TexasCHLforum.com

A friend emailed this to me and I thought it was interesting:

Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts...

From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia

Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent ;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note Americans, before it's too late!

If something like this happens here, I'm going to be a renegade.

Me too KennyLee
Thank you carlson1. There is a place on the front pew at our church where I tell folks "there are a couple of interesting reads on the front pew for those that are interested."

This one will go there too.

Amazes me at what shows up on that pew & a lot of it comes off this board.

Thanks for passing this along. I will in turn pass it along to a few of my friends who are not on this forum since they live far north of Texas.

Not to poke holes for the sake of poking holes, but you might want to review this page at the Urban Legends reference site Snopes.com before you share this. If we want to be taken seriously in our claims, we need to work hard to use accurate & useful information, not specious or misleading claims.

Good idea.

Here is the link to what Snopes has to say:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp


Some very good points made in regard to the statistcal data.

Maybe a good point, but I have a question about "snoopes." Is it inspired? I personally have never heard of it. But I am glad there are is something on the "internet" we KNOW for a fact is true. I just posted an email.

carlson1 wrote:Maybe a good point, but I have a question about "snoopes." Is it inspired? I personally have never heard of it. But I am glad there are is something on the "internet" we KNOW for a fact is true. I just posted an email.

Snopes.com is one of the reference sites for checking if things are true or not. I've used it for several years now to check on the claims of emails that are forwarded to me and to other various claims made on the Internet. I have yet to find any bias of inaccuracy in what they offer. I use it much like many folks use a dictionary or an encyclopedia. They usually offer links to other sites where the information they cite is found and they only post a listing as true or false if they can independantly verify or debunk the claim.

Yes, Snopes is legit.

They caution people, though, to not "take their word" for anything. Their methodology is always presented so one can verify what they say.

If you think H.B. 1022 is bad...

Its only the beginning...

Snopes is anti-gun. I read their analysis twice, and I still don't see where they actually take the information apart.
They are typically dismissive, and then use the same tactics they accuse the original writer of using

You will be hard pressed to find pro-gun evidence on their site.
There's more, but just more politics.

lrb111 wrote:Snopes is anti-gun. I read their analysis twice, and I still don't see where they actually take the information apart.
They are typically dismissive, and then use the same tactics they accuse the original writer of using

You will be hard pressed to find pro-gun evidence on their site.
There's more, but just more politics.

I love Snopes. They're always my first stop when I receive an email that sounds too good to be true. (Especially if it supports my beliefs!) They do a great job of researching hoaxes and fictitious tales.

That said, lrb111 is correct: when it comes to firearms, Barbara "Eyes rolling" Mickelson is apparently unaware of her own prejudices. She simply doesn't apply the same investigative fervor to gun stories, that she would apply to stories about forty-seven foot alligators in Lake Ray Hubbard.

Kevin

lrb111 wrote:Snopes is anti-gun. I read their analysis twice, and I still don't see where they actually take the information apart.
They are typically dismissive, and then use the same tactics they accuse the original writer of using

You will be hard pressed to find pro-gun evidence on their site.
There's more, but just more politics.

Noted. I'll still continue to use them, but will have to research anything firearms related in more detail than they give. In this instance, however, they actually point to the official crime reports and such for Australia in the timeframes mentioned (and their links go to more current data than they have in their report as well), and the official sources support Snopes' claims. I don't know how accurate the official sources are though. As we all know, official reports sometimes reflect the prejudices of those in power and not the realities of life...

This site has a really detailed explanation of what happened in Australia.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html

The Snopes makes some good points about using statistics and then fails to follow through.