11-02-2006, 12:55 PM
|
|
|
Keyboard Warrior
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: One of the outer rings of Hell
Posts: 9,653
|
I was able to find that data from the newmax.com to an Australian source.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...+after+gun+ban
Latter part caught my eye.
Quote:
Australia must not fall into the same trap as Jamaica. In 1974, Jamaica passed draconian laws with mandatory life imprisonment even for possessing a single round of ammunition. This worked well for about two years but did nothing about the underlying social problems. By 1987, the homicide rate had risen 500% to 22.6 / 100,000, double that of the US. Professional criminals and political thugs favoured guns and the common people used machetes65.
Conclusion
If the people of Australia want to get rid of all legal guns, then they may do so, but the people will have to lose some liberties and pay about $5 billion for it and then still deal with most of the suicide and violent crime problems we have now. They should therefore think carefully about what benefit, if any, they can expect and what other services must be forgone. To repeat the NCV's words:
"Good intentions, warm feelings and trendy ideas-------are not a sufficient basis for the expenditure of public funds."
Postscript 10-9-99.
Since writing this article, the East Timor genocide crisis has erupted on our northern border. Public mass destruction of Australian guns seems even less of a good idea in the long term. If there are to be any further confiscations, the guns should not be destroyed, but should be stored by the army. While an armed civil populace is useless on a modern battlefield, it does add immensely to the cost of holding a conquered territory after the main battles are over. Australia and the East Timorese have had fine moral support from other nations, but no troops as yet. Australians should not assume that others will send troops to save us if we are invaded. We must provide our own deterrent.
|
|
|
|