Monday, October 23, 2006

Down Under BuyBack Failure

As we have seen across the world, whether it be the leftward leaning states like Massachussets, New York, California or New Jersey or Commonwealth countries, gun control in the form of restrictions even when a Buy Back program exists are an absolute failure.

The latest in a long list of failures for gun control is noted in Australia.

The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback of more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns had made no difference in the rate of decline.

The only area where the package of Commonwealth and State laws, known as the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) may have had some impact was on the rate of suicide, but the study said the evidence was not clear and any reductions attributable to the new gun rules were slight.

"Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buyback and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia," the study says
Australia had implemented draconian firearms restrictions in response to the Port Arthur Massacre where 35 were killed and 37 wounded by an insane man. Rather than taking the lessons learned as Texans did from the Luby Massacre , where 20 people were killed by a madman, and implement shall issue concealed carry permits, the Australians government banned pump shotguns, semi automatic shotguns and rifles and later many handguns.

Rather than acting to stop the madmen among us effectively by allowing law abiding citizens to be armed, Australia acted to remove access to all reasonably effective weapons.

The inescapable logic of , "if you criminalize the ownership of firearms only criminals will have them" is really driven home by statistics noted:
Politicians had assumed tighter gun laws would cut off the supply of guns to would-be criminals and that homicide rates would fall as a result, the study said. But more than 90 per cent of firearms used to commit homicide were not registered, their users were not licensed and they had been unaffected by the firearms agreement.
What did they obtain with this surrender of their right to self defense?

They received increasing property rates of crimes like burglary and violent assaults against individuals since criminals no longer feared an armed response.

This is why it is important to keep pushing back against the infringements made against our 2nd Amendment rights; once the socialist nanny staters gains a toe hold they will proceed to crack away at all other remaining rights regardless of the fallacious nature of the premises upon which their ill considered plans are made.

Hat tip to Instapundit.

2 comments:

Calamitous said...

You wonder what the hell congresscritters are thinking... time and again it's been proven that gun control does not reduce crime. Period.

Why do they persist in this nonsense?

darkbhudda said...

Well in some places in Oz, for example Katherine in the Northern Territory, the buyback scheme was just another police scam.

The farmer would hand in his gun, then get paid for the weapon. Then he'd just buy back the gun from corrupt police.