Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Guns / Banning Them
#1
Found the following very interesting

Australian Gun Law Update

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

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
Reply
#2
Absolute crap and obviously sent as spam by someone in America with association with the gun lobby. For beginners, 'Yanks' is a derogatory term now. 'Yanks' was a WWII thing. I haven't heard it in common usage in Australia since the 1950s, and hardly even during Vietnam. If I was genuinely trying to send a message to the American people I most certainly wouldn't be starting out with "Hi Yanks".

Gun ownership is alive and well in Australia for anyone with a legitimate need including most forms of recreational shooting. What we don't have are military weapons in the community and the unregulated ownership you see in America. Gun ownership in Australia and in most other countries is, and always has been, different to the gun culture of the US. I've had some pretty spirited debates with Americans over gun ownership in the past and prefer to keep out of it to be honest.

For anyone interested ... http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
Reply
#3
Appreciate your correction on that post. It came from an AOL post on the subject and i didn't know how factual it actually was, so I posted it here thinking you would weigh in on the subject. Thanks again for the clarification.

In my opinion and coming from a law enforcement background, all the rhetoric about gun control and banning guns is a futile effort at best. it's like closing the barn door after the horse ran away. There are too many guns, already on the street, that can be accessed by anyone looking to do harm. I realize that the latest shooting attacker was able to purchase his weapons legally and sadly, there was no way for anybody to see into his mind. He had over 13 weapons, but in the attack he used only one, even though he had several on his person. So the actual number of weapons was not relevant.

Any type of banning or extra stringent curtailment of obtaining legal weapons, will only introduce a new form of prohibition, just like they attempted with liquor. The undesirables of society would have a field day, much like the drug trade that's on going. Is there a possible solution, I can't envision one that would be compliant by everyone, but who knows what's down the road. But as I said prior, there's just too many guns already out there, legal and not legal.
Reply
#4
There is a fundamental difference here too regarding handguns. They were effectively banned back in about 1978, not that they were readily available even then. Back in the 50s and even later we had long arms on open display much the same as you have. I first had to register my rifle back in the early to mid 70s. Somewhere in the next decade I had to apply for a licence with some simple training. After we had the mass shooting at Port Aurthur in 1996, military style weapons, semi automatics and large capacity magazines were banned and the owners compensated. Most people simply bought a new weapon that complied with the new laws so although there was a drop in the number of weapons, the number climbed back up. This is one of the statistics that the gun lobby use to discount the effect of our buy back. They conveniently forget that it wasn't the purpose of the buyback to take away people's legal right to have a gun.

Prohibition failed because it was a dumb law that was never going to succeed. Illicit drug control is heading the same way, not because it is dumb but because so many people are prepared to break the law. Removing guns from the community is pretty much the same but controlling the type of weapons available, their use and ownership is something that could be achieved over time.

Criminals will always have access to weapons despite any laws you can pass. We see your gun lobby mantra that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" and shake our collective heads. For us, the good guy with a gun is the police officer.

It took about 30 years to implement the changes to our gun ownership laws and is now nearly 45 years since the ownership control started. We still have guns and we still have people hunting and shooting if that is their passion, just a different gun culture to that of the U.S.

If the U.S. people wanted to change things I believe it could be done, just not in the short term.
Reply
#5
Criminals will always have access to weapons despite any laws you can pass. We see your gun lobby mantra that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" and shake our collective heads. For us, the good guy with a gun is the police officer.

While I agree with that statement, our problem here, at least from my perspective, is that police in general are more of response factor after the fact. That being the equation, personal self defense became a primary attribute. The general populace greatly outnumber first res-ponders and in some rural areas it can be upwards of more than a half hour or more for help to arrive. In fact even in urban areas, police can / do get overwhelmed with calls and most departments are grossly under manned. A perfect example is here in OKC. On any given shift, there can be possibly 6 officers, maybe 7, including supervisors, that have to cover a fairly extensive area that has a fairly good sized population. If something (a felony) perchance happens, then at least half of the officers will respond for backup and area coverage. That leaves only 3 or 4 officers to safeguard the remaining large area that has been left uncovered. At last estimate, we were / are in need of an additional 100 to 200 officers to come up to required safety levels and fill open vacancies from retirements and line of duty injuries. Will we ever get those additional officers, not really, for two reasons. 1) Budget restraints and 2) There's just not that many seeking a LE career and in truth, there's not that many young people that can qualify and pass the background check.

As much as we, the USA, needs to safeguard ourselves from guns, it just will not happen via laws being passed or attempting to have total government oversight. We have so many laws now on the books that are not or can't be enforced, that creating new ones is only offering lip service for politicians. I honestly don't know how we could change things, even if we wanted too. Now this may sound contrary to what's been observed and discussed, but the vast majority of people in the country don't have a gun. On the other hand, we have plenty of folks that do have a weapon, but sadly most of them are the bad guys. There has been a number of instances were the police have responded to a major felony call, only to show up and be out gunned. Those particular weapons used by the bad guys were fully automatic and those weapons are not available for purchase by the general law abiding public. I realize that all this does is just re-enforce the need for some serious gun control, but as was stated prior, it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle.
Reply
#6
(10-05-2015, 06:37 PM)K-man Wrote: Criminals will always have access to weapons despite any laws you can pass.

This is correct.

Quote:We see your gun lobby mantra that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" and shake our collective heads. For us, the good guy with a gun is the police officer.

Okay, I'm going to jump in here and debate this with you.  And I'd like to note that when I say you or you're it is general and not aimed at you specifically.  So what you're basically saying is this, "the only way to stop a bad guy is a police officer".  So you've given up personal responsibility and are now depending upon an organization that is;
  • Understaffed.
  • Rarely present at the actual time they are needed.
  • Reactive and not proactive.
  • Generally not responsible for your personal protection.
There is a saying that when seconds count the police are minutes away.  That is quite true.  Occasionally you'll have an officer driving by when something kicks off, but by and large police are reactionary and not proactive.  That's just simple numbers.  A crime is committed, the police are called and depending upon the 'zone' they patrol the response time differs. 

A person is their own first line of defense.  They are the one that is there, on scene at the time of the attack.  It is there responsibility first and foremost.  As someone in L.E. I shake my head at people that shirk their personal responsibility and foster it upon me.  Too be honest, it irks me.  I'm not your bodyguard.  I'm not there to walk the perimeter of your house at night.  In some 'zones' there may be one of me and 5000 of you

Now I fully understand that other countries don't have the freedoms that we have here in regards to personal gun ownership.  And that folks in other countries often get their information from the main stream media from this and other countries.  Not the best source of information.  The mainstream media (what we call the alphabet news sources i.e. NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC etc) are slanted towards one specific agenda (socialist).  Socialist countries don't want their population armed.  Those with a socialist agenda don't want people with firearms.  These news outlets (and anti-gun organizations) will skew numbers to forward their agenda.  For example, let's say they come out with a number of 2000 people that were killed last year due to 'gun violence'.  On the surface that sounds terrible.  They make it sound like kids getting their dads gun or a husband shooting his wife or any number of horrific incidents.  And those things do happen unfortunately.  However, the lion's share of that 2000 shooting were police action shootings (cops shooting bad guys) or law abiding citizens lawfully defending themselves with a firearm.  I don't consider either to be 'gun violence).  Some of that number will be gang members shooting each other as well.  What the liberal media is slow to report are the large number of private citizens that successfully and lawfully defend themselves using a firearm.  That doesn't advance the narrative. 

Gun control is a liberal 'talking point'.  Case in point;  Chicago is a large city in America.  It has the most gun control of any city in the country.  It has the highest murder rate of any city in the country.  On the flip side, there are towns in America that have laws on the books that if you are a law abiding adult (no felony record) you WILL own a firearm, period.  The crime rates in these towns are just above 0% as far as violent crimes.  States that have open or concealed carry have lower crime rates than states that restrict (and those restrictions are unconstitutional in most cases). 

According to a study published by the Crime Prevention Research Center;

  • The number of concealed handgun permits is increasing at an ever-increasing rate. Over the past year, 1.7 million additional new permits have been issued—a 15.4% increase in one single year. This is the largest-ever single-year increase in the number of concealed handgun permits.
  • 5.2% of the total adult population has a permit.
  • Five states now have more than 10% of their adult population with concealed handgun permits.
  • In ten states, a permit is no longer required to carry in all or virtually all of the state. This is a major reason why legal carrying handguns is growing so much faster than the number of permits.
  • Since 2007, permits for women have increased by 270% and for men by 156%.
  • Some evidence suggests that permit holding by minorities is increasing more than twice as fast as for whites.
  • Between 2007 and 2014, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.2 (preliminary estimates) per 100,000. This represents a 25% drop in the murder rate at the same time that the percentage of the adult population with permits soared by 156%. Overall, violent crime also fell by 25 percent over that period of time.
  • States with the largest increase in permits have seen the largest relative drops in murder rates.
  • Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors or felonies at one-sixth the rate that police officers are convicted.
Now I 'get' that many folks in other countries have not had the opportunity in regards to firearms that many Americans have had.  I 'get' that many folks look at a gun like a two-headed snake.  Lots of folks in this country do as well.  Friends of ours just retired from New York state and moved to our state.  New York is quite restrictive with some draconian laws that don't work and as a result, NY has a high crime rate.  The husband had never even held a firearm.  It was a foreign concept to him.  Well, I train Deputies in the proper use of a firearm and I've trained many private citizens as well.  I trained him and how they have decided to purchase their own firearm for self-defense.  I've trained with firearms since 1985.  I've carried daily since 1990.  A firearm is a tool like a flashlight or screw driver. 

If you have a firearm you have options.  If you don't have a firearm your a 'victim in waiting'.  Do crazy people do stupid things?  Yes, can't stop that.  Sometimes they do so with a firearm.  Sometimes with a vehicle.  Anything can be misused.  That should have absolutely no affect on the right or ability of a law abiding citizen who doesn't do stupid stuff.
Two thousand years ago wise men sought Christ, wise men still do.

Techniques are situational, principles are universal.

Fast as the wind, quiet as the forest, aggressive as fire, and immovable as a mountain.

He who gets there first with the most...wins!

Minimal force may not be minimum force!

We don't rise to the occasion...we sink to the level of our training.


Reply
#7
The Armed Citizen
Two thousand years ago wise men sought Christ, wise men still do.

Techniques are situational, principles are universal.

Fast as the wind, quiet as the forest, aggressive as fire, and immovable as a mountain.

He who gets there first with the most...wins!

Minimal force may not be minimum force!

We don't rise to the occasion...we sink to the level of our training.


Reply
#8
Today I Placed my Smith & Wesson .357 Mag revolver on the table right next to my front door. I left 6 cartridges beside it, then left it alone and went about my business.

While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the neighbor's son across the street mowed the yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the "stop" sign near the front of my house.

After about an hour, I checked on the gun. It was quietly sitting there, right where I had left it. It had not moved itself outside. It had not killed anyone. Certainly, even with the Numerous opportunities it had presented to do that. In fact, it had not even loaded itself.

Well you can imagine my surprise, with all the hype by the Left and the media about how dangerous guns are and How They kill people. Either the media is wrong or I'm in possession of the laziest gun in the world.

The United States is 3rd in Murders Throughout The World. But if you take out just 5 'left-wing' cities: Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, St Louis and New Orleans -- the United States is 4th from the bottom, in the ENTIRE World, for Murders.

These 5 Cities are controlled by Democrats. They also have The Toughest Gun Control Laws in the USA.

It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data, right?

Well, I'm off to check on my spoons. I hear they 're making people fat.

Just saying...
Reply
#9
(07-14-2016, 01:49 PM)sidekick Wrote: The United States is 3rd in Murders Throughout The World. But if you take out just 5 'left-wing' cities: Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, St Louis and New Orleans -- the United States is 4th from the bottom, in the ENTIRE World, for Murders.

These 5 Cities are controlled by Democrats. They also have The Toughest Gun Control Laws in the USA.

It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data, right?

Well, I'm off to check on my spoons. I hear they 're making people fat.

Just saying...


Much can be drawn from the realities of gun ownership.  The cities listed above have the highest % of disregard for the 2nd Amendment.  That is simple fact.  They have the highest murder/violent crime rate.  That is a simple fact.  Another simple fact is that each state that allows either/both concealed carry/open carry the murder/viotent crime rate drops.  Forget politics, that is simply hard data.  

A firearm in the hands of a law abiding citizen has never been an issue.  And again, simple fact, more law abiding citizens shoot more criminals per year than the police.  Therefore regulating the ownership of firearms for the private citizen will NOT affect the criminal who by definition does not obey the law.  Those regulations are designed with an different agenda in mind.  Has nothing to do with stopping crime.  Lastly, an active shooter is not a 'gun' problem, it is a criminal/terrorist problem.
Two thousand years ago wise men sought Christ, wise men still do.

Techniques are situational, principles are universal.

Fast as the wind, quiet as the forest, aggressive as fire, and immovable as a mountain.

He who gets there first with the most...wins!

Minimal force may not be minimum force!

We don't rise to the occasion...we sink to the level of our training.


Reply
#10
Above you'll see a link to the Armed Citizen.  I've place this video in that thread but wanted to share it here as well:





Now this woman is alive solely because she had the second amendment and utilized the right.  Put this same scenario in a country that supposedly has strict gun control and the outcome would be quite different.  First, even in countries with strict gun control the criminal can still get a gun if they desire.  The fact that they are criminals is an automatic dismissal of the law.  Secondly, even if they didn't have guns it was three men vs. this one woman.  Again, it's a bad outcome for her.
Two thousand years ago wise men sought Christ, wise men still do.

Techniques are situational, principles are universal.

Fast as the wind, quiet as the forest, aggressive as fire, and immovable as a mountain.

He who gets there first with the most...wins!

Minimal force may not be minimum force!

We don't rise to the occasion...we sink to the level of our training.


Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)