Gun Control: The Australian Experiment

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

About the Writer: Howard Nemerov is a Bay Area freelance writer who has a special interest in the preservation of the Second Amendment. Howard receives e-mail at hnemerov@netvista.net.

The enemies of the Second Amendment here, in particular those of the Million Mom March, have their tactical approach mapped out for between now and the election too. From the horse's mouth:

ATTENTION ALL MOMS AND SUPPORTERS:

We are down to the wire now on the AWB. Only 23 more "working days" that Congress will be in session before the Assault Weapons Ban expires on September 13.

The Feinstein/Warner bill to renew the ban is planned to be introduced in the Senate as early as this coming week. (S.2109, the Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2004) They plan to attach it to a class action bill that the Republicans really want. We had a conference call with Senator Feinstein last week and as she said, a renewal is all we can hope for, no chance to strengthen the bill.

THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO NOW:

1) Call Senator John Warner and THANK him for sponsoring this bill.

2) Call Senator George Allen and ask him to please return to his initial positive position on the AWB issue and support this bill.

3) Call Senator John Kerry, thank him for supporting the AWB and ask him to please arrange his campaign schedule so that he can return to Washington to vote for the bill. He did this once before and we desperately need his vote. We can't afford to lose 1 vote!

YOU CAN USE THE CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD FOR ALL THESE CALLS. THEY WILL CONNECT YOU TO THE OFFICES. YOU WILL SPEAK TO AN AIDE AND YOUR OPINION WILL BE RECORDED AND REPORTED TO THE SENATORS. (202-224-3121)

THEY NEED TO HEAR FROM US. They are being bombarded with negative calls from the NRA who threaten to defeat their re-elections if they vote for the ban. THE SENATORS NEED TO KNOW THAT THEIR CONSTITUENTS WANT THEM TO VOTE TO RENEW THE BAN! The NRA has convinced them that their group speaks for the majority of Americans. They do not! This issue isn't even controversial, expect to the NRA. The vast majority of Americans support the ban.

And, please, tell everyone you know about this - especially people in other states. Ask them to call their Senators with the same message. I will forward a MMM email to you that will list how all the Senators voted on the AWB when it was attached to the Immunity bill in March so they will know how their Senators voted.

We will be doing more of this and other things in the next few weeks. We will keep you up to date on the AWB in the House of Representatives as soon as we have news.

Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to do this. We can not lose. We must not fail.

"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."

This is the reason for the 2nd Amendment; those in political office who vote to limit your ability to own firearms are not interested in anything but their own power. Their votes are not Constitutionally binding - not only do we not have to obey such laws, we are, by duty to the Constitution, bound to disobey them. In a Constitutional Republic, these people are part of the cadre of the "Enemies of Freedom". I could name them, but all one has to do is to look at those who sit on the LEFT side of the US Senate. I say, "damn all tyrants".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.