Attention Aussie members. Is this true?


July 31, 2005, 09:18 PM
Here's a thought to warm your hearts... From Ed Chenel, a police officer
in Australia.

Hi Yanks and Canadians - I thought you all would like to see the real
figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in
Astralia 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 in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2
percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide,
armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria
alnoe, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while
the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not!
and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous
25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has
changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are
guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase
in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.

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." You won't see this on
the American /Canadian evening news or hear your government or members of the
State Assembly amd Ottawa parliament disseminating this information.

The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens
save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the
law-abiding citizens. Take note Americans and Canadians before it's too

If you enjoyed reading about "Attention Aussie members. Is this true?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Andrew Rothman
July 31, 2005, 09:43 PM
We've been here before - four times.

July 31, 2005, 10:27 PM
:eek: Sorry...just received the info. Was an honest mistake. Didn't mean to copy a past post. Any moderator feel free to delete.

wizard of oz
July 31, 2005, 10:59 PM
65 % of all statistics are made up. Seriously, that letter doesn't 'smell' genuine to me. (Hard to imagine a pro-gun aussie policeman)

Feel free to start a gun-control in Oz topic if you are interested.

Spiphel Rike
August 1, 2005, 07:09 AM
These stats come from the late nineties I think. I am one of the Australians here, and am appalled. Sadly many Australians now are anti-gun, some look at me like i just sprouted a giant proboscis when i tell them i'm pro gun.

These figures have only gotten worse I fear, try to check on the ABS (australian bureau of statistics) website.

daniel (australia)
August 1, 2005, 12:00 PM
This so-called quote is very old and almost certainly apocryphal: the big buyback to which it refers was about 8 years ago.

Truth is the rates of most crimes haven't changed much here since, but that of itself is enough to demonstrate that the better part of $1 billion dollars (including on-costs) spent on the buyback of lawfully-owned firearms was money wasted.

August 2, 2005, 01:10 AM
Yeah that is well and truly out of date, and I wouldn't vouch for the stats. More recent were the 2003 Handgun confiscations, which destroyed small pistols, mags over 10 rds, and high cals. (Over .38) and placed very strict ownership requirements i.e. if you own one pistol you must compete in something like 6 nationally recognised competitons on different occasions each year. This may not seem much but this requirement increases for every extra pistol you own. :cuss:
This year the QLD EPA has combined this with a different tactic; that of progessively shutting down as many shooting ranges they can, including my own local range. This action could jepardize my current license application, has prevented my sister from getting her pistol license. And forces many license holders to repetedly travel excessive distances in order to qualify for their licenses.:mad:

As a response to the attempted importation of remington pump action rifles fitted with AR mags, the lastest talk is that of restricting lever/pump actions and also detatchable rifle magazines.

Australian shooters on the whole do not take their rights seriously, and will eventually lose them alltogether.

IMHO Crime has increased quite a bit, particularly low grade drug/ achohol related.
Most Aussies are in denial. But there are still nice places to live if you get a long way out of town, or find the right area.
Politically/socially things are getting pretty bad.

Take note and don't let it happen in your country

........saving up to emigrate :mad:

August 2, 2005, 01:32 AM
I wouldn't say that we don't take our rights seriously. I mean the 1996 buy back saw the biggest protests held since Vietnam.

But when we are 4% of the population, living in Howards dictatorship (GST, 1996&2003 Firearm 'reforms', Iraq), and amoungst a society turned into anti-gunners, based purely on ignorance, and an inability to use logical reasoning, the result is we are screwed, and will loose our privalages. And I say privelages, as we don't have rights, the Americans have consitutional rights to arms, we do not.

And belive me this tears me up, each time I hear a moron politition blaming crime on licenced shooters, and calling for gun control. I mean Lee Rhiannon is a perfect example, asking for a ban on all semi-auto pistols, calling it a "loophole" in the current gun laws. If that ever happens, there goes our olympic team, who look a bunch of thugs, and I will feel so much safer. There are only about 2 sports you can compete in without a repeating pistol (free pistol&sillohette), and both are totally detatched from regular pistol sports. I find anti-gunners incomprehensible. Don't they realized that licenced shooters are not the ones engaged in criminal acts, this has been shown time and time again, though yearly statistics, and plain bloody logic...I don't have a criminal record and am not likely to commit a crime, that's why I am allowed to compete in handgun sports, and own handguns to do so. That's why I am subject to the law, and keep the damn thing in a vault when not in use, and only transport it to and from the range. Where is the risk to public safely??!!??

We do need a louder political voice, because winging here and in publications such as the ASJ achives nothing! Me? Well I'm a quitter, I'm moving to Washington state at the end of November, and I'm taking my guns with me. Pity, because I really love Australia.

August 2, 2005, 03:36 AM
Me? Well I'm a quitter, I'm moving to Washington state at the end of November, and I'm taking my guns with me. Pity, because I really love Australia.

Wrong. You'd only be a "quitter" if you were leaving before or during the fight. The war is lost in Australia, big time, and the brainwashing is too strong to prevent any real re-organizing to fight back. We have the same brainwashing problem which is why we can't/won't re-constitute the local militias anywhere.

What guns are you bringing to America, and what ones will you buy when you get here (hopefully every assault rifle in the book)?

Please don't decend into complacency once you've been here awhile and become a Bush supporter. Keep this picture always in mind (these two globalists look like they need to get a freaking room! Even after CAFTA, people will still tell me that Bush is not a globalist :fire: .):

Bruce in West Oz
August 2, 2005, 05:37 AM
Don't know there's much I can add to this that hasn't already been explained.

The figures may be old, but, surprisingly, we do have some pro-gun coppers; there's one who posts regularly on the SSAA guestbook (

If anything, with one or two exceptions I think the crime figures are actually worse, but I'm too stuffed up with the flu at the moment to go looking. :p

The gun stealbacks ... errr ... buybacks were and are frauds. They have not done ANYTHING to make Australia "safer" in any way, shape or form. A billion dollars down the gurgler, for nothing. I notice a news alert today calling for police to assess shooters mentally as to their suitability to own firearms, and for the Registrars of Births, Deaths and Marriages to supply monthly list of deceased to police, to be checked against firearms licence databases, so the coppers can get their hands on the guns first ... :fire: Note that they can be seized and destroyed under our laws with no requirement for compensation (because they're not owned by a licensed owner any more; hence, they're no longer legal).

The latest debacle over detachable magazines for pump and lever guns just shows how totally off the wall the coppers and police ministers are. Fortunately, it appears the prohibition will only be on "large capacity" detachable magazines (over 10 rounds for centrefire and 15 rounds for rimfire, or so I've heard, and even that not in all States). Even so, it's a totally bloody stupid piece of legislation that will achieve nothing, except a bit more bastardisation of gun owners.

Whoever said Australia is a "gun hating" country is, sadly, now correct; the antis have won here -- for now. But the battle continues, although some of we old far ... fellas are getting a bit tired of it all.

Congrats on moving to the USA -- Vermont was always my dream, but I'm an Australian and it just ain't gonna happen. So I'll stay put and keep struggling and kicking arse every chance I get.

August 2, 2005, 06:45 AM
Gun control is not about logic...It is about control of a potential threat to the powers that be. The theory is simple: take away guns from the little, uninfluential, non-special, common sheep and the few who are in power and or in control of it, will have a much decreased threat to their grip on power. It's quite easy to do, once you have control over the media and the unwitting cooperation of do-gooders who simply cannot grasp facts and statistics, and or are not even interested in them.

The world is becoming an even more dangerous place than it already was...and that is directly attributable to ever-widening gap between the haves and the have-nots and the increasing oppression of the former over the latter. It has gotten to the point that it is noticeable even within the U.S., itself under the guise of "globalization". Slowly, but surely the differences between the working class here and abroad are beginning to crumble through out-sourcing and depletion of decent-salary jobs with decent benefits. We are beginning to slip in the category of quality of living and this does not please the populace in the slightest. But so long as they are led to distraction with outside threats, real or imagined they will be all too willing to make more sacreligious sacrifices of supposed inalienable rights. Good bye Bill of Rights and hello to quiet authoritarianism (quiet for as long as it can be). As a result, attempts are made to take away guns, increase numbers and powers of police, confiscate private property for the "common good", etc, etc.

The biggest difference, of course between Australia and the U.S. in terms of gun rights is the 2nd Ammendment and the very strong pro-2A crowd (at least relatively so). Politicians still have to win elections and therefore have to pay attention to local constituencies...and that is why gun-rights advocates have made strides in protection and reinstatement of gun rights. But if it were up to the people in the executive branch, U.S. law-abiding citizens too would be disarmed. Unfortunately for these people, this presents them with a problem of appearances. The Republican party has traditionally been considered pro-2A. Fortunately for them, they have enough career-antis (including the flawed-platform Dems) running around to present bills they would sign into law, if the chance presented itself. But they can't appear to be the driving force behind anti-2A sentiments...they only have to appear as the lesser of two evils. It's a fine balancing act performed by Bush and his advisors. I know I will get slammed for saying so, but Bush is no friend to 2A...he is merely less of a threat in the present political climate...he will not initiate or publicly push for anti-2A legislation, but he will pass it if it somehow crosses his desk. He has only said so on more than a few occasions about different anti-2A bills. And so the battle will rage on.

Australia, I feel for you...I really do. Anybody who has it worse off than us ********** 2nd-class citizens has got it real bad. But don't think for a second that real U.S. citizens can take their "rights" for granted. These "rights" are constantly being assaulted. U.S. First-class citizens just have some more powerful tools in their political arsenal to fight back. But it ain't easy.

Good luck in your fight.

August 2, 2005, 06:55 AM
Some of those internet chain mails show a remarkable longevity. FWIW, here's a couple links I had stashed from the last incarnation:

BreakTheChain (

From 2000, another perspective. (

The start? (

August 2, 2005, 08:47 PM
It's a statistical fact, not theory, that violent crime in the U.S. would hardly exist, if guns and knives could be kept out of the hands of Democrats!

Mongo the Mutterer
August 2, 2005, 08:50 PM
Geez Rockstar ... are those just the felons they want to vote?

August 2, 2005, 08:54 PM
Any statistics on the underground gun market?

captain obvious
August 2, 2005, 08:57 PM
Not to hijack the thread too badly, but I've always wondered, in a case like Australia of recent, how do the people in the outback survive? I wouldn't ever want to live in an area that rural unarmed - what do they do about wild animals and such?

daniel (australia)
August 2, 2005, 10:31 PM
308win there's a bit of statistical info about. For example this paper ( showed that about 90% of firearms homicides are committed by unlicensed persons with unregistered firearms. As well, there are some conclusions that might be drawn from the fact that of the several million semiautomatic long arms and pump-action shotguns imported into this country only 640,000-odd were handed in when they were banned.

captain obvious: If you were a landowner in the outback with clean record you'd qualify for ownership of a firearm, and there are a number of other bases for lawful ownership of firearms in the land of Oz. It isn't as if there are no firearms here: roughly 25% of all households have a firearms or firearms, leaving aside the enormous numbers of firearms "outside the system".

BTW please don't take the above as endorsement of either our current system or of unlawful activity. It is not that long ago that you could walk into Kmart and buy a rifle or shotgun without any restrictions, licences etc., and clearly a fair number of people have chosen not to go along with a sysem whereby firearms ownership is a revocable privilege controlled by the State.

August 2, 2005, 10:41 PM
Actually just to elaborate on that Daniel, in Western Australia you have never been able to march into k-mart, and walk out with a rife. WA has had a licencing scheme in place since the 70s.

Despite our "national gun laws", firearms control is always a state thing, and even now laws vary from state to state (not much though).

daniel (australia)
August 3, 2005, 12:10 AM

Point taken - the Wild West has had draconian and idiosyncratic firearms laws for a fair while, but on the eastern side of the continent (where 90%+ of the population is :neener: ) you certainly could march right on into Kmart and walk out with a selfloading longarm and as much ammo as you could carry.

It wasn't that long ago either. I still have boxes of ammo with Kmart price stickers on them :( .

August 3, 2005, 12:22 AM
lol, so we are used to getting the arse end of things!

But you are right. I mean less than 20 years ago we wern't such a gun-a-phobic nation. Like you said you could buy your ammo next to the baby dipers (not here though ;) ), they had cadets in school, all farmers had a few shotties and rifles for bunny blasting........and noone cared!

Kind of funny isn't it, 20 years ago guns were everywhere, and whenever we hear about crime getting bad, we will always say, that wouldn't happen 20 years ago. Just goes to show, crime isn't related to guns, it's related to the health of a society. And in this self distuctive society, it's much easier for the polititions to point the finger at a minority....Jerks.

August 3, 2005, 12:28 AM
Arch "Amoungst a society turned into anti-gunners, based purely on ignorance, and an inability to use logical reasoning, the result is we are screwed, and will loose our privalages. And I say privelages, as we don't have rights, the Americans have consitutional rights to arms, we do not."

Well as I do not live in the big smoke, I can't speak for the majority. But I do not encounter many Rabid anti gunners. Pro gun Vs anti simply is not a big issue out here, Most people "Just dont care" one way or another, Most people I encounter will agree with new gun laws just because it sounds plausible and it does not affect them. They don't like guns, but don't seem to have a big problem with other people having them or using them in a nice way i.e. Oylimpic shooting. That's just my impression YMMV
They are too busy worring about thier own little problems the look at the big picture.

I think we have fought in the wrong areas, and have become too "sport oriented" Its sad that the fact "that a firearm can save your life" is NOT a valid legal reason for ownership. Whereas punching holes in paper is a valid reason. Hey if we just want to put holes in paper, just use a .357 cal pencil.

Privilges V's Rights, Constitutionally it is a privilige, however we still have the 1689 Bill of Rights which protects the Right of Protestants to keep and manitain arms suitable for thier defense under law.
As I see it self preservation is a God given Right not a legal privilige.

Government is stepping on a lot of toes, just look at the new NlIS system for Microchipping cattle, now being enforced. This system is causing a lot of expense and problems for Primary producers in my area, and shows no benefits. Maybe its just a practice run for when they start on people. :evil:

Underground firearms market... Just plain huge, I try keep out of that loop just to keep squeaky clean, but there is no problem getting them and you can really make dough if you want to get into the area of selling black market ammo. $1000 for a few hours work on the weekend is not unheard of :banghead:

Take care


Bruce in West Oz
August 3, 2005, 03:58 AM
however we still have the 1689 Bill of Rights which protects the Right of Protestants to keep and manitain arms suitable for thier defense under law.

Well, assuming you're an Aussie, then, sadly, no we don't. The High Court of Australia has ruled that subsequent legislation overrides that document. Legally, we don't have a leg to stand on.

And in WA, while I could buy ammo in K-Mart in the late 70s (with my licence, of course), we've had FULL registration since at least the 1930s, AFAIK. :fire:

Mongo the Mutterer
August 3, 2005, 06:33 AM
To my Aussie Friends -- Thank you for the insight into how the anti's got your arms. They always move slowly, one piece of freedom at a time.

Your experiences will be invaluable as we continue to battle these elitist transnational socialists.

August 3, 2005, 09:06 AM
Here's the reply I made to a cousin about the exact same chain letter:


You ask in your title: True?

The answer is: Yes and no.

First of all this particular email is commented on by snopes who are not always unbiased:

They point out some basic statistical errors and sleight of hand.

But there is much more to the story...

Basically, what has happened in Australia by banning most guns is that gun death has gone down. This is accounted for by the drop in gun suicides due to lack of access. See:
Firearms related deaths in Australia 1991 - 2001

"The examination finds a 47 per cent decrease in annual numbers of firearms related deaths between 1991 and 2001, with a fall in the number of suicides accounting for the largest part of that decrease."

The trouble is, violent crime has gone up.
The gun-banners claim that a drop in crime is not to be expected (criminals being what they are and all) and that all they expected was a drop in gun-related death. However what they are not addressing is the true usefulness of guns for self-defense.
The gun is an equalizer and allows one man to take on a group and a woman to defend herself against an obviously stronger man. In places where guns are banned the increase is in crimes against the physically weaker - violent robberies, "hot" burglaries and home invasions, and rape.

From John Lott's article in "The Australian" (no link... article has been archived)

"Violent crime rates have gone up dramatically in Australia since the 1996 Port Arthur gun control measures. And violent crime rates averaged 20 per cent higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did in 1996, 32 per cent higher than the violent crime rates in 1995. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed increases of 67 per cent and 74 per cent, respectively; for aggravated assault, 20 per cent and 32 per cent; for rape, 11 per cent and 12 per cent; murder, attempted murder and manslaughter rose by 5 per cent in both cases."

The graphs attached show the increase in robbery in Australia after the 1996 gun ban went into effect.

Raw data is available here as a spreadsaheet:


From another point of view, this paper by a Canadian academic studies the impact of gun control on several nations including Australia.

The money quote is this:

Gun laws may not reduce violent crime, but crime causes gun laws. The loser in this drama is individual freedom. The winner is bureaucracy. Since it is a truism that only law abiding citizens obey gun laws, or any other kind of law for that matter, it is an illusion that further tinkering with the law will protect the public.

Now this study specifically targets Australia because it such an isolated yet homogenous country and studies the crime figures from a statistical point of view:

This study has great hyperlink footnotes.

The money quote in this study is this:

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.

Hopefully this will give you a better understanding of the fairly subtle relationship of law abiding gun ownership to crime and violent death, without boring you too much in the process.

I would consider it a US citizen's duty to exercise the right of armed self-defense if for no other reason than for the strong to protect the weak.
For it is the weak who suffer when their access to firearms is denied.

If you need any more information on this topic please email.



August 3, 2005, 10:05 AM
I stand corrected, but I was only 4 decades off. :rolleyes:

August 3, 2005, 10:15 PM
Re suicide; I'll quote from a recent Aussie Shooter Journal insert by Samara McPhedran;

"The leading Australian suicide method has, for many years, been asphyxiation (hanging, strangulation, suffocation). This method contributed substantially to a peak in suicide rates in the late 1990s, and in 2003 accounted for 45% of all suicides. In the same year, poisoning accounted for 31%, 'other' methods for 14%, and firearms (of all types) for 9% for all suicides." [ABS 2004, 'Suicides: Recent trends, Australia' Cat No. 3309.0.55.001]

"The ongoing decline in firearm suicides did not translate into a decline in overall suicide rates."
This is an important point that many people miss.

The suicide argument does not make sense anyhow as, only certain types of firearms were confiscated and a lot of people just went out and bought a new bolt/lever/pump with the compensation money. Importation has gone up, so there are more guns in the country than ever before.

Firearm Homicides have been declining since the late 1960s
Its not a recent trend, it probably just shows that Goblins know that the sheep are just as easy to rob with a knife/other weapon as with a firearm. It also shows that sheep are less willing to shoot back. IMHO Aust might be a better place if there were a few more "justifiable firearm homicides"

Bill of rights, Bruce, yes they ride roughshod over this
law but notice how quick they are to quote the Bill of Rights re; Freedom of Speech when some MP unfairly libels someone in Parliament. Of course freedom of speech (like armed bodyguards and ballistic vests) are only for pollies, and their ilk.


If you enjoyed reading about "Attention Aussie members. Is this true?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!