Liberals have once again been mounting their efforts to call for gun bans in the United States. Some say they only want to ban certain types of guns such as assault and assault-style guns while others have admitted to wanting to ban all guns. They frequently point to places like England and Australia who banned most firearms and claimed it made them safer.
Is this a truthful claim or is it nothing more than their socialist rhetoric which is regularly regurgitated to support their agenda?
In 1996, newly elected Prime Minister John Howard of Australia pushed for stricter gun control. That year the Australian Parliament passed the National Firearms Agreement which banned the private ownership of all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump action shotguns. The new law also established more restrictions in the licensing of other firearms.
According to the National Firearms Agreement private citizens were forced to turn over the banned weapons in a government buyback system. Beginning on October 1, 1996 through September 30, 1997, the Australian government spent $500 million in purchasing and destroying more than 631,000 banned guns. Howard and other politicians promised the citizens of Australia that they would be safer now that these horrible weapons had been taken off the streets.
However, that was not the case!
Since Australia banned semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pump action shotguns the gun crime rates have skyrocketed throughout the country.
- Murders committed with guns increased by 19%.
- Home invasions increased by 21%.
- Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%.
- Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.
The Crime Prevention Research Center looked at the statistics from countries that have banned guns and what it shows does not support the claims of America’s anti-gun liberals:
“For an example of homicide rates before and after a ban, take the case of the handgun ban in England and Wales in January 1997 (source here see Table 1.01 and the column marked ‘Offences currently recorded as homicide per million population,’ UPDATED numbers available here). After the ban, clearly homicide rates bounce around over time, but there is only one year (2010) where the homicide rate is lower than it was in 1996. The immediate effect was about a 50 percent increase in homicide rates. Firearm homicide rate had almost doubled between 1996 and 2002 (see here p. 11). The homicide and firearm homicide rates only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004. Despite the huge increase in the number of police, the murder rate still remained slightly higher than the immediate pre-ban rate…”
“Jamaica’s crime data were obtained from a variety of sources. Its murder data from 1960 to 1967 were obtained from Terry Lacey, Violence and Politics in Jamaica, 1960–70 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1977). Professor Gary Mauser obtained the data from 1970 to 2000 from a Professor A. Francis in Jamaica and the data from 2001 to 2006 from the Statistical Institute of Jamaica (http://www.statinja.com/stats.html). Jamaica’s population estimates were obtained from NationMaster.com (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ peo_pop-people-population&date=1975).”
Anti-gun liberals also point to Japan and their low homicide rate since they banned guns. The CPRC study showed that Japan has had a very low homicide rate as far back as any statistics have been kept, so to report that the low homicide rate today is due to their gun ban is not a valid argument.
Their report also looked at locations here in the US that imposed various types of gun bans and in virtually every case, crime rates including homicides, increased after the bans.
When you put it all together, gun bans in any form anywhere have proven to be deadly and usually leads to higher crime rates. This report by the Crime Prevention Research Center needs to be broadcast by every media outlet possible and given to every politician so they can effectively rebut the false rhetoric used by the anti-gun leftists.