Gun confiscation and the Australian gun buyback

Back in 1996, 35 people were gunned down in Tasmania. As a result of this tragedy, the Australian government instituted new gun-control laws. Among them was a compulsory buyback program. Since then there has been much debate over how this affected violent crime rates in Australia.

Gun rights advocates have, for the most part, been claiming that violent crime actually increased after the buyback. Anti-gun advocates argue that such claims are flawed, and that violent crime went down after the buyback. Each side accuses the other of using flawed, or meaningless, statistics.

If we are to address the issue of post buyback crime rates at all, the burden of proof must fall on the anti-gun crowd. Regardless of what the Australian Constitution says, or does not say, about gun ownership, people have a natural right to defend themselves. Our natural rights are not contingent upon any government-issued piece of paper. The right to defend oneself against violence is primal. Therefore, if we are to argue that the Australian government was justified in stealing its citizens’ firearms, the burden of proof is on us to show that such a measure is necessary and effective.

But we cannot simply point to a decrease in violent crime and assume that it’s due to the buyback. Correlation does not equal causation. Similarly, we cannot assume that an increase in violent crime is due to the buyback. There are many, constantly changing, factors that influence crime rates. I would argue that the very complexity of the issue renders such claims (on either side) practically meaningless.

I would also argue that, even if it could be shown that gun confiscation does decrease violent crime, this still does not give people the right to steal guns from other people.

Consider the case of motorcycles. Why not make recreational motorcycle riding illegal? Such a law would certainly save lives; there’s no doubt about it. While it’s true that the person most at risk, with motorcycles, is the rider himself, the same could be said about guns. Suicide rates are much higher than homicide rates.

Most people understand that we must accept certain risks if our lives are to worth living at all. If it’s worth risking our lives for fun, how much more so for self-defense.

My brother just got back from a prolonged trip to Australia. He tells me that the Australians he spoke to were very pleased with their strict gun laws. There seems to be an assumption that living in Australia makes one an expert on Australian crime and gun laws. Thinking back on my own visit there, I don’t think this is the case. My impression is that many, if not most, Australians are heavily indoctrinated by their left-leaning government and press – the same as Americans and Europeans.

I recently overheard a conversation between two of my friends. They were talking about the recent shooting in Troutdale, Oregon. I’m familiar with Troutdale, since I often visit that area during the summer. It’s only about 45 minutes from my house. My friends were citing this incident as justification for gun-control. It’s funny because Troutdale was also the scene of a “wilding” a couple of years ago. Here’s a video of the incident:

… but I don’t remember calls for diversity-control after that. Perhaps this is because of selective reporting by the corporate-owned media. People hear about lone gunmen, but they’re less likely to hear about black mob violence. I would wager that the average American is much more likely to become a victim of black violence than he is to become a victim of a lone white gunman – but the powers that be, in order to serve their own political agenda, aggressively publicize white gunmen (even if they’re only part white) while ignoring black violence as much as possible.

Ethnic diversity leads to a degradation of our culture. Hence, even when the culprit is a white high school student, some of the blame can be laid at the feet of “diversity.” What we need is diversity-control, not gun-control.

About jewamongyou

I am a paleolibertarian Jew who is also a race-realist. My opinions are often out of the mainstream and often considered "odd" but are they incorrect? Feel free to set me right if you believe so!
This entry was posted in crime and violence, guns and gun-control. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Gun confiscation and the Australian gun buyback

  1. Stary Wylk says:

    Two were killed in Troutdale. One was the shooter. How is this “mass”?

  2. Stealth says:

    I agree that some limited gun control measures would probably prevent many of these random killings as well as a hell of a lot of injuries by negligent discharge. I also realize that the left wants to eliminate civilian gun ownership by whatever means are available to them. In the wake of the most recent senseless murders, left-wingers have indeed pointed to Australia’s laws as an example of “sensible” gun control. No wonder so many pro-gun Americans don’t want to budge an inch on this issue. I grew up with guns, and I certainly don’t want to lose any of my own to a bunch of anti-white Democrat legislators.

    All that being said, some conservatives would do all of us a big favor if they would just stop with all of the gun play. A gun is a tool, not a toy, and it infuriates me to see some slow-looking redneck asshole smiling for the camera with his AR strapped over his shoulder in a restaurant. Why in the world would anyone actually do this?

    Also, non-liberals seem to have an aversion to organizing. Instead of working together to make things better, many of them would rather dig in, arm up and stockpile for the “zombie apocalypse.” It’s a sort of super-individualist, do-it-yourself culture that prevents conservatives from engaging in the type of political collaboration that has allowed liberals to dominate the country. I strongly believe that guns reinforce this mentality because gun owners have the idea that they can survive a social collapse or the imposition of a dictatorship. They would rather deal with the consequences of their inaction than go outside of their comfort zone to prevent those consequences in the first place.

  3. toobrainy says:

    Australian government finds frequently homemade weapons. Recently some goldsmith manufactured perfect copies of MAC10. Though as sheetmetal blowback weapon it is the easiest construction. Thanks to gun ban they were priced at 15k$. Think about how many small metalshops there are in industrial Australia and factor in possible large scale unemployment.

    When talking about homemade weapons the issue of ammunition is brought up and proposal to put them under government license, but that too is ancient technology. 9mm luger is hundred years old technology and there are thousands of hobbyist chemist in every country. When gangs start getting their own ammunition they are not restricted to designs found at your hunting store e.g. sub caliper penetrators, incendiary mixes etc. It only takes one educated person to plan it and put it in pdf so average machinists can follow it.

    Interesting fact for the end: Austrian army used multiple shot air rifle in actual war over 100 years ago. Check out some current air rifles. Hardest part is the sealing and it was doable with late 1800s technology. Energy comes from muscle powered pump.

    We live interesting times!

  4. Robert Marchenoir says:

    I wish Australians (and everybody else) a happy future, in which the worst agression and violence would look like this :

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11109599/Cute-koalas-fight-in-Australian-park.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s