Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
p0ink
New member
Gun Control: The Australian Experiment
Written by Howard Nemerov
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8073
One of the foundations of scientific research is the ability to prove or disprove a theory by seeing if one can reproduce the results of one experiment when using the same methods in another experiment.
In my last article, we looked at crime trends in the United Kingdom after the gun ban enacted in 1997. (1) Australia enacted a similar ban in 1996. Like the UK, Australia is an Island country, English speaking, and has a bicameral parliament similar to the UK, and even recognizes the Queen of the United Kingdom as the official head of state. (2) This makes Australia similar enough to our form of government and culture to also be included in our litmus test to see what would happen in the United States if we enacted civilian disarmament here.
Following in Britain’s Footsteps
As with Britain, Australia invoked massive gun control following a mass murder, where a mentally ill man used firearms to commit the crime. The government reacted by effectively banning all semi-automatic firearms. One could apply for a license to own a weapon, but had to show ''a legitimate purpose and fitness of character ('genuine reason and need for owning, possessing or using a firearm'), conform to stringent safe storage requirements, and undertake safety training if a new licensee.'' (3)
Statistical Record
As with the UK study, it is important to establish a pre-ban baseline and then compare it to similar research after the ban to determine crime trends. For this purpose, we can examine statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as compiled and reported by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC). It is interesting to note that the AIC has many ''stakeholders'' from the Australian national and state governments. (4)
Here are some key findings about Australian crime trends for the period of 1995 (pre-ban) to 2001 (post-ban) (5):
''The rate of assault has increased steadily from 563 victims per 100,000 people in 1995 to 779 per 100,000 people in 2001.''
''In 2001 the rate for robbery peaked at 136 per 100,000 people—the highest recorded since 1995.''
''The rate of sexual assault was 86 per 100,000 people, which is higher than any previous year.''
Here is the comparison in violent crime trends between Australia and the United States for the period of 1995 to 2001, calculating rates by dividing the number of crimes reported (7) by the population figures. (8,9). (Negative trends are in parentheses.)
Homicide: AUS – (11%) US – (32%)
Assault: AUS – 39% US – (24%)
Rape: AUS – 19% US – (14%)
Robbery: AUS – 70% US – (33%) (10)
It is interesting to note that violent crime rates are higher in Australia. Following are selected comparisons for violent crime rates per 100,000 people in 2001. While homicide is lower and robbery is similar, assault and rape occur more than twice as often in Australia, proving that when the physically weaker are barred from possessing the best tool for self-defense, they are rendered helpless. As with England, women pay the price when politicians use tragedy as an excuse to eliminate armed threat to their power.
Homicide: AUS – 1.8 US – 5.6
Assault: AUS – 779 US – 319
Rape: AUS – 86 US – 32
Robbery: AUS – 136 US – 146
Mirroring England’s demonstration of John Lott’s principle of the substitution effect, we find that reverse substitution is also in effect in Australia: since victims are unarmed, criminals will not expend the extra effort to plan burglary. (6)
''The rate of unlawful entry has remained relatively stable since 1995, with a small decrease recorded in 2001.''
The one exception to the substitution principle is that crimes against business has increased, as the ''rate of other theft (including shoplifting) has increased by 32% since 1995.'' This excludes motor vehicle theft, which ''has remained stable since 1995.'' Compare this with the 20% drop in property crime in the USA.
To summarize, we see a dramatic rise in violent crime in Australia since the gun ban, along with a relatively flat trend in property crime rates, demonstrating the criminals’ understanding of the basic principles of cost/benefit analysis, choosing the quicker method of confronting an unarmed victim. At the same time, the USA saw significant drops in both violent and property crime rates, proving the adage that an armed society is a polite--and safer--society.
Conclusion
''It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of violent love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust . On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.'' – Federalist Papers, Number 1, Alexander Hamilton.
We are a world at war, where concepts can manifest as improvement in the general welfare of all, or as holocaust. Just as the criminal justifies robbery, rape, and murder out of selfish necessity and expedience, groups of individuals can justify destruction and death through their imagined superiority due to differences in philosophy, culture, religion, or variations in skin pigmentation. It starts with the belief that others are essentially stupid, bad, or not trustworthy, and not worthy of being treated with respect and decency, resulting in tyranny and genocide.
Many individuals believe in their own manifest unworthiness. They are overwhelmed with the choices freedom offers, and prefer the apparent safety of slavery. When offered freedom from choice by a government that says they will provide safety by taking responsibility for making all those terrifying choices, this is too tempting an offer to ignore. The fact that history teaches a consistent lesson about this process is subsumed by the delusional belief that ''this time it will be different.'' Of course, even this part of choice happens only if people study history. When government controls public education, history can be ignored, or revised to create the fantasy world that suits the desired outcome, making it even easier to shepherd people into the only apparent choice available. The reality of history shows how this works, always ending with a ruling elite controlling 99% of all wealth and power.
Arrayed against these forces of darkness are those who believe that most people are essentially good; that most people, if allowed to pursue their life goals in an atmosphere of liberty, will create goodness which benefits society. They understand that with freedom of choice goes responsibility, and do not flinch from this reality. They understand that they may fail in some undertakings, but rather than considering themselves failures, they learn from experience, consider setbacks challenges rather than obstacles, and persist until they prevail. When they band together to create a country, it is founded on the belief of liberty and justice for all, and manifests an economy that is the dynamo for, and envy of, the rest of the world; such is our country.
Self-defense is a heavy choice. For the weak-willed, it is too much to undertake, and they prefer not only that government take on that responsibility, but that it do so even for those who are willing to assume personal responsibility for their choice. Thus, we have supporters of gun control. Those in government who offer the promise--not ever based in reality--of defending us from predators are the ones who wish to repeat history and become the next ruling elite, themselves becoming the dominant predators.
Indeed, if you take a life in self-defense, you will be judged, though not necessarily to the negative side of the ledger, so to speak. It takes character, courage, and skill, but most of all, it takes reverence for life, for if you are unwilling to assume responsibility for your life, you have no life.
English philosopher Edmund Burke said, ''All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.'' Again, we are faced with a choice, against which the future of this country is balanced. Do nothing about gun control, and we become subjects, as the people of England and Australia are discovering they still are. Then we progress from subjects to peasants, to serfs, to slaves, finally free from the oft-painful necessity of choice.
In America, the choice is still yours, and remember: not choosing, or not acting on that choice, is a choice for tyranny, a choice to sell your children into slavery. Choose liberty, and act by calling your Congressional representatives and tell them in no uncertain terms to let the Assault Weapons ban sunset, the first step in rolling back victimless crime laws that have benefited nobody but those who crave power.
Footnotes
(1) What Gun Controllers Don’t Want You to Know
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=7862
(2) The Australian Government Structure, Alan Quartly, Pagewise, 2002. http://me.essortment.com/australiangover_rbpt.htm
(3) Australia: A Massive Buyback of Low-Risk Guns, Reuter and Mouzos, 2002.
http://www.puaf.umd.edu/faculty/papers/reuter/gun chapter.pdf
(4) Australian Institute of Criminology Online Action Plan, May, 2002, page 1.
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN003990.pdf
(5) Australian Crime Facts and Figures 2002, Australian Institute of Criminology, November, 2002, page 7.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2002/facts_and_figures_2002.pdf
(6) Ibid, page 8.
(7) Ibid, page 5.
(8) 1995 Australian Population, Year Book Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/0db74c39eee3a02fca256b350010b402!OpenDocument
(9) 2001 Australian Population, Nation by Nation
http://www.nationbynation.com/Australia/Population.html
(10) FBI Uniform Crime Reports. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
Source of all reported US crime rates in this article.
Written by Howard Nemerov
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8073
One of the foundations of scientific research is the ability to prove or disprove a theory by seeing if one can reproduce the results of one experiment when using the same methods in another experiment.
In my last article, we looked at crime trends in the United Kingdom after the gun ban enacted in 1997. (1) Australia enacted a similar ban in 1996. Like the UK, Australia is an Island country, English speaking, and has a bicameral parliament similar to the UK, and even recognizes the Queen of the United Kingdom as the official head of state. (2) This makes Australia similar enough to our form of government and culture to also be included in our litmus test to see what would happen in the United States if we enacted civilian disarmament here.
Following in Britain’s Footsteps
As with Britain, Australia invoked massive gun control following a mass murder, where a mentally ill man used firearms to commit the crime. The government reacted by effectively banning all semi-automatic firearms. One could apply for a license to own a weapon, but had to show ''a legitimate purpose and fitness of character ('genuine reason and need for owning, possessing or using a firearm'), conform to stringent safe storage requirements, and undertake safety training if a new licensee.'' (3)
Statistical Record
As with the UK study, it is important to establish a pre-ban baseline and then compare it to similar research after the ban to determine crime trends. For this purpose, we can examine statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as compiled and reported by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC). It is interesting to note that the AIC has many ''stakeholders'' from the Australian national and state governments. (4)
Here are some key findings about Australian crime trends for the period of 1995 (pre-ban) to 2001 (post-ban) (5):
''The rate of assault has increased steadily from 563 victims per 100,000 people in 1995 to 779 per 100,000 people in 2001.''
''In 2001 the rate for robbery peaked at 136 per 100,000 people—the highest recorded since 1995.''
''The rate of sexual assault was 86 per 100,000 people, which is higher than any previous year.''
Here is the comparison in violent crime trends between Australia and the United States for the period of 1995 to 2001, calculating rates by dividing the number of crimes reported (7) by the population figures. (8,9). (Negative trends are in parentheses.)
Homicide: AUS – (11%) US – (32%)
Assault: AUS – 39% US – (24%)
Rape: AUS – 19% US – (14%)
Robbery: AUS – 70% US – (33%) (10)
It is interesting to note that violent crime rates are higher in Australia. Following are selected comparisons for violent crime rates per 100,000 people in 2001. While homicide is lower and robbery is similar, assault and rape occur more than twice as often in Australia, proving that when the physically weaker are barred from possessing the best tool for self-defense, they are rendered helpless. As with England, women pay the price when politicians use tragedy as an excuse to eliminate armed threat to their power.
Homicide: AUS – 1.8 US – 5.6
Assault: AUS – 779 US – 319
Rape: AUS – 86 US – 32
Robbery: AUS – 136 US – 146
Mirroring England’s demonstration of John Lott’s principle of the substitution effect, we find that reverse substitution is also in effect in Australia: since victims are unarmed, criminals will not expend the extra effort to plan burglary. (6)
''The rate of unlawful entry has remained relatively stable since 1995, with a small decrease recorded in 2001.''
The one exception to the substitution principle is that crimes against business has increased, as the ''rate of other theft (including shoplifting) has increased by 32% since 1995.'' This excludes motor vehicle theft, which ''has remained stable since 1995.'' Compare this with the 20% drop in property crime in the USA.
To summarize, we see a dramatic rise in violent crime in Australia since the gun ban, along with a relatively flat trend in property crime rates, demonstrating the criminals’ understanding of the basic principles of cost/benefit analysis, choosing the quicker method of confronting an unarmed victim. At the same time, the USA saw significant drops in both violent and property crime rates, proving the adage that an armed society is a polite--and safer--society.
Conclusion
''It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of violent love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust . On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.'' – Federalist Papers, Number 1, Alexander Hamilton.
We are a world at war, where concepts can manifest as improvement in the general welfare of all, or as holocaust. Just as the criminal justifies robbery, rape, and murder out of selfish necessity and expedience, groups of individuals can justify destruction and death through their imagined superiority due to differences in philosophy, culture, religion, or variations in skin pigmentation. It starts with the belief that others are essentially stupid, bad, or not trustworthy, and not worthy of being treated with respect and decency, resulting in tyranny and genocide.
Many individuals believe in their own manifest unworthiness. They are overwhelmed with the choices freedom offers, and prefer the apparent safety of slavery. When offered freedom from choice by a government that says they will provide safety by taking responsibility for making all those terrifying choices, this is too tempting an offer to ignore. The fact that history teaches a consistent lesson about this process is subsumed by the delusional belief that ''this time it will be different.'' Of course, even this part of choice happens only if people study history. When government controls public education, history can be ignored, or revised to create the fantasy world that suits the desired outcome, making it even easier to shepherd people into the only apparent choice available. The reality of history shows how this works, always ending with a ruling elite controlling 99% of all wealth and power.
Arrayed against these forces of darkness are those who believe that most people are essentially good; that most people, if allowed to pursue their life goals in an atmosphere of liberty, will create goodness which benefits society. They understand that with freedom of choice goes responsibility, and do not flinch from this reality. They understand that they may fail in some undertakings, but rather than considering themselves failures, they learn from experience, consider setbacks challenges rather than obstacles, and persist until they prevail. When they band together to create a country, it is founded on the belief of liberty and justice for all, and manifests an economy that is the dynamo for, and envy of, the rest of the world; such is our country.
Self-defense is a heavy choice. For the weak-willed, it is too much to undertake, and they prefer not only that government take on that responsibility, but that it do so even for those who are willing to assume personal responsibility for their choice. Thus, we have supporters of gun control. Those in government who offer the promise--not ever based in reality--of defending us from predators are the ones who wish to repeat history and become the next ruling elite, themselves becoming the dominant predators.
Indeed, if you take a life in self-defense, you will be judged, though not necessarily to the negative side of the ledger, so to speak. It takes character, courage, and skill, but most of all, it takes reverence for life, for if you are unwilling to assume responsibility for your life, you have no life.
English philosopher Edmund Burke said, ''All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.'' Again, we are faced with a choice, against which the future of this country is balanced. Do nothing about gun control, and we become subjects, as the people of England and Australia are discovering they still are. Then we progress from subjects to peasants, to serfs, to slaves, finally free from the oft-painful necessity of choice.
In America, the choice is still yours, and remember: not choosing, or not acting on that choice, is a choice for tyranny, a choice to sell your children into slavery. Choose liberty, and act by calling your Congressional representatives and tell them in no uncertain terms to let the Assault Weapons ban sunset, the first step in rolling back victimless crime laws that have benefited nobody but those who crave power.
Footnotes
(1) What Gun Controllers Don’t Want You to Know
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=7862
(2) The Australian Government Structure, Alan Quartly, Pagewise, 2002. http://me.essortment.com/australiangover_rbpt.htm
(3) Australia: A Massive Buyback of Low-Risk Guns, Reuter and Mouzos, 2002.
http://www.puaf.umd.edu/faculty/papers/reuter/gun chapter.pdf
(4) Australian Institute of Criminology Online Action Plan, May, 2002, page 1.
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN003990.pdf
(5) Australian Crime Facts and Figures 2002, Australian Institute of Criminology, November, 2002, page 7.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2002/facts_and_figures_2002.pdf
(6) Ibid, page 8.
(7) Ibid, page 5.
(8) 1995 Australian Population, Year Book Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/0db74c39eee3a02fca256b350010b402!OpenDocument
(9) 2001 Australian Population, Nation by Nation
http://www.nationbynation.com/Australia/Population.html
(10) FBI Uniform Crime Reports. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
Source of all reported US crime rates in this article.
