Monday, January 14, 2013

New Study Reveals Australians Own More Guns Following Strict Gun Control Laws

Andrew Puhanic, Contributor
Activist Post

Gun ownership in Australia has soared since the Australian Government enacted strict gun control laws in 1996, according to a new study published by the University of Sydney.

Although more than 1 million firearms were handed over for destruction during the Howard Government's gun buyback scheme, it has been revealed that gun imports into Australia have been rising and that gun ownership in Australia is at the same level (and trending higher) as it was in 1996 since the introduction of strict gun control laws.

This news comes at a time when the anti-gun lobby has resorted to ignoring the facts about gun violence and proclaiming that the only way to prevent massacres is via government-imposed bans on private citizens owning guns.

During Australia’s gun buyback scheme, more than 728,667 guns were handed over for destruction.

While there was an initial spike when owners of now-banned multi-shot rifles and shotguns replaced their weapons with single-fire guns in the four years after the Port Arthur massacre, gun imports fell and remained stagnant for a short period of time. The lowest number of imports in a financial year in Australia – just under 18,000 – was recorded in 1998-99.

When gun owners who had surrendered their weapons voluntarily and without compensation are included in the figures, it was revealed that more than 1 million guns were destroyed in Australia since 1988. That is one-third of the nation’s private arsenal.


However, research conducted by the University of Sydney now shows that gun sales are up and that trade has recovered with a steady increase in the 10 years since strict gun laws were introduced, peaking at 66,461 guns imported into Australia in 2009/10, the highest number in 13 years.

In fact, 1,055,082 firearms have been imported into Australia since gun destruction programs began in 1988 at an average of 43,961 guns a year.

This new revelation highlights the propaganda that the anti-gun lobby has conveyed to the unsuspecting public and exposes the false agenda of the anti-gun lobby.

The anti-gun lobby has argued that fewer guns means less violence, however in this example, more guns has not resulted in more violence.

When will Governments and the anti-gun lobby begin analyzing the true causes of gun violence and stop resorting to emotive arguments for gun control?

Andrew Puhanic is the founder of the Globalist Report. The aim of the Globalist Report is to provide current, relevant and informative information about the Globalists and Globalist Agenda. You can contact Andrew directly by visiting the Globalist Report



BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

The writer conveniently ignores the fact that the population in Australia ha increased by a fifth in that time, outstripping the rat of gun ownership.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (January 14, 2013 at 3:37 PM)

"gun ownership in Australia is at the same level (and trending higher) as it was in 1996"

Anonymous said...

Of course, there is absolutely zero smuggling in of old military rifles from any of the 20 or so nearby SE Asian countries either. None, not a one, absolutely.

Who does the government think they are kidding? The guys who legally owned guns prior to the ban could all have bought six since then and nobody would know because THOSE GUYS don't use them for crime.

And if they're sure there aren't any now, it's a wide-open opportunity for a start-up business, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Wow, 44,000 new guns a year, just a little more than the 31,000 gun deaths a year in the US.

In fact, no one is seeking to ban guns, only weapons intended for combat, semi-automatics which are capable of killing 30 or 40 people in a minute or so, which is why the mass murderers at Tuscon, Aurora, and Sandy Point, all chose semi-automatics: they are perfect for killing alot of people very quickly.

Australia, which some gun lovers claim has banned guns, has about a 15% ownership rate, but it has very strict gun regulations, which are strictly enforced. As a result, it's rate of gun homicide is over 90% per capita lower than in the US, as are all other 1st world nations, with some having 99% per capita fewer gun homicides (like Japan).

Why does the NRA oppose mandatory, universal background checks to help keep guns out of the hands of crazies, criminals, and terrorists. It's not to defend the 2nd Amendment, which does not apply to criminals, etc. it's because criminals, terrorists, and crazies buy guns (usually privately, online, or at gun shows to avoid background checks) and that means profits.

It's not about banning all guns or the 2nd Amendment; it's about keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. Once a crazy has a semi-automatic, with which he can kill 20 or 30 people in a minute or two, it is too late to bring out the "good guys with guns."

The time to stop the violence is before the "bad people" get the guns. This is how all other developed nations have gun homicide rates 90-99% lower (per capita) than in the US.

Let's stop the "bad people" before they get guns, not after. It has been proved to work in 35 peer nations, in Western Europe, Australia, Canada, and Japan. It works in states in the US with stricter laws and lower gun ownership rates, which have 40% fewer gun homicides (per capita) than states with high gun ownership rates and loopholes.
Dale

Anonymous said...

The purpose of gun control is not necessarily to decrease gun ownership.

Anonymous said...

Gun control might reduce deaths caused by guns. However, if overall homicides don't reduce then what has been achieved?

Nemetron 2000 said...

Dale is correct on one point.

They're not seeking to ban guns in general. Just the type of guns that would allow the citizens of this country to mount an effective defense against the militarized tyranny that the government is salivating to unleash on the U.S. population (i.e. semi-auto rifles).

It really is just that simple.

Shills like Dale will argue that these types of firearms are meant for war zones, yet he conveniently ignores the fact that police forces all over the country have access to full-auto rifles and sub-machine guns; more so now than ever in the history of this nation in fact. Now, if such weapons are meant for the battlefield, why do the CIVILIAN police forces have access to them? Will police forces be banned from having these weapons if a ban on semi-auto rifles is passed? I highly doubt it. And, don't say "it's to deal with the rise in mass shootings", because in most of the cases of mass shootings, the whole ordeal is over and the blood is drying on the walls and ceiling by the time the cops show up. And, even in the cases where a plain clothed or off-duty cop was present, their standard issue sidearm was enough to halt the crime. So, again why the military grade equipment for the civilian police?

Anyway, no comprises here people. The idea that you shouldn't have access to semi-military grade firearms because the "bad people" might get them is BS, because the true "bad people" already have access to full fledged military grade weapons, and they have a very nasty track record with them.

The paper tiger is ready to strike, but it must first de-fang and de-claw the real tiger.

Anonymous said...

Go back to sleep sheep.

Carroll said...

The American people have the Constitutional right to possess the exact type guns and ammunition available to the police and military at any given time. Otherwise, the 2nd amendment has no meaning. Look at it this way : When the 2nd Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights, single shot Brown Bess muskets were the common firearm available to everyone, including the military. But that does not mean that civilians today (the miltia) should be limited to single shot black powder rifles while the police and military are armed to the teeth with advanced automatic weapons. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to assure that the milita would always serve as the last defense against government, and only way they can do that is be properly armed and trained.

Anonymous said...

From the time of early civilizations it was a duty for every adult normal member of tribe/klan/ to own a veapon.It is valid still today.We have to follow the Switz example,making compulsory for citizen to have a gun and modern weapons stored home for emergency situations to defend the homeland on short Notice.The pozitive outcome will be more decency and people will be treated with respect from the sadistic bureacrats who at present treat people with cruelty and disrespect

Anonymous said...

Gun control means EXACTLY that,they (the powers that be ) want to control your guns,simple.Then they do what the hell they want, bring in laws etc that are certainly not in your interests,thats for sure sure.As an aside I handed in a WW2 M1 carbine which was later found at the local 'sports store' it had simly been made into a semi-auto which was later banned.

Freedom Lover said...

Gun control is "NOT" about gun control no matter what kind it is; it is about "people control"! Remember Hitler and all of the other dictators in MANY countries that took away guns and then the people were rounded up and slaughtered one way or another. People kill in many other ways than with guns and if they are intent on killing someone they will find a way. They don't report how many crimes are stopped because someone has protection; usually a gun. Criminals will have the guns and whatever kind they want or they wouldn't be criminals! This "gun control" is coming from the U.N. and they are out to get all guns; check it out! Read and research.

Anonymous said...

Gun control will seem like a great idea to soft minded people with an overwhelming trust in mere men, right up to the point where the government begins to slaughter en masse, thousands or millions of the people it is entrusted to protect. Then, and only then, will these people realize why gun control is a bad idea.

Post a Comment