• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

3 Reasons Australian Gun Control Is A Failure

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,710
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
https://churchandstate.com.au/3-reasons-australian-gun-control-is-a-failure

SNIP

JOHN HOWARD didn’t ban the gun*used by the scumbag who killed hero police officer, Senior Constable Brett Forte of the Queensland Police Service. His killer, known criminal Rick Maddison, was ultimately also fatally shot after a gunfight with police the following day*[1].

As is often the case when evil acts are committed with firearms, the discussion often turns to gun control. The fact is fully automatic machine guns had already been banned long before the laws John Howard introduced following the Port Arthur massacre. The most important question we all want answered is how to*stop criminal use of illegal firearms. We don’t need token gestures. We need real solutions.
Horrific incidents like this remind us of the reality of the sometimes-lethal threats that police face when protecting our families. My deepest condolences go out to the family and colleagues of Senior Constable Forte, and I cannot thank enough the hard-working members of the police force for risking their lives to protect my family.
In addition to being a dedicated husband and father, business owner, active within my church community and in politics, I am a law abiding licensed gun owner. I have decades of safe firearms training and skills.
So why is Australia’s famous gun control obviously failing?
1. Law Makers Fail to Differentiate Between Criminals &*Law Abiding Firearms Owners
It might come as a surprise to some, but there are over 1.9 million firearms licenses in Australia and over 5.5 million legally owned firearms*[2]. This a considerable number given our population is just tipping 24 million. Contrary to popular misconception, Australia has a thriving and long standing safe, legal “gun culture”.

As we have been reminded this week, Australia also has violent criminals who often use guns (almost exclusively unregistered, illegal guns) to commit crime. The national debate surrounding guns and gun control almost always simplistically conflates these two*groups of people. But is it reasonable to do so?
Rick Maddison (a known criminal – i.e. rigorously excluded from legally owning firearms) was able to access a fully-automatic machine gun despite Australia having some of the strictest gun control in the world. Both the police and media confirmed that Rick Maddison used a fully automatic machine gun to commit this heinous crime*[3]. Footage gathered by a local resident clearly contains the sound of a fully automatic machine gun being fired[4].

If our gun control laws are meant to keep these types of firearms out of the hands of criminals, they failed abysmally in this case, with lethal consequences. I can’t help but wonder if police weren’t tied up with policing the millions of sporting and hunting rifles owned by good guys like me, they might have intercepted this highly illegal machine gun before it could be used in such a horrific crime.

2.*Current Gun Laws Create A False Sense Of Security
An unintended consequence of legislation that fails to fully take into account all of the evidence, or (as is the case with gun control) legislation that is surrounded by such hysteria that even the mere mention of reviewing its efficacy is met with howls of indignation, is that the community is lulled into a false sense of security.

. . .
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
If our gun control laws are meant to keep these types of firearms out of the hands of criminals, they failed abysmally in this case, with lethal consequences.
One almost starts to wonder if the real reason for gun control has very little to do with preventing armed criminal violence.

It is easy to assume our opponents are stupid or ignorant. But those on the left who support gun control have been wildly successful in significant areas of social and legal change. What if those actually setting the agenda on the gun control side are neither stupid nor ignorant, but rather smart enough to know what rhetoric will sell gun control and deceitful enough to have no qualms about bald faced lies if needed?

I'm of the firm opinion that--hordes of useful idiots notwithstanding--the real motivation behind attacking RKBA has very little to do with preventing armed, violent crime. I think it has a lot to do with disarming the law-abiding population. This makes decent people wholly dependent on government for their physical safety. In this context, some amount of violent crime is not a bad thing at all. Such crime serves as a reminder that the unarmed populace is in need of government agents to protect them. It also makes them far less capable of standing against government tyranny.

Whatever one thinks of the Black Panthers carrying rifles into the California legislature in 1967, or Ammon Bundy and his supporters carrying firearms as they reclaimed his cattle impounded by the BLM in 2016 Nevada, or the vets who engaged in the 1946 "Battle of Athens" in Tennessee, or even the War Between the States or the Revolutionary War, it is clear that there are limits--not often defined and rarely discussed--to what can be imposed on an armed population. Slave owners made sure slaves were legally disarmed. Armed men are much harder to keep enslaved. Whites continued to make sure free slaves remained legally disarmed for a long time.

I think in most cases, gun control "works" quite well to achieve its intended purposes. We just have to remember that the intended purposes are quite different than the stated purposes.
 

DW98

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2013
Messages
274
Location
Australia
Another 3 police officers were shot last night, this time in Melbourne. The night before I was watching the news and there was a segment about police "cracking down" on illegal guns in Melbourne. They were showing off some recently seized weapons, which included an AR-15, AK-47 and what I believe was a Mac-10 or Tec-9, a gun that has never been legal in this country.
 

Ken56

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
363
Location
Dandridge, TN
One almost starts to wonder if the real reason for gun control has very little to do with preventing armed criminal violence.

It is easy to assume our opponents are stupid or ignorant. But those on the left who support gun control have been wildly successful in significant areas of social and legal change. What if those actually setting the agenda on the gun control side are neither stupid nor ignorant, but rather smart enough to know what rhetoric will sell gun control and deceitful enough to have no qualms about bald faced lies if needed?

I'm of the firm opinion that--hordes of useful idiots notwithstanding--the real motivation behind attacking RKBA has very little to do with preventing armed, violent crime. I think it has a lot to do with disarming the law-abiding population. This makes decent people wholly dependent on government for their physical safety. In this context, some amount of violent crime is not a bad thing at all. Such crime serves as a reminder that the unarmed populace is in need of government agents to protect them. It also makes them far less capable of standing against government tyranny.

Whatever one thinks of the Black Panthers carrying rifles into the California legislature in 1967, or Ammon Bundy and his supporters carrying firearms as they reclaimed his cattle impounded by the BLM in 2016 Nevada, or the vets who engaged in the 1946 "Battle of Athens" in Tennessee, or even the War Between the States or the Revolutionary War, it is clear that there are limits--not often defined and rarely discussed--to what can be imposed on an armed population. Slave owners made sure slaves were legally disarmed. Armed men are much harder to keep enslaved. Whites continued to make sure free slaves remained legally disarmed for a long time.

I think in most cases, gun control "works" quite well to achieve its intended purposes. We just have to remember that the intended purposes are quite different than the stated purposes.

Spot on observation.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,110
Location
White Oak Plantation
If Australians wanted more individual liberty they would vote for its restoration. They have, to date, chosen not to restore individual liberty. There does not seem to be any indication they they desire individual liberty to be restored.
 
Top