The Australian example

[BiblicalFirst]

As you know Austrailia has confiscated their law abiding citizens' firearms. Well, now we are beginning to see the results.

My Mom passed on this post which gives some of the recent crime statistics from Australia (http://melodys-notes.blogspot.com/2009/01/australian-gun-law-update_241.html).

Excellent info.

[BiblicalFirst]

It has now been one year (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 available:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent;

Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent);

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent as compared with the last one year period when private ownership of a firearm was legal.

(NB: the law-abiding citizens did turn in their personal firearms, the criminal element did not and thus criminals in Australia still possess their guns.)

While data for the 25 years preceding the confiscation of privately owned guns showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months as criminals now are assured their victims will be 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.'

This story of well intentioned government intervention in the rights of lawful individuals to own and possess firearms won't be seen in the mainstream US media or on the American evening news. Senator Obama who advocates a similar confiscation in the US will not be reporting any of this to you.

But, 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.

Americans may want to take note before it's too late!

sent to us by Dr. David Morris .

[junglebob]

So the cost to rid Australia of fireams in the hands of the law abiding was $780 each. I wonder how many formerly law abiding folks decided to become outlaws and keep their guns?

[In10city]

If that day ever comes, I'll have to file a police report about how all my guns were just stolen.

[VegasGeorge]

If that day ever comes, I'll have to file a police report about how all my guns were just stolen.

I've seen this sentiment express many time before. And surely, it is an understandable reaction. But, what does that lead to? What element of freedom is left? What honor is there in defying an unconstitutional law by lying and pretending to comply?

Sure, if guns are banned I can claim mine were stolen, and hide them somewhere. But from that day on I would be afraid of being caught with them. I couldn't show them off, or even admit I had them. I couldn't participate in a forum like this one. I couldn't practice with them. I couldn't carry them without risking prison. They would be totally useless, and a liability to me. Why would I be keeping them?

If I wasn't up for using them to defend my right to have them in the first place, when would I use them?

[junglebob]

I've seen this sentiment express many time before. And surely, it is an understandable reaction. But, what does that lead to? What element of freedom is left? What honor is there in defying an unconstitutional law by lying and pretending to comply?

Sure, if guns are banned I can claim mine were stolen, and hide them somewhere. But from that day on I would be afraid of being caught with them. I couldn't show them off, or even admit I had them. I couldn't participate in a forum like this one. I couldn't practice with them. I couldn't carry them without risking prison. They would be totally useless, and a liability to me. Why would I be keeping them?

If I wasn't up for using them to defend my right to have them in the first place, when would I use them?

So you're saying VagasGeorge that if they come for the guns and ammo they'll get the ammo first. If enough gun owners did that it were certainly slow down confiscation. They'd find out that confiscation had consequences, Unintended Consequences (anyone read the book?)

[In10city]

I understand your point VegasGeorge and its hard to speculate about my actions in this hypothetical situation.

I recently re-joined the NRA and am spending my spare time and energy educating myself about what is going on with our lawmakers. I don't want to join any political debate with only my passion, I'd like to be better informed about the current issues (partly why I found and joined this forum) so I'll able to express an educated opinion when the opportunity arises.

[junglebob]

In10city, If you haven't already you may want to request the NRA first freedom magazine. It will get you more information on gun legislation than the rifleman, or you could get it in addition for $10 more I believe.

[In10city]

Thanks Junglebob, that's the magazine I requested when I joined.

[tuna]

Too many thoughts running through my brain right now, especially for a PUBLIC forum.

[VegasGeorge]

So you're saying VagasGeorge that if they come for the guns and ammo they'll get the ammo first. If enough gun owners did that it were certainly slow down confiscation. They'd find out that confiscation had consequences, Unintended Consequences (anyone read the book?)

Well, it would be stupid and suicidal for gun owners to simply wait until the knock came at their particular door, then shoot it out with the authorities. I would hope that many large groups of resistance fighters would form, and would offer sufficient resistance in their local areas to dissuade authorities from enforcing the confiscatory laws. If thousands banded together and refused to give up, there isn't much the government could do about it. That would be particularly true if the local national guard were on our side. And, I see that as a very real possibility.

[Bear Poop]

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fight back or rollover!! I am for fighting back

[In10city]

I'm with you VegasGeorge! :ak::guns::thumbsup:

[junglebob]

I've seen this sentiment express many time before. And surely, it is an understandable reaction. But, what does that lead to? What element of freedom is left? What honor is there in defying an unconstitutional law by lying and pretending to comply?

Sure, if guns are banned I can claim mine were stolen, and hide them somewhere. But from that day on I would be afraid of being caught with them. I couldn't show them off, or even admit I had them. I couldn't participate in a forum like this one. I couldn't practice with them. I couldn't carry them without risking prison. They would be totally useless, and a liability to me. Why would I be keeping them?

If I wasn't up for using them to defend my right to have them in the first place, when would I use them?

Can't carry them without risking prison, sounds like Illinois. You can own them, show them off, admit you have them, and practice with them, though. We're working on the carry part.