UPDATE: SINCE THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN, NEW STUDIES PROVED THAT THERE ARE MORE GUN-OWNERS IN AUSTRALIA THAN EVER. READ ABOUT THAT HERE.
In 1996 a massacre in Tasmania left 35 people dead, and caused Australia to establish draconian gun control laws. They literally rounded up, destroyed and banned guns. Now the rumor goes, they havenât had any mass shootings since, and that crime has decreased as a result. HINT: not quite.
Enter Obama, whoÂ said:
âWhen Australia had a mass killing, it was just so shocking to the system, the entire country said, âWell, weâre going to completely change our gun lawsâ, and they did. And it hasnât happened since.â
Okay, we’ll get to his false quote in a second, but first, watch the video below.
Itâs pretty obvious, by the currently measurable barometers that we have available, that Australiaâs disarmament was a disaster. Maybe they didnât have any more “mass-shootings”. Great. But what about the rest of the crime?
Well, thereâs argument about whether the gun related homicides and other various crimes have actually increasedÂ or not. Some places have the homicide rate increasing at 3.2% along with armed robbery at 44%, while some other stats have them remaining about the same. At the very least, we do knowÂ that the policies have not significantly decreased crime. That’s not even being debated. WhichâŚconsidering that the Australian government spent a considerable amount of money on the laws, seems at the very least, disappointing.
That’s not to address the most important issue at play here: what the Australian government did was an unfettered act of tyranny. Despite how leftists try to sugarcoat it, the Australian gun “buyback” program was mandatory. That makes it effectively a gun ban. When American leftists support Australian policies, they are absolutely, unequivocally supporting an outright ban on firearms. Disarming a populace is, at it’s very core, the denial of a human right to self-preservation.
I acknowledge that maybe some countries get lucky. Maybe they ban guns and crime decreases. It certainly would seem the exception to the rule, but it’s certainly not outside the realm of possibility.
That doesn’t make it any less tyrannical.
When a woman is facing a psychotic stalker, needing to protect herself from the inevitable attackÂ that will occur, but the government denies her right to protection… that’s a travesty.
When somebody finds themselves on CAIR’s jihadi watch list and knows beyond any shadow of a doubt that protection of his family is imperative, and the government says “nuh uh”… that’s a travesty.
When a woman in Sweden (now the rape capital of the civilized world) faces a religiously-motivated gang-rape, and her only chance at getting out alive, a gun, is removed from her… that’s a travesty.
Yes, evil is will always be among us. Yes, bad people will do bad things with guns. That does not, and will never, change the fact that it is morally imperative for law-abiding citizens to maintain their right to self-preservation. Period.