ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Mailvox: Aussie logic

Freddy suggests that America should follow Australia's example in fighting crime by banning guns:
Australia has very strict gun laws following several mass shootings. People get shot but mainly as a result of gangs who fight their vendettas out between themselves. It is rare for people to shot in domestic violence or random attacks. Most people don't carry or own guns. Americans would do well to consider that many non Americans think it is insane to be able to buy a firearm off the counter.
Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.

In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.


So, if the USA follows Australia's lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

I wonder why that might be?

Labels: ,

70 Comments:

Anonymous Stilicho July 22, 2012 10:53 AM  

Clearly they need more gun control laws and more draconian enforcement. Why, I'll bet there are still some rusty old Enfields and lend-lease Springfields lying around in the attics of Brits whose great grandfathers were in the Home Guard--a dangerous situation if ever there was one: it could conceivably be used to shoot a member of Her Majesty's Gov't or one of Her Majesty's diverse subjects who was trying to rob or assault the owner.

Anonymous MendoScot July 22, 2012 11:00 AM  

I wonder why that might be?

Because they're English and Australian, obviously. The best of Britain emigrated - except to Australia which got the criminals. I don't think arming the sheep-shaggers or the roo-pounders is a good idea; lack of self control bodes ill for good gun control.

Blogger JohnG July 22, 2012 11:09 AM  

I think the story with the Brits goes that the best of them were killed in WWI and WWII.

The unfortunate part about the statistics is that the gun grabbers and libtards in general don't care about the statistics, it contradicts their ideology. Some shrink was on a radio show the other day and was talking about Libs and cognitive dissonance when they hear something factual that goes counter to what they think. Simply easier to ignore the facts/truth. What I would like to know if this is the same as it ever was or if that is more a recent phenomena.

Anonymous aero July 22, 2012 11:33 AM  

A well armed government will kill more of its own unarmed people. Then all the Idiots or terrorist with guns have or ever will do.

Anonymous David July 22, 2012 11:56 AM  

The only explanation for why people like Freddy continue to make this argument is that they are completely clueless about the facts and uninformed. Freddy, when you can come up with a gun ban that actually bans guns from the criminals who ignore gun bans...let us know.

Anonymous Godfrey July 22, 2012 12:05 PM  

It's not about crime, it's about control. They wouldn't want the slaves to be armed.

Anonymous Stryker July 22, 2012 12:12 PM  

Gun control and an outright ban on guns is nothing more than political posturing. There will always be guns in this country and people will always own them or have access to them.

Drugs are illegal and we have been engaged in a ‘war’ against them for forty years. I can take you any day of the week to streets in LA, Orange County, or out in Riverside that are open air drug markets. Gang members whistle or wave at cars, often flashing their bags of various substances if you look their way. And people talk seriously about ‘banning’ or ‘controlling’ guns. Its all BS.

These laws will only deter those prone to follow the law or a percentage of timid gun owners that could be convinced to give their guns up. Simultaneously, a very lucrative black/grey market will spring up enriching those who can get guns and ammo or reloading supplies.

Anonymous Mr Green Man July 22, 2012 12:13 PM  

He probably thinks our taxes are too low, too.

Anonymous aero July 22, 2012 12:15 PM  

Guns are band in Chicago. The gangsters got guns and the police and the government does nothing. However if you try to protect your home from the gangsters with a gun, the police and government will be all over you.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 22, 2012 12:20 PM  

Has the murder rate decreased because of improved trauma control?

That is, a violent attack prior to 1995 would probably have killed the victim, but now just leaves a severely crippled person, but not a dead person. Also, if the victim lives for a year, it seems, it is not classified as murder.

Also, has the rate decreased because some deaths are no longer being classified as murder? Some police forces like to make the statistics look better than they are.

Anonymous Noah B. July 22, 2012 12:26 PM  

It is just sad and pathetic to see collectivists worshiping the state as though it were some kind of god, when history has mercilessly shown that government seldom does anything well.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 22, 2012 12:29 PM  

Guns are band in Chicago.

Band on the gun.

The gangsters got guns and the police and the government does nothing. However if you try to protect your home from the gangsters with a gun, the police and government will be all over you.

Does that not suggest collusion? The government has disarmed the citizens of Chicago to make life easier for the criminals, in and out of government.

Blogger Tim July 22, 2012 12:31 PM  

Clearly, the problem of with shootings in gun free zones comes from the gun free zone signs not being big enough. If the signs were bigger these shooting wouldn't happen.

Anonymous Gen. Kong July 22, 2012 12:42 PM  

The other skeptic: Does that not suggest collusion?

Perhaps Rahm had a big gang confab up there in windbreak city - bringing together the crips, bloods, vice lords, MS-13, zetas, and (the biggest gang of all): the badge gang. The call this new and improved grand alliance "the outfit" as I understand it.

Anonymous Noah B. July 22, 2012 12:45 PM  

"Does that not suggest collusion? The government has disarmed the citizens of Chicago to make life easier for the criminals, in and out of government."

Mostly, it's cowardice. It's much easier for the Chicago PD to go after a homeowner who has defended himself -- such a person isn't likely to shoot at police. Gang members and career criminals are a different story.

It's the same reason the ATF would rather go after innocent gun store owners in New Mexico than actually go after the drug cartels' associates in the US.

Anonymous JI July 22, 2012 12:47 PM  

I thought Australia was a country of real men until they whimpered like wounded puppies and turned in their guns to their masters.

Australia will eventually have a vicious nut case who goes on a rampage with a gun or something else equally effective. Every nation, no matter how politically corrected and leftist, is vulnerable to such things.

Anonymous aero July 22, 2012 12:47 PM  

When the government bands guns. There will be three groups of people that will be able to have them. Blacks, Mexicans and Muslims, the doesn't want to show any discrimination against them.

Anonymous Bruno July 22, 2012 1:02 PM  

If you care for a Brazilian perspective:

Up until 2006, if I recall it correctly, gun ownership was already severely restricted.in Brazil. Although anyone could apply for a permit, one needed an authorization from the Policia Federal and a good reason. Then the government started campaigning for a hardening on ownership (the Desarmamento), passed stricter laws and legitimated it in a referendum. Desarmamento won and today a civilian can only have a (limited caliber) weapon (although not carry it) if he has a very good reason such as living in an isolated place.

The result? Nothing really changed, as bandidos still get their weapons illegally from neighbouring Paraguay and armed robbery is as common as ever - I have been a victim myself. Only the, as we say, cidadão de bem (well meaning citizen) ended up affected by the prohibition. Furthermore, the city of Sao Paulo has witnessed in the last year a new and now ominous form of crime - the arrastão. Arrastoes, which have been terrifying pizzerias, bars ans restaurants is a mix of flash mob and armed robbery. Armed gangs stop by, steal everyones belongings in 5-10 min and are away before anyone can even call the police.

Come to think of it, an arrastão is almost a logical consequence of the prohibition.

Anonymous aero July 22, 2012 1:02 PM  

Remembering Waco. It was the government that burned a church with women and children inside.
As a sixty ton tank shakes the ground of the wooden structure then rams it making the kerosine lantern fall to the ground igniting the clothes of the young children

What the liberal government did to the people at the Branch Davidian They called it a violation of human rights when George Bush s government did it to the Muslims

Anonymous kh123 July 22, 2012 1:14 PM  

"Come to think of it, an arrastão is almost a logical consequence of the [gun] prohibition."

Resident Brady Bill advocates: Any of you want to field this one?

Anonymous kh123 July 22, 2012 1:24 PM  

Given what I've read so far about the Colorado shooting, the logical next step by the PTB would be to tighten the reins on ammo purchasing over the net.

Someone on one of the threads asked "How does an unemployed college student buy $20,000 worth of gear?" Someone replied "Credit card."

Not weighing in either way if this was a false flag op or not, it's interesting that the credit card company didn't flag and put a hold on these purchases simply on the amount spent, over the internet or otherwise. Unless this kid had incredibly good credit buying thousands of dollars of gear every month, I'd figure most banks would try to get in touch with the card holder to verify transactions, especially if they're out of the ordinary from what he'd usually purchase previous.

Anonymous Bruno July 22, 2012 1:27 PM  

I forgot to mention arrastoes also happen in middle class apartment buildings (top middle class usually has better security, such as made by Haganá, security company with ex-Mossad members). The gang will usually gets in through the underground garage, in a residents car or a similar one with cold (fake) plates, surrender the door man and steal apartments one by one. Any resident coming in is also surrendered at the entrance. Residential arrastoes happen at least once a month in Sao Paulo.

While I'm aware Brazil and America differ in more ways than gun ownership, I can't help thinking being forbidden to have a gun doesn't contribute to all that.

Anonymous Noah B. July 22, 2012 1:45 PM  

Here's one for the collectivists.

Did federal grant money buy the weapons that were used in the Aurora mass killing?

If so, then clearly the answer is to eliminate government grants for education.

Anonymous aero July 22, 2012 2:00 PM  

Clearly the answer is to not let the smoke and mirrors of twisted facts from conspiracy nuts guide your judgement.

Anonymous The OASF July 22, 2012 2:23 PM  

I happen to think that a blanket ban on guns via our Feral Gubbermint would be an outstanding idea.

Because then like drugs, guns will be sold on every corner and prices that simply can't be refused. It's the ultimate free market solution that makes everyone happy - The gun enthusiasts get their beloved ban and the gun nuts get their fix and we'll all probably be much safer from violent criminals, most notably the Police.

Anonymous paradox July 22, 2012 2:37 PM  

The is a perfect example of why immigration from anti-gun countries should be banned. Foreigners like Freddy, knowing nothing about American History and guns, move to the US and then vote anti-gun arse holes into office.

Anonymous Russell July 22, 2012 2:44 PM  

"How does an unemployed college student buy $20,000 worth of gear?"

Student loans?

Anonymous The OASF July 22, 2012 2:57 PM  

"How does an unemployed college student buy $20,000 worth of gear?"

I'd say more like $40,000... if you take into account all of the explosives and triggering devices at the apartment. Just saying...

Anonymous Noah B. July 22, 2012 3:37 PM  

I doubt all the booby traps would have cost $20,000, but still, student loans and grants would have been the easiest place for a student to get that much money. All he would have had to do is spend the money on something else once he got it. With student loans, no one is really watching to see that the money gets spent on tuition and books.

Anonymous Stilicho July 22, 2012 4:00 PM  

It is just sad and pathetic to see collectivists worshiping the state as though it were some kind of god, when history has mercilessly shown that government seldom does anything well.

It is their god. Consider this: All this passionate praise of the supereminence of government action is but a poor disguise for the individual interventionists self-deification. The great god State is a great god only because it is expected to do exclusively what the individual advocate of interventionism wants to see achieved.
Ludwig Von Mises

And this:Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
Aleister Crowley

See a pattern?

Anonymous Freddy July 22, 2012 4:02 PM  

just to clear things up Vox....that freddy is not the Freddy.


Banning guns in no way will stop the evil intentions of those who wish to excercise their autonomy to take away anothers...whether it be with a gun or a knife or their hands.

Anonymous Rantor July 22, 2012 4:14 PM  

Shall issue CC states in the US have a 25% lower murder rate than states with more restrictive policies... not that lower murder rates mean anything to the liberal fascist gun banners.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 22, 2012 4:27 PM  

In any large population there will always be a few murderously unhinged individuals like the Colorado shooter. A conspiracy nut might believe that governments seek out such people for various purposes.

Also, in any large population there will always be a few highly charismatic people. A conspiracy nut might believe that governments would want to eliminate any that show signs of going off the reservation. Eg, MLK, David Koresh, ...

I try to keep my paranoia under control.

Anonymous yukonyon July 22, 2012 4:30 PM  

Posted this in another discussion, but you know how people in this crowd tend to drop the discussion after a couple of days, and this is a fresh story

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/sen-feinstein-bad-time-to-press-gun-control/

Anonymous The other skeptic July 22, 2012 4:32 PM  

Surely the IMF would want to delay any bankruptcy event in the EU until after the election

The one in November, that is. Can't this administration get anything under control?

Anonymous Suomynona July 22, 2012 4:40 PM  

Like Pavlov's dog, whenever these good little statist drones hear the word gun, the immediate and only thought their brains are permitted is: Guns are BAD!! No statistics, no logic, no history, no amount of common sense can change their neural pathway. Attempting to reason with idiots like Freddy is futile.

I'm glad Freddy feels so safe from those terrible guns. He's just too stupid too realize that the same government he thinks is protecting him wouldn't hesitate one second to use their guns on him should he fail to conform to their rules, like pay that new Carbon Tax it recently imposed on its people. Freddy believes getting disarmed, robbed and raped is for his own good - as long as his nanny government is doing it.

The day every personnel, at every single level of government is disarmed, is the day the government may ask the same from its citizens. After all, if everyone is disarmed, why would they need guns?

Blogger Giraffe July 22, 2012 4:54 PM  

The guy knew how to rig his apartment with explosives. Kept the police scratching their heads for a couple days.

Taking away his guns might cause him to resort to even more lethal means.

Anonymous kh123 July 22, 2012 6:03 PM  

From the previous thread:

"Australia was never a heavily armed nation to begin with, so gun control and gun buy-back was not going to cause a precipitous change in gun violence to begin with."

Where is the Great Martini, anyhow.

Blogger Dan Hewitt July 22, 2012 6:04 PM  

"..envision John Lott addressing the Million Mom March on 'more guns, less crime.' Even if his empirical work were impeccable, it is hard to see more than a handful of crusaders for gun control exclaiming, 'Oops, who would have guessed?' Indeed, few would concede, 'This issue is more complicated than I thought; I'll stop protesting until I get a better grip.' Or consider explaining the benefits of free trade to globalization protestors. A few might gain new insight into comparative advantage and economic development. Yet is anyone naive enough to suppose that he could convince a majority?
My point is not that real-world evidence is one-sided (though it often is!). Rather, my point is that if the evidence were one-sided, the fraction convinced would not rise to 100% with all the relevant information. Their emotional attachment to their beliefs is too intense: 'Don't confuse me with the facts.'"

The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies (Bryan Caplan)

Anonymous JFK Loves You! He really does (or did) July 22, 2012 6:09 PM  

Time to learn about State Department Publication 7277..

And, the details of Public Law 87-297..

"In Stage II, the remaining one-half of our armed forces is then turned over to this same Security Council of the United Nations. The person in charge of the merged armies must, by agreement, always be a RUSSIAN."

Collectivists, appear via nature to be immune to logic and sound statistics. Don't waste your time with such. These types are beyond denial. Some zombies simply cannot be reached, except for the opportunity that one can literally smack them in the head, to dislodge said programming... (otherwise, when confronted, may be forced to shoot them in the head)

Anonymous The other skeptic July 22, 2012 6:44 PM  

A non-video version of the stuff about real intent of the UN Small Arms Treaty

Anonymous TheExpat July 22, 2012 7:01 PM  

I don't think arming the sheep-shaggers or the roo-pounders is a good idea; lack of self control bodes ill for good gun control.

Funny thing about widespread gun ownership by the citizenry and lack of self control - the problem soon sorts itself out as the criminals either a) learn that crime really doesn't pay, or b) die young. Society itself also tends to become more civil, as it only takes a few examples for even the unthinking to start thinking.

The Not so Wild, Wild West

The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth vs. Reality.

Anonymous Stilicho July 22, 2012 7:05 PM  

OT: my Corps is getting copified. What a shame.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MARINES_LAW_ENFORCEMENT_BATTALION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-07-22-17-33-46sion

Anonymous Allabaster July 22, 2012 7:15 PM  

As a resident Australian I can attest to the stupidity of our gun laws. They have banned anything self loading and made a register of everything else.
Needless to say, the criminals still can get their hands on anything they want.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 22, 2012 8:08 PM  


Needless to say, the criminals still can get their hands on anything they want.


Oh no, I am sure that is not true. I am sure they respect the law!

Anonymous No_Limit_Bubba™ July 22, 2012 9:01 PM  

Deep down in the darkness of their collectivist hearts, even most idiot liberals must realise, that had they been in that theater, it would have been awful nice if some Bernie Goetz type had stood up and shot that joker right in the face.

Anonymous Suomynona July 22, 2012 9:20 PM  

I imagine there are far more alcohol-related deaths in Australia than from gun violence here in the US, not to mention the humongous cost of health care for the various ill effects of a pickled liver, not to mention the millions of hours of lost production due to hangovers. I really think their government should enact a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol. It's for their own good. It would serve them right for being such pussies.

Anonymous Joe Doakes, Como Park July 22, 2012 10:06 PM  

There's an old saying - when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. And Australia, as everyone knows, it entirely peopled with outlaws.

Therefore clearly, I cannot chose the gun-ban policy in front of you.

Anonymous TheExpat July 22, 2012 10:23 PM  

While this post deals mainly with guns control and civilian violence, here are a few stats on gun control and government violence:

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1935 China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1956 Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1964 Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1970 Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Anonymous Johnycomelately July 22, 2012 11:47 PM  

It's Interesting to note Australia banned semi automatics after a borderline retard with an IQ of 60 managed to execute 35 people, wound 22, disable two vehicles (shot their engine blocks) and their drivers, send the local police on a fake drug bust and leave the scene using a classic butterfly maneuver creating diversions along the way. All that using just 72 rounds, go figure.

Pretty good for someone who was so incapable of taking care of himself an acquaintance bequeathed him her property because she was afraid he'd be on the streets.

Anonymous Idle Spectator July 23, 2012 12:48 AM  

Shouldn't the lesson there be you ban retards?

Anonymous Anonymous July 23, 2012 2:05 AM  

"Australia will eventually have a vicious nut case who goes on a rampage with a gun or something else equally effective."

We already had one, thats why those bullshit gun laws were rammed through.

Anyway, despite the image of Aus being a country full of roughnecks its a very urban place, with most of the population being cowardly latte drinkers.

Australia isn't a democracy and hasn't been for a long time. The pretense of democracy is thinly veiled and slipping every day. The carbon tax being rammed down our throats is the last example of that.

Anonymous VryeDenker July 23, 2012 6:54 AM  

Why didn't someone get up and demand their right to a gun-free environment be respected?

Anonymous Nic July 23, 2012 8:03 AM  

Ummm... yes we had the Port Arthur massacre but there has not been one since then. I'm not claiming that that outcome justifies the change in the laws. But, the United States seems to have a new massacre where multiple people die from gun shots every few months. For example high-school massacres. These aren't one-off events.

Also: "So, if the USA follows Australia's lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape."

That's not a logical statement, one doesn't follow the other since the starting place was different to begin with. There are so many variables in that scenario that to state that the USA should expect a corresponding increase does not really make sense. For example, Australia never had a high rate of gun ownership nor a 'right to bare arms'; "taking our guns away" would have mostly affected farmers in rural areas.

Blogger (No Name) July 23, 2012 8:23 AM  

The folly of all gun control legislation is that it presumes criminals will suddenly decide to follow the law.

Anonymous Kurt July 23, 2012 9:19 AM  

Nice rationalizations from Nic at 8:03, but as someone mentioned earlier, the problem at hand is one of mental illness, not guns. Gun control in the US wouldn't do any more to stop crime than it's done in Australia or anywhere else. Is any functioning human really stupid enough to believe that a determined psycho would be totally disarmed without firearms? Ever heard of Oklahoma City and Timothy McVeigh? Do you know how easy it is to make huge bombs from various common materials? Instructions are everywhere, and even if you try to control such materials, it's an impossible task because they can be built up from various sources a little at a time. Do you know how easy it is to make poison gas (Tokyo subways)? Any idea how easy it would be to steal a semi-trailer and ram through a crowd outside an event? If you targeted small children (Japan, again), you could kill a whole bunch of them with just a knife before anybody could stop you. Gun control disarms normal, law-abiding citizens and nobody else, making it easier for criminals in and out of government to prey on them. There is no rational, intelligent argument for gun control.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 23, 2012 9:19 AM  

Nic said:


Ummm... yes we had the Port Arthur massacre but there has not been one since then. I'm not claiming that that outcome justifies the change in the laws. But, the United States seems to have a new massacre where multiple people die from gun shots every few months. For example high-school massacres. These aren't one-off events.


Actually, Nic, do you have the statistics? As I recall, living in the US, it is not every few months. And, as I recall, the population of the US is more than 10 times that of Australia.

And, as I recall, the population of Australia is still something like 90+% white despite the importation of troublemakers from Africa and the Middle East.

Perhaps you should also check out this site for which group engages in more violence and stop believing the misinformation of the Media.

Blogger Celebrim July 23, 2012 9:33 AM  

It's not often that a single factor can be used to explain the difference in crime rates, but the difference in violent crime rates between the USA and the UK/Australia can be explained almost entirely by the gun ban. That's because the difference in violent crime can be almost entirely explained by the differences in how property crimes are typically carried out in the USA versus the UK. In the USA almost all property crimes are carried out while the owner is away. Theft, burglery and vandalism far and away lead the lists of property crimes. In the UK, almost all property crimes are carried out with the owner present. At the top of the list of property crimes are home invasion, robbery, and muggings where there is the potential of violent crime associated with the theft. After all, it's much more efficient to rob someone if you can coerse them into revealing where you keep your valuables than it is to try to hunt for them yourself, and often people keep many of their valuables on them - rings, watches, wallets, etc. And it is often easier to enter property when the home owner is present. Why the difference? In the USA, if you try to commit home invasion, robbery, or muggings there is a very good chance that you'll get shot by the property owner. Your career as a criminal committing those sorts of crimes on a regular basis is likely to be very short. But in the UK, there is almost no penalty involved. Not only are the home owners unarmed by government decree, but also by government decree they are forbidden from defending their homes and indeed, where they to defend themselves and their property there is a good chance that the criminal will get off.

Anonymous Anonymous July 23, 2012 9:34 AM  

I agree with No Name.

Anonymous Orion July 23, 2012 11:30 AM  

From the beginning of recorded history there have been names for the people with weapons and those without. One was "master" the other was "slave". You figure out which is which.

Blogger RonF July 23, 2012 12:28 PM  

"Americans would do well to consider that many non Americans think it is insane to be able to buy a firearm off the counter."

We do consider it. We figure that the fact that most non-Americans think that being able to freely buy guns over the counter is insane is a good indicator that it is in fact the right idea.

Blogger Lee Reynolds July 23, 2012 12:39 PM  

Gun prohibition is not and has never been about reducing crime. Its fundamental purpose is the disenfranchisement and oppression of the people by the state.

The right to keep and bear arms is the foundation of popular sovereignty. It is the reason our government is our servant and not our master. To arm oneself against the predations of others is to take responsibility for oneself. To be disarmed and made helpless is to abdicate responsibility to the state, which is precisely what the usual suspects want to see.

Nothing frightens a tyrant more than an ordinary citizen with the power to fight back.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet July 23, 2012 6:32 PM  

Not being familiar enough with the laws in the States: Can anyone tell me how easy it is when I buy a gun and give my information for the background check, for that information to end up in the hands of someone looking to break into a house and steal a gun or something similar?

Blogger ajw308 July 23, 2012 7:22 PM  

Depends on the state, in Michigan, to buy a pistol, you need 'the green card' signed by both your sheriff and the state police. Your copy needs to be on you, if you have the pistol on you and the other portion of the card is on file at the sheriff's office. That's on top of the ATF long form that you have to fill out for any firearm purchase from a licensed dealer.

The dealers have to keep there copy of the long form forever, though I know a dealer who's files have been damaged in fires, floods and other disasters.

To break into a gun shop to steal info on where you could steal a gun tells me that you aren't that familiar with a culture where you can walk into a store and buy a gun after going through a 15 min background check or buy on out of the paper or at a gunshow and fill out no paperwork (unless you are in Michigan and buying a pistol).

I've seen $800 pistols sold at work for $200 when the guy who spent all he had on a boat didn't take into account that he'd need money to register it and he just had to use it that weekend.

As I under stand it, if a gun turns up as evidence, it's serial number is tracked to the seller who then will turn over information on the buyer. Last I was aware, it wasn't all kept in 1 database.

If you look at the data, most people try not to steal from gunowners, at least while they are home, and lots of people I know have safes, so their guns are secure while they are out.

Anonymous madmike July 24, 2012 3:15 AM  

I spent a few minutes looking around the links but couldn't actually find any sort of official govt reports to back up the stats quoted, was this intentional? I have a stats background and disbelieve just about every figure quoted in these sorts of article be it for or against gun control.
The first fact I checked from above ‘Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.’ Seriously if the rest of the info posted here is of the same quality please don’t use this as a reference site, only make yourself look ridiculous. In Australia the definition of ‘Sexual Assault’ -
Sexual assault is defined as any sexual behaviour that makes a person feel uncomfortable, frightened or threatened. It is sexual activity to which a person does not consent.
So we are talking about women reporting more often activity that makes them uncomfortable... Without hunting for USA similar stats, assuming they even keep stats for this sort of activity, I wouldn’t be surprised if the USA had a similar trend.
I am not anti gun, I grow up with guns, hunted and served in the Australian army (infantry) many years ago. But please don’t make up stuff about other countries that have very different cultures to the USA to support your argument.

Blogger Jamie-R July 24, 2012 3:23 AM  

America and Australia are two different nations, comprised of early settlers very different in nature. You can't copy and paste America's constitution onto this nation, it wouldn't work. I don't want to be reasoned with on the guns everywhere topic, because I've already made my mind up on not wanting to be an American, or for my country to be a replica of America. I'll move there if I want to be. Until then let us deal with our 'tyranny', we obviously prefer it over being a yank. And that's the beauty of the nation-state system to me, what I consider the real multi-culturalism.

Australia isn't a democracy and hasn't been for a long time. The pretense of democracy is thinly veiled and slipping every day. The carbon tax being rammed down our throats is the last example of that.

You're talking crap, Australia is democratic and it just barely chose the atheist who flouted in the face of its traditions, then lied, and basically gave many Aussies every reason to think it was a bad idea. Labor will wind up with a dozen seats if they're lucky, the next election will be a historic rout. Gillard is a loser, and everyone knows it.

And how they could elect Gillard is simple, Australians aren't unbelievers per se, they just don't give a shit about anything. You couldn't tell an Australian what to believe if you tried. But once they know you're a loser you can f*ck off.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento July 24, 2012 11:35 AM  

The grand ol saying of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is quite correct.
Fact is if some one doesn't have a gun they'll kill with something else and if a person wants to kill with a gun, unless they have one already, they won't get one legally anyway.
Sure guns make it easier to kill someone, but people that want to kill don't do it because it's easy, they kill because they want to kill and well find a way to do it regardless.
Trying to curtail violent crimes without dealing with WHY they happen is pointless.

Blogger sandy shown July 24, 2012 2:24 PM  

Nice Article! Thanks for sharing with us.
Home Care Company

Anonymous Anonymous February 21, 2013 7:45 PM  

Australian Parliament reports actually say that it is still too soon to compare the results because enough time hasn't passed since the legislation was enacted.

Violent crime rates differ because they are recorded differently. It's awfully convenient when gun nuts forget this!

Blogger Guitar Man December 18, 2013 9:31 AM  

I feel bad for the liberty loving Australians. They should come move to the south.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts