Australian Gun Control – A Dangerous Fraud
FACT 1. Gun control that does not reduce the general level of violence (whether with firearms or other or no weapons) is dangerous to the community and therefore worse than useless. It is intellectually dishonest to claim firearm controls reduce crime by quoting only statistics purporting to show a reduction in “gun crime” or “gun homicide” without reference to historical trends or the concurrent non-gun level of violence.
Evidence: Worse than useless and dangerous because the cost of enforcing such laws wastes policing resources that could otherwise be used protecting the community or providing needed social benefits. (Australian Gun Laws a Dangerous Waste of Resources)
FACT 2. Firearm Controls should be distinguished from the licensing of firearm users.
Evidence: A system that requires that licensed users are competent and law abiding persons can easily be assessed for its outcomes by looking at the behaviour of the licencees. A system that is focussed on firearms will be a failure because it is impossible to eliminate criminal access to firearms or other deadly alternative weapons. (Criminal Access to Guns Impossible to Prevent)
FACT 3. Australia’s National Firearms Agreement gun laws have had no measurable effect on the level of homicides.
Evidence: On November 1, 2005 in a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, Dr Don Weatherburn, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney, when commenting on recent research wrote;
“I too strongly supported the introduction of tougher gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre.
The fact is, however, that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility.
It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice.”
(Australian Gun Laws a Dangerous Waste of Resources)
FACT 4. Gun control has not prevented multiple homicide in Australia. As at the end of 2019 there have been 8 massacres (5 or more killed) since the introduction of the Australian National Firearm laws.
Evidence: Before and after the introduction of the Australian National Firearms laws, examples of multiple killing in Australia by other means prove that eliminating guns does not eliminate multiple homicide. (Non-gun multiple killing in Australia)
See also: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-11/seven-people-found-dead-in-margaret-river-murder-suicide/9751482
FACT 5. More guns do NOT mean more crime.
Evidence: Some Australian States and the Northern Territory have had higher homicide rates than some States in the U.S. which allow concealed carriage of handguns for self defence. (Australian States with Higher rates of Homicide than some U.S. States that allow Self Defence Handguns)
FACT 6. Australia’s restrictive gun laws which prohibit ownership guns for self defence give criminals the confidence to invade homes, murder, assault and rape with impunity. Many violent crimes in Australia would have been prevented if firearms for self defence had been permitted.
Evidence: If criminals do not know whether a victim is armed or not then it is perilous for them to attack and thus the number of attacks are reduced and all citizens are safer whether they are armed or not.
(Australian Victims of Gun Control)
FACT 7. Australia is vulnerable to terrorist attack as the attack at the Lindt Café in Martin Place, Sydney, N.S.W. (December 2014) demonstrated. Since then there has also been the killing of a police employee at Parramatta, N.S.W. (October 2015). Carriage of self defence weapons by eligible law abiding persons is the best method of combating terrorist attacks when they happen. A Secretary General of INTERPOL, who previously headed up all law enforcement for the U.S. Treasury Department suggested consideration of this.
Evidence: 67 civilians were killed in a terrorist attack at the Westgate shopping mall in Kenya (October 2013). Ronald Noble, who was the then Secretary General of INTERPOL, which is the world’s largest international police organization, with 190 member countries said “You can't have armed police forces everywhere”. "What I'm saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, 'Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?' This is something that has to be discussed." (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341)
FACT 8. In Australia, knife attacks have been more dangerous to victims than gun attacks.
Evidence: The percentage of murderous knife attacks resulting in death has been greater than the percentage of gun attacks causing death. (Statistics: knife attacks more dangerous than gun attacks)
FACT 9. Australia’s Gun Laws have been driven and promoted by bias and not fair and honest evidence backed debate.
Evidence: The 1996 laws were pushed by John Howard, an anti-gun biased Prime Minister who is on record as saying “I hate guns. I don't think people should have guns unless they're police or in the military or in the security industry…”. Howard subsequently showed biased incompetence when promoting the laws he introduced. Australian media can also be shown as hypocritically biased. In 1995 “The Age” newspaper, whilst calling for gun bans was in the same year advertising to employ armed guards. (Australia’s Gun Laws driven by bias not evidence backed debate)
Evidence: Worse than useless and dangerous because the cost of enforcing such laws wastes policing resources that could otherwise be used protecting the community or providing needed social benefits. (Australian Gun Laws a Dangerous Waste of Resources)
FACT 2. Firearm Controls should be distinguished from the licensing of firearm users.
Evidence: A system that requires that licensed users are competent and law abiding persons can easily be assessed for its outcomes by looking at the behaviour of the licencees. A system that is focussed on firearms will be a failure because it is impossible to eliminate criminal access to firearms or other deadly alternative weapons. (Criminal Access to Guns Impossible to Prevent)
FACT 3. Australia’s National Firearms Agreement gun laws have had no measurable effect on the level of homicides.
Evidence: On November 1, 2005 in a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, Dr Don Weatherburn, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney, when commenting on recent research wrote;
“I too strongly supported the introduction of tougher gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre.
The fact is, however, that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility.
It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice.”
(Australian Gun Laws a Dangerous Waste of Resources)
FACT 4. Gun control has not prevented multiple homicide in Australia. As at the end of 2019 there have been 8 massacres (5 or more killed) since the introduction of the Australian National Firearm laws.
Evidence: Before and after the introduction of the Australian National Firearms laws, examples of multiple killing in Australia by other means prove that eliminating guns does not eliminate multiple homicide. (Non-gun multiple killing in Australia)
See also: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-11/seven-people-found-dead-in-margaret-river-murder-suicide/9751482
FACT 5. More guns do NOT mean more crime.
Evidence: Some Australian States and the Northern Territory have had higher homicide rates than some States in the U.S. which allow concealed carriage of handguns for self defence. (Australian States with Higher rates of Homicide than some U.S. States that allow Self Defence Handguns)
FACT 6. Australia’s restrictive gun laws which prohibit ownership guns for self defence give criminals the confidence to invade homes, murder, assault and rape with impunity. Many violent crimes in Australia would have been prevented if firearms for self defence had been permitted.
Evidence: If criminals do not know whether a victim is armed or not then it is perilous for them to attack and thus the number of attacks are reduced and all citizens are safer whether they are armed or not.
(Australian Victims of Gun Control)
FACT 7. Australia is vulnerable to terrorist attack as the attack at the Lindt Café in Martin Place, Sydney, N.S.W. (December 2014) demonstrated. Since then there has also been the killing of a police employee at Parramatta, N.S.W. (October 2015). Carriage of self defence weapons by eligible law abiding persons is the best method of combating terrorist attacks when they happen. A Secretary General of INTERPOL, who previously headed up all law enforcement for the U.S. Treasury Department suggested consideration of this.
Evidence: 67 civilians were killed in a terrorist attack at the Westgate shopping mall in Kenya (October 2013). Ronald Noble, who was the then Secretary General of INTERPOL, which is the world’s largest international police organization, with 190 member countries said “You can't have armed police forces everywhere”. "What I'm saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, 'Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?' This is something that has to be discussed." (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341)
FACT 8. In Australia, knife attacks have been more dangerous to victims than gun attacks.
Evidence: The percentage of murderous knife attacks resulting in death has been greater than the percentage of gun attacks causing death. (Statistics: knife attacks more dangerous than gun attacks)
FACT 9. Australia’s Gun Laws have been driven and promoted by bias and not fair and honest evidence backed debate.
Evidence: The 1996 laws were pushed by John Howard, an anti-gun biased Prime Minister who is on record as saying “I hate guns. I don't think people should have guns unless they're police or in the military or in the security industry…”. Howard subsequently showed biased incompetence when promoting the laws he introduced. Australian media can also be shown as hypocritically biased. In 1995 “The Age” newspaper, whilst calling for gun bans was in the same year advertising to employ armed guards. (Australia’s Gun Laws driven by bias not evidence backed debate)