PULVERDAMPF

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 real figures from Down Under.

It has now been 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 in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are 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.(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, 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....' You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or
members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

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.

n 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[34] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence.

In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker (a former state president of the SSAA(SA)) and Dr Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting) found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.[37]

Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australian and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. However since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”[41]

In 2009 a paper from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University concluded:
The implemented restrictions may not be responsible for the observed reductions in firearms suicide. Data suggest that a change in social and cultural attitudes could have contributed to the shift in method preference.[42]

M16_ hat geschrieben:In dem Link steht der derzeitige Stand drinnen, aber was hat sich vor 12 Monaten geändert, dass es so Effekte gab?

Noldi hat geschrieben:Bestätigt meine Einstllung, dass Morde soziale und kulturelle Hintergründe haben.

MauserM03 hat geschrieben:

It has now been 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.

therion hat geschrieben:Natürlich liefern alle ab...

DerDaniel hat geschrieben:Wenn der Staat solche Gesetzte erlässt, dann bedroht er mich und meine Grundrechte. Dann werde ich mich notfalls mit der Gewalt der Waffen die er mir nehmen will dagegen verteidigen.
Das sage ich im Vollbesitz meiner geistigen und körperlichen Kräfte und dem Bewusstsein aller Konsequenzen die es nach sich zieht! Das ist die Grenze bei der sich der Staat als schützendes und helfendes Organ zum Unterdrücker wendet.