far easier to assign blame to the majority of lawful gun owners.

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      As it stands, the vast majority of violence appears to be intraracial, to the tune of 85-90%, with only a little spill-over between ethnic groups. Within that spill-over, however, there is about a 25-times higher per-capita rate of black-on-white violence than vice-versa.

    2. avatar cisco kid says:

      Actually American Gun Owners are to blame for our cities like Chicago having rivers of blood running down the streets. By opposing laws like the vetting of all gun purchases any criminal or nut case can get all the guns and ammo he wants simply by going to gun shows or buying them on the street where in many places its perfectly legal in a society which has gone completely mad. Also by opposing safe storage laws criminals simply walk in and scoop up arm loads of weapons not only in private homes but gun stores as well. Not to mention the 10,000 children a year that get shot with guns lying around the home.

      SHOCKING FACTS, Today on Global GPS, Fareed Zakaria it was mentions that there were 38,000 gun deaths in the U,S. last year but worldwide only 25,600 people died in terrorist attacks. Its no wonder the Supreme Court is siding with public opinion and mass hysteria over all the deaths and mass shootings in the U.S. because the Stats prove your safer in a Middle East War Zone complete with terrorism than you are right here at home trying to go to the movies or a concert or running the shooting gallery gauntlet on our freeway system by snipers and nut cases firing at people just going to work.

      Australian gun style confiscation is already here. California has passed a law to confiscate all the semi-auto rifles over 2 years and the recent Supreme Court decision not to change the lower courts ruling on another assault rifle ban law completely trashed Scalia’s former ruling and totally trashed the Second Amendment. There is no way the Supreme Court is going to lose face and reverse itself and rule against California’s new confiscation law if it works itself any higher in the court system.

      As far as compliance the Far Right talks tough but one thing that they worship higher than guns or God is their money and few will risk losing their personal fortunes and spending years in the pen in O.J.’s old prison cell. I hear the toilet paper in the prison has the 2nd Amendment printed on each sheet.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        Actually, American gun-grabbers (i.e. you even though you don’t actually live here) are to blame for cities like CHIRAQ having rivers of blood running down the streets, crisco skinhead. By opposing nonsensical and unenforceable laws like the vetting of private purchases, criminals or nut cases aren’t going to gun shows or other private sellers to get their gats — and no, convicted felons nor adjudicated nut cases have no legal avenue for gun ownership, either, except the legal restoration of their rights. period. Also, by opposing equally nonsensical and uneforceable “safe storage” laws, to which again are attached absolutely zero evidence whatsoever of their effectiveness. Not to mention the approximately 350-odd children a year that are accidentally shot and killed, NOT the oft-repeated and thoroughly debunked LIE of “10,000” — the bulk of which are, in fact, actually “kids” aged 14-24 engaged in gang activity as the CDC suggests.

        ACTUAL FACTS. Today it was mentioned in FBI and CDC statistics that gun-grabbers like you like to disingenuously lump in suicides, which are also not helped with gun control laws, in order to pad the numbers you use to scare people into disarming themselves and their numbers. It’s no wonder the SCoTUS isn’t actually siding with public opinion or mass hysteria, because what the statistics actually prove is that you’re safer in the U.S. than in any civil rights black hole in the Middle East.

        Australian-style confiscation also isn’t already here, either. KKKommiefornia’s gun-grabbing law will not stand up in court, and will also not even be enforced. What with the mass civil disobedience already seen in KKKommiefornia, as well as ZOO York and DIS-connected-cut. And, no, the SCoTUS also didn’t actually issue any rulings on any assault weapons bans, either, a fact which you freely admitted to in earlier posts. There is actually no way the SCoTUS is going to lose face and reverse itself by ruling for KKKommiefornia’s new confiscation law, which again it won’t enforce and won’t be able to enforce.

        As far as compliance, the Far Left talks tough. But, one thing that they worship more than the state or its politicians is their police — which they simultaneously decry as racist, fascist pigs. Few will actually want to risk officer’s lives pursuing the fool’s errand of grabbing guns once the lead really starts to fly. And it WILL fly.

        Not even to mention the other SHOCKING FACT that gun control is still at its core and in any implementation a sexist, racist, and classist agenda. So, too, ARE you all of these things merely by dint of supporting it.

        1. avatar cisco kid says:

          You must live on top of Mountain or in a cave in West Virginia Jethro. Every gun ban since Sandy Hook has gone through the courts and been upheld, no exceptions including all the many, East Coast bans and the latest California ban. The Sacalia decision has been trashed along with the Second Amendment by the Courts. You can claim its all fake news like most right wing nut cases might but it does not change reality. Its all just a matter of time as your log cabin will soon be next on the list Jethro and there is not a damn thing you can do about it either. I can send you a roll of Second Amendment toilet paper as you will be shitting your pants when the smiling men in dark sunglasses break down your door take your guns and ship your carcass to the crematorium.

        2. avatar Excedrine says:

          You must be projecting again, crisco. Not every gun ban has gone through in the first place, and not all of them have even gone through the courts or been upheld when they did. You can claim that’s fake news, like most left wing nut cases do, but it does not change the reality that you’re wrong. It’s actually just a matter of time as your subsidized apartment will be next on the list, crisco, and there is not a damn thing you can do about it, either. I can send you a roll of that cheap-o 1-ply poopin’ paper that you’re always snatching up, since it’s all you can afford, but why bother when your precious flat-foots that you wanted the state to send after me come after you instead and your worthless carcass to the morgue. Oh, and your hunting rifles will go to their pals in City Hall if they’re not melted down.

        3. avatar cisco kid says:

          To Excedrine Headache and his world of dreams

          Yes the gun bans against magazine capacity and against assault rifles have indeed all been upheld. Just because you live in a fantacy world does not mean the rest of us do.

          He who laughs last, laughs best Jethro and you just made an absolute fool of yourself. I suggest you go to the States that have enacted the bans on guns and magazine capacity and see how much you can buy. Some Company’s that produced magazines and guns have already moved out. The gun banning politicians really got egg on their faces as they even ran adds in newspapers begging companies not to leave. I guess in a way the companies that left had the last laugh as they got better tax breaks by moving. But soon they will have no place to move to as more and more states enact more and more bans. Unfortunately gun owners have been losing battle after battle and its not about to stop only accelerate with the latest Supreme Court sanction for legally banning any type of weapons the States want to ban. Its already law Jethero.

          http://dennismichaellynch.com/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-two-major-second-amendment-cases/

        4. avatar Excedrine says:

          To Crisco Skinhead and his racist world-view,

          No, the guns and magazine bans have not been ruled on by the SCoTUS. Just because you live in a fantasy world does not mean the rest of us adults do.

          Too bad for you that I’m laughing last and best, Ivan, and you have yet again made a complete ass of yourself before your moral, ethical, and intellectual superiors. I’m the one that gets to make suggestions to you, not the other way around, and now I’m directing you to simply go to the black market in each and every single of those those ban states — utopias that you clearly think they are — and see just how many you can buy. Remember: at least half of them WILL have originated within that state, too. Besides, you practically cheered as those companies left because you actively blamed them, along with the rest of us, for all of the tragedies that you damn well know will not and cannot be solved with your favored gun-grabbing policies. And soon, they’ll actually have even more places to move as more and more states either don’t enact or even start to repeal bans. Unfortunately for you, gun-grabbers have actually been losing battle after battle, and their losses are not about to stop but only accelerate. And, no, the SCoTUS didn’t sanction anything. A refuse to grant cert is not a decision, does not create binding precedent, and says nothing of the legality of the case being denied. So, no, it’s not law at all, Ivan. As much as you’d like it to be.

    3. avatar AnotherRacistMythDebunked says:

      The documented reality is that per capita white folks are more likely to kill black folks:

      “… any given black person is more than 2.75 times as likely as any given white person to be interracially murdered…”
      http://www.timwise.org/2013/08/race-crime-and-statistical-malpractice-how-the-right-manipulates-white-fear-with-bogus-data/

      And this is well known to educated folks.

      So naturally Excedrine typically evidence-free gibberish absurdly inverts the relationship and ludicrously avers a 2500% differential!

      Its painful to watch such dunskies struggle to meaningfully evaluate stats; yall can barely handle arithmetic, and fundamental social science concepts like differential offender rates and differential encounter rates are unknown to you. This dunce also struggles to grasp the meaning of “per capita” and he is so nearly illiterate that we can only guess how a doofus like this imagines “… and vice versa” changes the meaning of his claim about per capita interracial violence…

      Again the documented reality is that per capita white folks are more likely to kill black folks:

      “… any given black person is more than 2.75 times as likely as any given white person to be interracially murdered…”
      http://www.timwise.org/2013/08/race-crime-and-statistical-malpractice-how-the-right-manipulates-white-fear-with-bogus-data/

      1. avatar AnotherRacistLiberalProjects says:

        The documented reality is that per capita white folks are more likely to kill black folks:

        The actual documented reality is that, per-capita, black folks are more likely to kill white folks:

        https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6

        Any given white person is 2.26x as likely as any given black person to be inter-racially murdered.

        And that is what’s actually well-known to educated folks.

        So, naturally, Comrade More Dead Soldiers (we know it’s you) typically evidence-free gibberish absurdly inverts the relationship and ludicrously avers a 275% differential!

        It’s actually painful to watch such lefties struggle to meaningfully evaluate.. well.. anything. Y’all can barely handle readin’, writin’, n’ ‘rithmetic. Fundamental social “science” concepts (it’s a soft science versus an actual [hard] science like engineering — which you’re definitively unfamiliar with) like differential offender rates and differential encounter rates are actually beyond you. You, little dunce, also struggle to grasp the meaning of “per-capita” and you are so nearly illiterate that I can only guess how a dumbass like you images anything beyond what Rahcel MadCow herself mindlessly regurgitates without a second’s thought or hesistation on the idiot box…

        Again, the actual documented reality is that per-capita black folks are more likely to kill white folks, NOT the other way around.

        https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6

        Any given white person is 2.26x as likely as any given black person to be inter-racially murdered.

  13. avatar Anymouse says:

    Why settle for modeling Australia. If we’re going to emulate a country, let’s use Switzerland with 0.5 murders per 100k (.125 with firearms), which is 1/2 of Australia’s. I propose a full auto battle rifle for every person of fighing age, and a mandatory reserve of ammo that may not be used in an emergency.

  14. avatar rc says:

    That’s a great rational argument that would convince any moral, honest person of the correctness of your position. Unfortunately, gun grabbers are most definitely not moral, honest people. Oh sure, there are plenty of useful idiots among their number, but those members of the tribe are incapable of thinking for themselves. Thus, the nomenclatura think and speak for them. They are conniving, lying, power-hungry totalitarians who attack us not because we are wrong, but because we are right. They don’t care one whit about reducing crime or ’empowering’ people. That’s because they want to control people, not ’empower’ them. Everything they do is for their own, personal benefit at our expense. They are completely amoral. Now, try talking them out of that.

  15. avatar the phantom says:

    needless to say, the “incident” on which most of AUstralia’s current gun laws are based…the Port Arthur massacre (which occurred over 20yrs ago in Port Arthur, Tasmania), is, still, highly controversial…..
    a vanishingly small n° of AUssies still b’lv “the official story” of the PAM….
    with the traditional (white male/”hetero-sexual”) lone-nut-gun-man scenario…
    rather, there is, now, a vast array of ‘alternative’ theories all-the-way from an out-and-out-hoax to a partial hoax to a false flag incident utilising government-hired mercenaries…..
    (this YouTube is quite informative on the issue);
    whether or not this actually translates into legislative action resulting in the repeal of most if not all current Australian gun laws is some-what of a moot point…..
    although…the political situation in Australia is highly unstable with the traditional, ‘main-stream’ political parties (who all support the current gun laws) having only a tenuous hold on political power….
    (re: the recent Qld state election…where the main-stream parties just barely beat back a major challenge inspired, largely, by disgruntled shooters and ex-shooters)

  16. avatar Don Williams says:

    While the homicide rate for Australia (and England) are not as high as the United States, one fun fact is that assaults and rapes are more frequent in Australia and England than the United States – nearly twice as high for some crimes. So, where does that leave us?

  17. avatar DJ says:

    Don’t over think it with statistics. It won’t work because I’m not surrendering any weapons. Try kicking doors, see how that works. Why would you think we will wait for you to come to our houses if you start kicking doors?

    It’s called an armed revolution. My Oath still applies. Not afraid of government thugs or bureaucrats. In facts the bureaucrats become the targets.

  18. avatar RCC says:

    All idiot politicians and their stupid laws aside I still own more firearms in Australia than I did 21 years ago.

    Shooters are going up steadily in numbers. There are three new gun stores near where I live in the last year. Officially there are now more firearms than before the first “but back”.

    As stated here many times I don’t like our current laws and never will but there are still a lot more firearms than the antis make out.

  19. avatar the phantom says:

    Officially, there are now more firearms than before the first “but (sic) back”

    thirty-odd yrs ago, the fire-arm owner-ship rate was abt ⅕ adult AUssies;
    now: its less than 10%;
    if you think that there are more fire-arms now than b’fr the 1996-1997 gun grab, then, yr just plain wrong;
    SSAA research indicates up to TEN MILLION un-accounted-for/un-registered fire-arms @ the time of Howard’s gun laws… including almost TWO MILLION SKS rifles imported from China during the 1980s…..
    that is vastly more fire-arms than are now “officially registered”

  20. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    Funny, I’ve run those numbers as provided in the FBI Uniform Crime Report before and saw no bump in homicides circa 2004, when the Assault Weapons band Sunsetted, that time.

  21. avatar fosscad says:

    Gun Control DOESN’T work in Dingostan. There are TONS of “illegal” firearms regardless of the Aussie’s kangaroo gun laws. We all have the right to bear arms but the USA just has a constitutional amendment protecting said right. Things are absurd with all aspects of owning and making firearms in The Land of the Boomerang.

    1. avatar the phantom says:

      yeh…you’ve pretty much “hit-the-nail-on-the-head” there, champ!
      actually…the real purpose of the 1996-1997 gun-grab laws was not to get the “proscribed” guns (semi-auto rifles and shotties) but to ‘dry up’ their supply and to heavily restrict access to ammo’ by making it unavailable unless you had a difficult-to-get shooters license;
      TPTB (dot)au knew they would not get any-thing like the sum total of guns out there and knew that there would be massive non-compliance…as, indeed, occurred…and as, indeed, has occurred in parts of the US like NY, CT and Cal where such mil-style semi-autos have, also, been banned…
      how-ever…..guns are no use w/out ammo’ and most ammo’ has a ‘shelf-life’/use-by date of abt ¼-a-cntry…after that….its problematic..
      so…most ammo’ that would’v been “stashed” back-in-the-day is, now, nearing the end of its reliability…
      coincidentally, the gun-grabbers Down Under are, now, proposing legislation limiting ammo’ purchases to only those fire-arms that are registered to licensed shooters and, indeed, banning certain types of ammo’ altogether….

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “guns are no use w/out ammo’ and most ammo’ has a ‘shelf-life’/use-by date of abt ¼-a-cntry…after that….its problematic..”

        Yup.

        That’s why I’m taking an interest in cartridges developed before modern smokeless powders. .38 for pistols, straight-wall like .45-70, and .12 gauge. Black powder will be very difficult to strangle the manufacture of, as long as mammals urinate.

        Centerfire primers can be reloaded, *to a point*.

        Are you aware there are even .22lr reloading kits available? That include the tool and common chemicals to recharge the rimfire primer? (ground common glass is one of the ingredients)…

  22. avatar ozzallos says:

    Was talking to somebody just returning from an extended vacation visiting a friend in Australia, who bitterly noted that ever night there was reports of some violent crime or murder on the local news… In spite of the complete moratorium on firearms.

  23. avatar Tom in PA says:

    Because an armed populace will not willingly load themselves into boxcars.

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      An armed populace is also more apt to actively prevent others from being loaded into box cars, too.

  24. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

    Avoid the rush comrades!

    Instead of selling your guns for $100, my buyback program will generously pay you UP TO 40% value of your dangerous soon-to-be illegal firearm TODAY!

  25. avatar Jared says:

    Stop being politically correct!!!

    We know damn well a HUGE factor in violent crime in the U.S. It’s called demographics and so many are scared to death to talk about it.

    53% of violent crime is committed by 4% of the population.

    Wanna guess what that 4% is?

    It’s young black males.

  26. avatar cisco kid says:

    Australian gun style confiscation is already here. California has passed a law to confiscate all the semi-auto rifles over 2 years and the recent Supreme Court decision not to change the lower courts ruling on another assault rifle ban law completely trashed Scalia’s former ruling and totally trashed the Second Amendment. There is no way the Supreme Court is going to lose face and reverse itself and rule against California’s new confiscation law if it works itself any higher in the court system.

    As far as compliance the Far Right talks tough but one thing that they worship higher than guns or God is their money and few will risk losing their personal fortunes and spending years in the pen in O.J.’s old prison cell. I hear the toilet paper in the prison has the 2nd Amendment printed on each sheet.

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      Australian-style gun confiscation actually isn’t here, crisco skinhead. KKKommiefornia’s gun-grabbing law will not work and it won’t be enforced, or be enforceable. There is no way the SCoTUS is going to reverse itself and vote for KKKommiefornia’s new gun-grabbing law, either.

      As far as compliance, the Far left likes to talk tough. But, one thing they worship higher than the state or its politicians is their police — which they simultaneously decry as racist, fascist pigs. Few will be willing to risk their precious flat-floot’s lives once the lead really starts to fly. And it WILL fly.

      Oh, and civil mass disobedience IS already the order of the day in KKKommiefornia, as well ass ZOO York and DIS-connected-cut. And that gun control at its very core and in all of its implementations is, in fact, a racist, sexist, and classist agenda. So, too, ARE you all of these horrible things merely by dint of supporting it. And yes, yes you DO support it, too. ALL OF IT.

    2. avatar ollie says:

      California has the same murder rate as Texas, despite much stricter gun control.
      Gun control does NOT save lives, perps just use another method.
      Where there’s a will, there’s always a way.

  27. avatar Icabod says:

    Australia has had mass shootings. When you use the gun control nuts definition, there’s been a number.
    When you compare Australia to New Zealand, things get interesting. Both have the same culture, laws, and much the same history. When Australia did their gun grab, New Zealand didn’t did not. Funny, New Zealand hasn’t had mass shootings. Maybe the gun grab wasn’t a big factor?

  28. avatar MLee says:

    Everyone has it wrong. Why Australian Style Gun Control Wouldn’t Work in America is simple, it wasn’t Paul Hogan AKA Crocodile Dundee who raised a rifle above his head and proclaimed in words that will last an eternity:
    “From These Cold Dead Hands!
    *************************** AND MEANT IT *******************************

    1. avatar Toni says:

      lol i am an aussie and the only reason i bow to the laws at all is to be able to participate in the only sport i enjoy and to train as best i can for what i know is coming. otherwise i am right there with die hard freedom loving americans and have been since i was a child

  29. avatar Chris Morton says:

    Anti-gun cultist: “We’re going to take your guns!”

    Me: “Whom are you going to send to do it, and what will you do when they don’t come back?”

  30. avatar Joe R. says:

    “Why Australian Style Gun Control Wouldn’t Work in America”

    bc, as a country, we have a history of violence with those who press for it.

  31. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Didn’t care for the article…Really wouldn’t convince any “Anti-American, Anti-Freedom” Jerk-@€€ from wanting to “take-away your 2nd amendment rights…Or, any other so-called Constitutional Rights away from YOU…By means of an “Authoritarian Government and Police State…” That of course is the key to this BS…It’s all about the US Constitutional-Bill of Rights, stupid! Something which America has in the land of the free, and home of the brave that no other country has ever had in the “industrial free world…” THAT’S right! More rights that a “Subject of the crown in the UK !!!—(you know where that lead to…The Colonies, the Boston Tea party, US kicking the Asses of the Redcoats, and the American Revolutionary War! No more Monarchy in the USA!)—More rights than a group of ex-patroit , subjects of the Crown…The Australians…( set aloft on a very large island used as a Penal Colony–Remember Botany Bay…And No, not the one with Capt. KIRK ! ) So, as We hold these Rights and Liberties self evident…..Others DO NOT !!!! For than we have no Due process of law, or any of it’s protections set in paper as Guidelines for the Government….

  32. Define work.

    If by “work”, you mean increasing the number of black men in prison, Australian-style gun control would almost certainly “work”.

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      Unfortunately, that wouldn’t be a bug, either, but a feature.

      That’s why gun control is racist.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email