qballrail

Whenever I receive something like this, I usually accept it with an amount of skepticism. While it may be a mixture of truths and inaccuracies, the general idea is there. But as with anything sent via the Internet, check the facts. Snopes.com is a good source while even that, in and of itself is still up to interperetation…

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 and
assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was
expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns....' You
won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or
members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the
hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control
laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's too late!
Will you be one of the sheep to turn yours in?
WHY? You will need it.

What's your take on this?

XDmFanatic

I am skeptical. One can find articles that argue the gun buy-back has no affect. It is too easy to take statistical data out of context and make it fit ones desired outcome. See for instance <http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html>

"Australia Assault Rate History

Looking at the graph of the Australian assault rates from 1991 through 2004, it appears that something bad was at work in Australia until near the end of that period. The assault rate increased every year at a high rate. (And, in fact, for many years preceding.) Note, too, that the rates do not vary much from the basic trend. This means that the data are not affected by chance as much as it is by underlying causes. The relationship seen is a reliable one.

It is true, as claimed by gun possession advocates, that the assault rate has increased a lot since the ban/buyback. But the ban/buyback cannot be blamed for this since the rate was increasing at essentially the same rate before the ban/buyback (and the other changes) began. The rate did not rise as fast for '99 and 2000, but then rose even faster than before for '01 and '02. The ban/buyback did not have a definite effect of any kind on the assault rate—neither improving it nor making it worse. It is possible that the small declines for '99 and 2000 were caused by the ban/buyback and other changes made at the same time. But, if so, something must have completely counteracted that in '01 and '02."

qballrail

One thing I found out is that Australia's Constitution does not have such an Amendment allowing the right to bear arms. Correct me if I'm wrong and someone undoubtedly will. But, yeah, people will take almost anything to twist into what they want it to say.

However, it still illustrates how strongly some feel about this. I know it has stemmed from many different circumstances. I'm really interested to hear everyone elses take on this too.

But, hey, whaddya think about da Prez's Money Grab n' Go in the middle of TWO consecutive rush hours? Holy cow what a prick. I'm not so much pisssed about his money grab, but the fact that it was planned so it screwed up rush hour in Seattle TWICE in a row. This guy thinks hes a freakin KING?

GixxerPete

Since when has ANY president ever set their schedule around local rush hours? Or have you conveniently forgotten all the traffic snarls any time Bush was in town?

qballrail

Well, since I wasn't living up here then, no, I don't remember...I've "conveniently forgotten." Seriously, when I was living in Vegas, most of the time, the president's motorcade actually was not in rush hour... it was about noon when he arrived and departed.

GixxerPete

It's a disaster anytime the prez, whoever it is shows up. Seattle traffic sucks as it is, anything extra (like a b-ball/soccer game) make it horrible, and the prez makes it well, a disaster.

qballrail

Yep. That it does.

richardlpalmer

I remember reading an almost duplicate of this but it was from a UK person. Basically it pointed out how now it's impossible to get their gun rights reinstated -- that once you let them go, that's it.

So seeing this Aussie version makes me even more suspicious that neither were credible.

BigStick

While I agree with the premise and purpose of the email, I think the Ausi gun ban happened back in the late 90s.

I would venture to say that this is just getting recycled and slapping Obama's name at the end since he is the current figurehead.