Is this proven by SNOPES?

G

gt40

Guest
Australian Gun Law Update

Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts

From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia

Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the now available data from Down Under. 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 a re 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.'
20 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!
FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST.
DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY.
BE A PARTICIPANT IN THE VOCAL MINORITY WHO DOESN'T WANT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED IN AUSTRALIA HAPPEN IN THE US !

gt40

PS: Happy New Year to all. :)
 
Doesn't sound like something an Australian with any handle on what has happened here would write.

Figures for the first two years after the new laws were enacted (1997 & 1998) were widely published by the government & seem to contradict the statistics claimed. You could probably find a copy on the Sporting Shooters of Australia web site (as well as a lot of pretty good hard data): http://www.ssaa.org.au/

Further, as far as the wording goes, it has all the smell of somebody without an understanding of Aussie firearm legislation. Take the statement "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". Victoria was probably less changed by the so called uniform firearm legislation than any other state in Australia. Its legislation was considered by shooters to be pretty restrictive. Nevertheless, there & in the rest of Australia, provate ownership of firearms is still permitted, albeit with conditions.

"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." Unlike the States, Aussies have never carried firearms for self defence in modern times & in the last 40 years have seldom been armed for the defence of property, other than commercial security firms like Brinks, for example. There is thus virtually no change in the status of the general population in this regard pre & post legislation.

As an interesting anomoly, a jeweller in my home state was known to have terminated a robber some years prior to the legislation. As the new legislation reiterated that firearms would & should not be used for self defence or defence of property, somebody decided to try him on again & was duly killed with the very same shotgun the jeweller used on the first occasion.

At the end of the day, the Aussie & US societies are quite different in this respect & not a whole lot of comfort can be achieved by studying each other's statistics IMHO.
 
Ever stop to wonder who or what "Snopes" is? Best I can find out that it is a husband and wife team that started the site and are now swamped and cannot begin to authenticate everything asked of them. But that has not stopped them from carrying on. Plus they are quite liberal and you know what that means.

Donald.
 
Donald said:
Ever stop to wonder who or what "Snopes" is? Best I can find out that it is a husband and wife team that started the site and are now swamped and cannot begin to authenticate everything asked of them. But that has not stopped them from carrying on. Plus they are quite liberal and you know what that means.

Donald.
Click to expand...

...I would venture a guess their site has more accurate information than the vast majority of the "internet fallacy's'' that are posted on the internet.

... but there is always the ''conspiracy theory"...

Happy New Year to all...​
 
The Truth..

B J Atkinson said:
I'm afraid that my BS Alarm went off when I read that post.
Click to expand...

is the truth regardless of weather you wish to hear it or not. Facts are facts and conflicting opinions are bs to those holding an apposing opinion. As an American who holds all his Constitutional Rights made sacred by the lives of those many who put themselve in harms way , many who died, I have to remember this. As a gun owner and holder of a concealed carry permit who has had ocasion to weild a gun in self defense I still have difficulty being a single issue voter. My guess is that many would call this bs. God Bless America and all who have sacraficed for us to be having this very exchange of ideas. I try very hard to see everyone's view, often recognising that the emotional aspects attached to an issue make those opposed call it bs. You wanna deal with me, bring the facts Jack as in the end hopefully they will prevail. Hopefully the Liberal Snopes people have not corrupted too many issues.. you know what that means. (the last sentence was sarcasm)
LASER
 
Second Amendment!

This is a must to read! "The Founder's Second Amendment" by Stephen P. Halbrock. Very interesting reading and hard to put the book down. Craig
 
I have often wondered

How societies that are so similar(Brittish based, etc.) can have such different views on gun ownership and use. Assuming there is some grains of truth to what we are fed as being the history of Australia and Canada one would think the Pioneer spirit would overwhelm the pacifists who believe everyone is going to play fair.

I think the Canadian laws are somewhat like the Australian laws yet Scumbags find ways to come up with guns to kill others. Considering there isn't a wholesale and wide spread condition of mass shootings of innocent people by legal gun owners here in the States, how can those countries believe that disarming honest people is a good thing?

One has only too look at how many innocent people are killed by Automobiles operated by others to see the fallacy of the gun prohibition thinking. It must be OK to kill innocents with autos but not guns, how does that square up? Then we could talk about knives or clubs or wire to strangle folks with, aye?
 
I can't make a call on the validity of any of the statements made in the original post, but if you're looking for validation on any political or gun control issue, PLEASE don't look to snopes,they lean as far left as PMSNBC and the Clinton News Network.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stugotz said:
I can't make a call on the validity of any of the statements made in the original post, but if you're looking for validation on any political or gun control issue, PLEASE don't look to snopes,they lean as far left as PMSNBC and the Clinton News Network.
Click to expand...

When the actual facts are documented as opposed to just something being said... I'll take the documented statement over the hearsay regardless of where it comes from. I'll look to snopes and form my own opinion after reading the whole article.

One of the problems we have as gun owners... supporting exaggerated untrue stories/statements that can not be backed up... we can appear to others as mindless gun crazy idiots. We should look at the facts of the case and document our arguments... to promote inaccuracies simply because you like the story does not serve us well.
 
I read the Snopes article and although it brings up some statistical flaws in the original post, IT REEKED OF LIBERAL RHETORIC!

Quote from the Snopes article:

"In the the specific case offered here, context is the most important factor. The piece quoted above leads the reader to belive that most of the Austrailian citizenry owned handguns untill thier ownership was made illegal and all firearms owned by "law abiding citizens" were collected by the government through a buy-back program in 1997. This is not so. Austrailian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms -even before the 1997 buy-back program, handgun ownership in Austrailia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors. Moreover, the 1997 buy-back program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of fire arms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. and even with the ban in effect, those who can demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms can petition for exemptions from the law."

Sounds a lot like San Francisco, don't it! San Francisco is reeling from a crime wave, the likes of which have never been seen! How can anyone justify removing firearms from a moral, law abiding citizen as a good thing?
 
The point is it does not matter what it reeks of... look at what is documented... and make your decision on that... or provide your documented evidence that supports the bogus story...

snopes says it's a bogus article

two gun owners from Australia say it is BS ...
 
The fact that you think anything posted on the web to be undeniably factual is absurd. Do you search Wikipedia for information too?

The fact is, and the purpose of the original post, was to enlighten gun owners in the ways their rights are being infringed upon. Gun rights an their infringement thereupon, my friend, IS an undeniable fact you can not argue.
 
Dennis Sorensen said:
The point is it does not matter what it reeks of... look at what is documented... and make your decision on that... or provide your documented evidence that supports the bogus story...

snopes says it's a bogus article

two gun owners from Australia say it is BS ...
Click to expand...


Make that three,
 
bluhandluke said:
The fact that you think anything posted on the web to be undeniably factual is absurd. Do you search Wikipedia for information too?

The fact is, and the purpose of the original post, was to enlighten gun owners in the ways their rights are being infringed upon. Gun rights an their infringement thereupon, my friend, IS an undeniable fact you can not argue.
Click to expand...

I don't believe everything on the web, but when it is documented it allows you to research it farther yourself. Just telling a "story" as the original article says with no documentation is bogus 99% of the time.

The fact is the original article is bogus... it is exaggerated and not true. Probably made up by a disgruntled gun owner who thinks if he makes up a gun favorable story he is accomplishing something positive... when the exact opposite is more likely.

Australia is a different country than the USA. I do not believe any other country shares the US Constitution so "gun rights" in other countries are really legislated privileges. I don't like it any more than you do.

I am not arguing that you should not stand up for your rights... but I think it makes more sense to be truthful in what is published or told rather than exaggerated and embellished to be something it is not.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top