Hey Australia Gunnies, is this article relatively accurate?
Story
Australian Gun Ban Proved Disastrous
Dr. Miguel Faria
Monday June 26, 2000
Last August, the rugged Aussie survivalist whose real life exploits inspired
the "Crocodile Dundee" movies died in what then appeared to be a
mysterious shootout with Australian police. A police sergeant was also killed
in the incident.
It was reported Rodney William Ansell, the 44-year-old, blond haired,
resembled uncannily Paul Hogan the actor who played his part in the movie
and the sequel. Although Ansell was no angel and had had previous run ins
with police, he had been named 1988 Australian Northern Territory Man of
the Year for inspiring the movie and putting "the Australian Outback onthe
map."
What motivated this shooting? In 1996, Australia adopted draconian gun
control laws banning certain guns (60 percent of all firearms), requiring
registration of all firearms and licensing of all gun owners. "Crocodile
Dundee" believed the police were coming to confiscate his unregistered
firearms.
In Australia today, police can enter your house and search for guns, copy the
hard drive of your computer, seize records, and do it all without a search
warrant. It's the law that police can go door to door searching for weapons
that have not been surrendered in their much publicized gun buy back
program. They have been using previous registration and firearm license lists
to check for lapses and confiscate non-surrendered firearms.
It all began with the Port Arthur (a Tasmanian resort) tragedy on April 28,
1996, when a crazed assailant opened fire and shot 35 people. Australians
were shocked and the government reacted quickly.
Draconian gun legislation was passed in the heat of the moment because the
fate of the nation was determined by a handful of statist socialists who find
individual freedom abhorrent. Consider the politics: There are three major
parties in Australian politics: the center right (Liberal Party), the socialist
camp (Labor Party), and the ultra left (Australian Democratic Party) < this
last one easily tilted the balance of power toward stringent gun control at the
expense of freedom. Moreover, to add insult to injury, Australia has had to
toe the party line of the United Nations on environmental issues,
land/property rights, and now, gun control as well.
As a result of stringent gun laws (really a ban on firearms) in Australia, all
semiautomatic firearms (rifles and handguns) are proscribed, including .22
caliber rabbit guns and duck-hunting Remington shotguns.
Writing in The Gun Owners (Jan. 31, 2000), the newsletter for Gun Owners
of America (GOA), former California State Senator H.L. Richardson notes:
"They outlawed every semi-auto, even those pretty duck guns, the Browning
A5 and the Remington 1100s. They even struck down pump shotguns: the
Winchester model 12 and the Remington 870...Do you own a Browning BAR
rifle? Banned. How about a Winchester Model 100? Out of luck, all
semi-auto hunting rifles were outlawed as well. They didn¹t miss a one."
Be that as it may, at a cost of $500 million, out of an estimated 7 million
firearms (of which 2.8 million were prohibited), only 640,000 guns were
surrendered to police. What has been the result? Same as in England. Like in
Great Britain, crime Down Under has escalated.
Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44
percent increase in armed robberies; an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated
assaults; and, a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state
of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with
firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South
Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20
percent.
Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed
robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38
percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the
Australian Bureau of Statistics.
And consider the fact that over the previous 25-year period, Australia had
shown a steady decrease both in homicide with firearms and armed robbery <
until the ban.
Australia, a semi-arid, isolated continent, and a vast nation-state, in many
ways parallels the history of the United States. In the 1850s and 1860s, it had
gold rushes and pioneering settlers, reminiscent of our own western
migration.
In World War I and World War II, it fought with the allies. Australia
remained a subject of Great British until 1986, when the last ties with the
British crown were dissolved.
With only 19 million people, Australia has an impressive fauna that includes
plenty of varmints, marsupials, dingoes (that wreak havoc on livestock), as
well as large rats and other rodents. Yet, hunting has become prohibitively
difficult for all but a handful of Australians with private lands and the usual
connections. Now, the ban on firearms and the disarmament of ordinary
Australians has left criminals free to roam the countryside as they please.
Bandits, of course, kept their guns. Like in America, only the law-abiding, by
definition, obey the law. Yet, the leftist Australian government has
responded by passing more laws; in 1998 Bowie knives and other knives and
items including handcuffs were banned.
Licensing is difficult. Self and family protection is not considered a valid
reason to own a firearm. The right to self-defense, like in Great Britain and
Canada, is not recognized in Australia, Like Americans, Australians loved
and possessed firearms < that is until the ban. Freedom has been
extinguished. A way of life has ended. Please, don't tell me it cannot happen
here!
Dr. Miguel A. Faria, Jr., is a physician and Editor-in-Chief of the Medical
Sentinel of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).
------------------
~USP
"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
Story
Australian Gun Ban Proved Disastrous
Dr. Miguel Faria
Monday June 26, 2000
Last August, the rugged Aussie survivalist whose real life exploits inspired
the "Crocodile Dundee" movies died in what then appeared to be a
mysterious shootout with Australian police. A police sergeant was also killed
in the incident.
It was reported Rodney William Ansell, the 44-year-old, blond haired,
resembled uncannily Paul Hogan the actor who played his part in the movie
and the sequel. Although Ansell was no angel and had had previous run ins
with police, he had been named 1988 Australian Northern Territory Man of
the Year for inspiring the movie and putting "the Australian Outback onthe
map."
What motivated this shooting? In 1996, Australia adopted draconian gun
control laws banning certain guns (60 percent of all firearms), requiring
registration of all firearms and licensing of all gun owners. "Crocodile
Dundee" believed the police were coming to confiscate his unregistered
firearms.
In Australia today, police can enter your house and search for guns, copy the
hard drive of your computer, seize records, and do it all without a search
warrant. It's the law that police can go door to door searching for weapons
that have not been surrendered in their much publicized gun buy back
program. They have been using previous registration and firearm license lists
to check for lapses and confiscate non-surrendered firearms.
It all began with the Port Arthur (a Tasmanian resort) tragedy on April 28,
1996, when a crazed assailant opened fire and shot 35 people. Australians
were shocked and the government reacted quickly.
Draconian gun legislation was passed in the heat of the moment because the
fate of the nation was determined by a handful of statist socialists who find
individual freedom abhorrent. Consider the politics: There are three major
parties in Australian politics: the center right (Liberal Party), the socialist
camp (Labor Party), and the ultra left (Australian Democratic Party) < this
last one easily tilted the balance of power toward stringent gun control at the
expense of freedom. Moreover, to add insult to injury, Australia has had to
toe the party line of the United Nations on environmental issues,
land/property rights, and now, gun control as well.
As a result of stringent gun laws (really a ban on firearms) in Australia, all
semiautomatic firearms (rifles and handguns) are proscribed, including .22
caliber rabbit guns and duck-hunting Remington shotguns.
Writing in The Gun Owners (Jan. 31, 2000), the newsletter for Gun Owners
of America (GOA), former California State Senator H.L. Richardson notes:
"They outlawed every semi-auto, even those pretty duck guns, the Browning
A5 and the Remington 1100s. They even struck down pump shotguns: the
Winchester model 12 and the Remington 870...Do you own a Browning BAR
rifle? Banned. How about a Winchester Model 100? Out of luck, all
semi-auto hunting rifles were outlawed as well. They didn¹t miss a one."
Be that as it may, at a cost of $500 million, out of an estimated 7 million
firearms (of which 2.8 million were prohibited), only 640,000 guns were
surrendered to police. What has been the result? Same as in England. Like in
Great Britain, crime Down Under has escalated.
Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44
percent increase in armed robberies; an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated
assaults; and, a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state
of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with
firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South
Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20
percent.
Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed
robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38
percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the
Australian Bureau of Statistics.
And consider the fact that over the previous 25-year period, Australia had
shown a steady decrease both in homicide with firearms and armed robbery <
until the ban.
Australia, a semi-arid, isolated continent, and a vast nation-state, in many
ways parallels the history of the United States. In the 1850s and 1860s, it had
gold rushes and pioneering settlers, reminiscent of our own western
migration.
In World War I and World War II, it fought with the allies. Australia
remained a subject of Great British until 1986, when the last ties with the
British crown were dissolved.
With only 19 million people, Australia has an impressive fauna that includes
plenty of varmints, marsupials, dingoes (that wreak havoc on livestock), as
well as large rats and other rodents. Yet, hunting has become prohibitively
difficult for all but a handful of Australians with private lands and the usual
connections. Now, the ban on firearms and the disarmament of ordinary
Australians has left criminals free to roam the countryside as they please.
Bandits, of course, kept their guns. Like in America, only the law-abiding, by
definition, obey the law. Yet, the leftist Australian government has
responded by passing more laws; in 1998 Bowie knives and other knives and
items including handcuffs were banned.
Licensing is difficult. Self and family protection is not considered a valid
reason to own a firearm. The right to self-defense, like in Great Britain and
Canada, is not recognized in Australia, Like Americans, Australians loved
and possessed firearms < that is until the ban. Freedom has been
extinguished. A way of life has ended. Please, don't tell me it cannot happen
here!
Dr. Miguel A. Faria, Jr., is a physician and Editor-in-Chief of the Medical
Sentinel of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).
------------------
~USP
"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998