Hillary’s “Australian-Style” Solution

By Jeff Knox

It’s looking very likely that Hillary Clinton will avoid going to prison for her illegal handling of classified emails, so we need to consider what a Clinton presidency means to gun owners...
It’s looking very likely that Hillary Clinton will avoid going to prison for her illegal handling of classified emails, so we need to consider what a Clinton presidency means to gun owners…
FirearmsCoalition.org
FirearmsCoalition.org

USA –  -(Ammoland.com)- Hillary Clinton recently suggested that, while the Second Amendment is important and should be “respected,” there’s no reason we can’t implement “reasonable, commonsense gun safety measures.”

But both she and Barack Obama have offered the suggestion that what we need are “reasonable” gun laws like our friends in Australia adopted two decades ago.

Since it’s looking very likely that Hillary Clinton will avoid going to prison for her illegal handling of classified emails, trading influence as Secretary of State for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and her other shady dealings related to the foundation, we need to consider what a Rodham-Clinton presidency would really mean to gun owners, and what exactly “Australian-style” gun control looks like.

First, remember that Australia is an island nation which, while not much smaller in area than the U.S., has a total population of less than 25 million, with 65% living in large cities and 85% living within 30 miles of the coast. It is among the most urbanized nations in the world. It is also one the only countries in the “free world” that does not have a formal Bill of Rights – and certainly no recognized right to bear arms. Restrictive firearm laws have long been a staple in Australia, which began as a penal colony where Great Britain sent its criminals and indigents.

Over the decades Australia’s states instituted various of gun laws, sometimes in the form of restrictions, and sometimes relaxing existing laws. By the 1950s, most states had instituted some form of licensing and registration rules, but it wasn’t until the 1980s, as Australia was becoming much more urbanized, that gun control began to be a national political issue. The calls for more gun control were initially fueled by debates over gun laws in the U.S. rather than any serious crime issues in Australia. But a series of high-profile shooting incidents between 1984 and 1995 raised the temperature of the debate, and the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, following close on the heels of the Dunblane Massacre in Scotland, caused the pot to boil over.

Newly elected Prime Minister John Howard, lacking the authority to regulate guns on a national level, brokered agreements among the states to ban sales and possession of semi-auto and pump-action shotguns and rifles, and tighten up licensing and storage regulations for all guns and gun owners. To implement the proposals, Howard and the national government instituted a national program of compensated confiscation funded through a special tax.

The government set “reasonable” compensation amounts and required citizens to sell their guns or face prosecution. All of the collected guns were destroyed, regardless of value or historical significance.

In the end, somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million guns were confiscated, comprising twenty to twenty-five percent of all of the guns known to be in the country. Some researchers estimate that the confiscation reduced the total number of gun-owning households by about 50%. The cost, for compensation payments alone topped $500 million, but actual costs were much higher, and annual administrative and enforcement costs are staggering.

Those costs took another leap up in 2002 after a double-homicide by a mentally deranged young man using legally possessed pistols resulted in the banning of a variety of handguns and another round of tightening of rules regarding licensing, possession, and storage of firearms.

A similar program in the US, assuming it could get through Congress and survive Supreme Court challenges, would be astronomically expensive. It would require confiscatory purchase of between 60 million and 80 million guns at a cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $40 billion dollars. Licensing and registration costs would be somewhere between $5 billion and $10 billion, depending on who was reporting the numbers, and ongoing costs would add another billion dollars or so, every year. Enforcement costs are incalculable, and the cost in human lives inestimable. How much would they have to pay you to go into the homes of American gun owners to confiscate their contraband “assault weapons,” and how peacefully do you think those confiscations would go?

And what would be the benefit of all of this expense and political upheaval?

Virtually nothing.

Supporters of Australia’s gun laws are fond of touting statistics about reductions in “gun deaths” and “gun injuries” since the implementation of the new laws, and you will often see them brag that there has not been a mass murder with a firearm since the Port Arthur Massacre. But the numbers are doctored by the tactic of citing only “gun-related” statistics. The fact is that total homicides – which were trending downward prior to 1997 – have fluctuated up and down only slightly in the years since, but peaked with a 10% increase in 1999, two years after the bans and restrictions went into effect. Compare that to the U.S. which saw a 20% decline in homicides during the same period.

Australia Homicides
Australia Homicides

Australia’s homicide rate has slowly crept downward, but the rate of decline pales in comparison to the declines achieved in the U.S., and our declines occurred while gun laws were being liberalized and gun ownership was going up exponentially. And even though Australia has not experienced a serious mass murder with a firearm since Port Arthur, listings of mass murders – by any means – show that there were as many mass murder deaths in Australia in the 10 years after Port Arthur as there were in the 10 years prior to that atrocity. I guess if people are killed by fire, bludgeon, knife, or explosion their deaths are less relevant.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t want to “take away your guns.” She just wants to take away some of your guns, tightly restrict the rest, and treat you like a criminal for having or wanting them. Her commitment to the Second Amendment runs about as deep as her commitment to women’s rights in Saudi Arabia. Don’t buy Hillary’s Australia snake oil.

43 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
james
james
5 years ago

Remember the video on all the news channels from the Boston Bombing?

Massive police SWAT and terror units, APC’s black helicopters, etc etc etc.

All going Door to Door without any search warrants of any kind.

Clark Kent
Clark Kent
5 years ago

‘Honorable pirates’? That is like claiming prostitutes are virgins.

Martin W
Martin W
5 years ago
Reply to  Clark Kent

By saying pirates were “honorable’, I was saying that you knew they were pirates and what they were up to. Sometimes they sailed under a False Flag (sort of like our government) but they were always bent on mischief and criminal activity. Today’s politicians are much the same. They lie, cheat and steal from the people while pretending to be something they are not – decent citizens. We have too many enemies worldwide and here at home to be attacking each other over trivial matters, we need to worry about the next occupier of the White House and which set… Read more »

Martin W
Martin W
5 years ago

We are beginning to attack each other over a difference of opinion which is why we are in the situation we are today in the US. I do believe that the politicians deserve your disdain. Obama, Clinton and the majority of Congress are members of the criminal class and we have unelected bureaucrats making laws, rules and regulations that impact each and everyone of us daily and not one politician has read them, commented on them or voted for them. Our Country is dying and the people are complaining about who won Dancing With The Stars (more commonly known as… Read more »

gee bud
gee bud
5 years ago

Let’s see who dining at the BS buffet tonight. Ecoli is served!

both she and Barack Obama have offered the suggestion that what we need are “reasonable” gun laws like our friends in Australia adopted two decades ago.

When you guys regurgitate that BS be sure not to choke on your vomit ok?
This is just a public health message.

John Carr
John Carr
5 years ago
Reply to  gee bud

gee bud, I see you don’t have a clue what the 2nd amendment means. (SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON)

gee bud
gee bud
5 years ago
Reply to  John Carr

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON) Until you break the law, That’s the part you crooks have a problem with but don’t admit.

Clark Kent
Clark Kent
5 years ago
Reply to  gee bud

GeeBud: So where, exactly, are the words ‘until you break the law’ within the Second Amendment? NOWHERE; and that is the part you don’t admit.

gee bud
gee bud
5 years ago
Reply to  Clark Kent

Your adding words I didn’t say. It’s not within the second amendment.
Here is what you guys don’t say. You want convicted felons and people with mental illness to retain there 2nd amendment rights. it’s the 1968 gun control act that you should be rallying against in that case.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

Our constitution and our laws are designed to be amendable. The 1968 law has been challenged and upheld more than once.
Using divisive issues to divide Americans is a product of the feudal lords ,you are just a renewable resource called a tool.

gee bud
gee bud
5 years ago
Reply to  Clark Kent

I never said it is written in the 2nd. Don’t put words in my mouth. it is part of the 1968 gun control act.
So what you guys don’t admit is you want felons and people with mental illness to retain there 2nd right?
The divisional tactics by the feudal lords have you guys acting like fools. We are just renewable resources for the oligarchs called tools.

Jerry Mullen
Jerry Mullen
5 years ago
Reply to  gee bud

The reason that the Framers of the Constitution put the 2nd amendment into the Bill of Rights started with the fact that they read history. They knew that republics seldom last more than about 250 to 300 years. Eventually, some become so powerful thru wealth or other means that tye subvert the republic. “And whenever any government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of the people to alter or…….” We altering every two years with ballots. But is it conceivable that at some point, some group might actually subvert this government and run it for their own… Read more »

Jeff Knox
Jeff Knox
5 years ago
Reply to  gee bud

“I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example is worth looking at,” Clinton said at a New Hampshire town hall on Friday. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/257172-hillary-australia-style-gun-control-worth-looking-at “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings,” the president said. “Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.” http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425021/australia-gun-control-obama-america So… They said it, but that’s not what they said? They say this sort… Read more »

Jim
Jim
5 years ago

John Major was the PM of Great Britain, not Australia. John HOWARD, and all other Australians, get a good laugh at you clowns in USA.

Clark Kent
Clark Kent
5 years ago
Reply to  Jim

And I get a good laugh at you clowns in Oz who let your firearms restrictions become law. We got the last laugh, mate.

Jeff Knox
Jeff Knox
5 years ago
Reply to  Jim

So a silly error confusing the names of foreign politicians invalidates everything else in the article?
Australia, the land of manly men and bonzo blokes gave away their guns -and millions in tax dollars – to idiot politicians for a scheme that didn’t work.
Right. You win. We’re the clowns with faster falling violent crime rates while retaining our individual liberties.

John Carr
John Carr
5 years ago

My guns? Come and get them one spent round at a time.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago

It would not only take many decades (50-100+ years) to clear the US of what you call excessive weapons, Scott, but also the lives of millions of government employees. All of those employees have families that will collect government life insurance, government death benefits, and government social security. So the government better think twice about the costs of clearing the US of anything. And just exactly who is it that decides what is excessive? Now, on the other hand if you think that their are other societies that are more attractive to you, then maybe you should go explore that… Read more »

Jerry Mullen
Jerry Mullen
5 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

It may depend on what you feel about human nature. If you start with the idea that humans are stupid, cruel, cowardly and must be ruled by “ME!” you don’t want them armed. By the way, this view of human nature is the basis for every monarchy and dictatorship in the world. If you take the Jeffersonian idea that (the majority) of humans are intelligent, good natured, brave and can make good decisions when they have good information, then having them armed is nothing that you worry about. Here in Vermont, we have the least restrictive gun laws in the… Read more »

Scott
Scott
5 years ago

John Major was the UK prime minister from 1990-97 and John Howard was the Australian PM from 1996 -2007. The control of concealable firearms has been in place since the 1930’s in Australia and the 1996 Port Arthur massacre resulted in bi-partisan political support for greater gun control as well as overwhelming public support. A quick check of the stats on Wikipedia shows that you are 21.44 times more likely to be murdered by a gun in the US. It ultimately comes down to a mindset that is “the common good outweighs the individuals rights in Australia” vs “the individuals… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  Scott

Wikipedia is not a reliable souce of statistics because the readers can add to or delete from it. Twenty-one point forty-four times more likely to be murdered etc, etc, than what? I question your stats. They don’t sound like what others have posted here. And finally, murder (and other violent crime) is only high in the cities where Democrats rule. To apply those numbers to the rest of America is very misleading.

Martin W
Martin W
5 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Please also check to see where Rebecca Peters, the woman who spearheaded and supported the Australian “Gun Buy-back” is today. She works for George Soros and is leading the charge world-wide to have the UN Small Arms Treaty ratified by a majority of Nations and force it on those who don’t agree like the United States.
Under the banner of IANSA – the International Action Network on Small Arms – the Soros operative is working to capitalize on the success of her gun ban campaign in Australia, where firearms possession is now illegal and crime is going through the roof.

Scott
Scott
5 years ago
Reply to  Martin W

I totally agree that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and would normally check with more reliable information, I was doing a quick comment on the article as it was confusing England and Australia leadership. The figures quoted actually come from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). The 21.4 times figure is fairly simple, a person in the US is 21.4 time more likely to die from homicide by a gun than in Australian. Cities tend to more violent as a result of higher population density and associated social and economic problems rather than who they vote… Read more »

Martin W
Martin W
5 years ago
Reply to  Scott

Actually, you probably will receive better information from Wikipedia than from the UN which makes up statistics to go along with the agenda that they’re pushing at the moment. Since it’s beginning in 1945, the UN has been anti-democracy and has been working at creating a world government with it (the UN) as the “head of state”. In order to own any type of gun in the US, you CANNOT be a felon, be under investigation for spousal abuse, have to go through a NICS background check and OBTW, if you wish to own a fully automatic weapon, you have… Read more »

Jerry Mullen
Jerry Mullen
5 years ago
Reply to  Scott

I get information from the New Hampshire Gun owners occasionally, and they claim that Kasich is at least as anti-gun as Hillary. They base this on his record as governor. Another who was in the race and was very anti-gun by his actions tho’ pro-gun with his mouth was Chris Christie. Don’t go to New Jersey with a gun. If by some chance you think that Republicans will automatically protect gun rights, you are delusional. None of the elites want the people to be armed.

Clark Kent
Clark Kent
5 years ago
Reply to  Jerry Mullen

Kasich and Christie both have a LONG way to go before being considered ‘elites’. Idiots yes, elites no.

Clark Kent
Clark Kent
5 years ago
Reply to  Scott

NO ONE was murdered by a gun in the U.S. (or Australia for that matter). CRIMINALS murder victims, not guns. Focus on the OPERATOR, not the OBJECT, Scott. Your ‘first step’ should be rational thinking and your ‘second step’ should be to quit demonizing objects. Cars don’t cause drunk driving either.

Jeff Knox
Jeff Knox
5 years ago
Reply to  Scott

My error. Just got names twisted in my head and didn’t catch it. As to your bogus statistics: Read the article! That’s one of my major points. Sure there are fewer “gun deaths” where there are fewer guns – but are there fewer deaths? By putting the word “firearm” or “gun” in front of a statistic, it skews the statistic. Let me give you another example: Cricket bats should be outlawed in Great Briton, India, Australia, and the Bahamas because you are 89 times more likely to be killed with a cricket bat in those countries than in non-cricket countries… Read more »

Martin
Martin
5 years ago

FYI John Howard was the Australian Prime Minister who brought in the gun laws, John Major was the Prime Minister of Great Britain
MG

Paul Powell
Paul Powell
5 years ago

Who I their tight mind would even consider voting for a witch such as hitlery clintoon, just one look at that thing she/it calls a face and the question will be answered. She looks like a witch or something, a being a demoncrat she is 100% against anything military, if that thing were to get in one of the first things she would do would totally defend the military, and then disband it by saying it is no longer needed. The hildabeast is doing the same thing with the guns in this country. Just watch she is going to say… Read more »

Mitch
Mitch
5 years ago

Hey Tex, don’t ya think Trump, Cruz and Kasich know that this is only the PRIMARY Election! Apparently, you don’t. It’s not them against Slithery… it’s them against themselves. When the time comes (this Fall), the fight will be for all the marbles. If it comes down to Trump against Slithery, I’m confident he will use all of her stupid ideas against her. As a matter of fact, he has already eluded to it. Have you noticed how she has been knocking Trump at every one of her rallies, while Trump really hasn’t retaliated or said much against her? I’m… Read more »

abelhorn
abelhorn
5 years ago
Reply to  Mitch

Do your home work boys
Trump agrees with her.
or did until he ran for President

Peter Anthony
Peter Anthony
5 years ago
Reply to  abelhorn

do UR homework.
TRUMP is America’s one final Last HOPE to survive the Muslim\homohussein/Clinton assault on our rights & the very continued existence of america as a free Nation.
TRUMP is 110% pre 2nd Amendment
& He is NOW on record of how coznizent he is of the vital
& extreemly predominant importance & consequence that our very “Beacon Of Liberty” [RKBA] is for us our freedoms & liberties & our country’s very continued existence.

Ben
Ben
5 years ago

John Winston Howard is the guys name

Jeff Knox
Jeff Knox
5 years ago
Reply to  Ben

Thanks Ben. Stupid mistake. Hopefully the editors will get it corrected.

F Riehl, Editor in Chief
Admin
Reply to  Jeff Knox

Fixed.

Grimreaper
Grimreaper
5 years ago

I fear the group for collecting is already in place. Have you watched a swat team in operation? They’re reminiscent of what the collecting of Jews in WWII looked like. Swat is great as long as it directed in the right place. It’s misdirection is what keeps me up at night.

Clark Kent
Clark Kent
5 years ago
Reply to  Grimreaper

Please give me one specific example of a SWAT team ‘misdirection’. And don’t bother mentioning a SWAT team ending up at the wrong address. I am talking about purposeful misdirection.

Jack Russell
Jack Russell
5 years ago

Ahhh…… Just look at her photo,…. Now thats who I want on the World scene representing my country ! …..YEH RIGHT !
Trump is not my first pick for the job BUT…. at least the “First Lady ‘ would look a bunch better on the cover of the TIMES !

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
5 years ago
Reply to  Jack Russell

When I accidentally came across her picture, JR, I lost consciousness for twenty minutes. I woke up on the floor with the German Shepards licking my face and whining.

gunrightsdemocrat
gunrightsdemocrat
5 years ago

Hey let her commit treason, I know two dozen guys that would love to personally escort her form the white house. With a good swift kick in the sphincter. She’s a stupid troll.

Ray D Jones
Ray D Jones
5 years ago

you might lose you foot………….

TEX
TEX
5 years ago

I don’t know why Trump,Cruz,and even that idiot Kasich aren’t attacking Clinton over her position on the 2A ! What are they waiting for ? It’s always the same,nobody calls her on it and attacks her over her treasonous statements and her intents. It really pisses me off too !

bobocat
bobocat
5 years ago
Reply to  TEX

Why can’t some one get to trump about this, Trump or Cruz. This is the same thing we here every day. Who can get to the Publican party and get the counter started. Trump is in the best states to say something now.