Gun Rights and History: A Primer on the ‘Transformation’ of Europe and Australia

Europe and Australia’s gun violence still flourishes in the wake of Government’s forced confiscation of citizen’s firearms, U.S. cities with highest gun-control also have highest gun crime.


Obama’s Obsession with Our Gun Rights 

Wayne LaPierre: Barack Obama, the candidate who promised Americans in 2008 that “I will not take your guns away,” now, as President of the United States in 2013, has embraced the universal firearm confiscation of Australia and England—schemes that saw the destruction of hundreds of thousands of registered, legal firearms that had been outlawed and taken under threat of force from licensed gun owners by their governments.

Obama revealed his gun control endgame in a Sept. 22, 2013, political speech at a solemn memorial for the 12 Washington Navy Yard victims murdered by a deranged killer on Sept. 16, 2013.

Obama coldly used the madness of a delusional lone mass-murderer to claim that the rampage “ought to lead to some sort of transformation … it ought to obsess us.”

In the same breath, Obama defined his personal “obsession” and his notion of “transformation” for ordinary American gun owners:

“That’s what happened in other countries when they experienced similar tragedies. In the United Kingdom, in Australia … they mobilized and they changed.”

The Washington Post praised Obama’s demand for “transformation” to an Australia-style gun roundup and destruction as “commonsense.”

While the U.S. media either ignored or glossed over Obama’s embrace of the Aussie model for gun bans, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) on Sept. 23, 2013, led its coverage with this:

“The U.S. president, Barack Obama, says it’s time for America to follow the example of countries like Australia when it comes to gun control.”

With a Sept. 23, 2013, headline, “Obama hails Australian gun laws,” Sky News led its coverage with: “President Barack Obama has used Australia as a positive example of a country that tightened gun laws after a mass shooting.”

Virtually no U.S. media outlet was honest enough to describe what actually happened to our formerly free English speaking cousins as a direct result of mass murders committed by lone, criminally insane killers.

In reaction to the murder of 16 people in Hungerford in 1987 by an insane killer, registered semi-automatic rifles in Great Britain were banned and confiscated from all licensed owners. Then, following the 1996 massacre of school children in Dunblane, Scotland, most registered handguns were declared contraband, taken and destroyed. Owners of .22-cal. handguns had been allowed to keep them at government approved facilities, but they, too, were outlawed, collected and destroyed—because of the actions of two criminal lunatics.

On the heels of the Dunblane killings in 1996, an insane murderer in Australia, who obtained one of his semi-automatic rifles by killing its owner and his wife, slaughtered 34 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania.

As a result, all semi-automatic rifles, including .22s, and all semi-automatic shotguns and pump shotguns were banned, and licensed owners were required to turn them in for destruction under what the government, as in England, called a “buyback.”

In reality, the “buybacks” were theft—made possible by using pre-existing government lists of licensed owners and registered guns.

All of this explains Obama’s obsessive call for “universal background checks”—a scheme easily morphed into gun-owner registration.

The president’s notion of crafting a U.S. version of the Australian/British tyranny has not come in a vacuum. It has been preceded by a spate of articles designed to introduce the public to the concept.

Key to this propaganda push was a Jan. 16, 2013, New York Times op-ed by former Aussie Prime Minister John Howard, titled “I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too.” In it, Howard touted his politics of forcibly disarming licensed law-abiding Australians:

“City dwellers supported our plan, but there was strong resistance by some in rural Australia. Many farmers resented being told to surrender weapons they had used safely all of their lives. Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair. Many of them … felt bewildered and betrayed by these new laws. I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative.”

And Howard boasted, “Almost 700,000 guns were bought back and destroyed—the equivalent of 40 million guns in the United States.” (Emphasis added)

Understand that Australia is perhaps the most urbanized nation in the world where coastal, non-gun-owning city dwellers dwarf rural populations who have a long firearm tradition.

But today it is those urbanites in places like Sydney who are reaping the real consequences of John Howard’s multiple “buybacks.” Criminal violence with illegal firearms in those urban centers is soaring.

Try these headlines from one month before the U.S. Washington Navy Yard murders:

From the Ballina Shire Advocate, Aug. 21, 2013, “New plan unveiled to tackle out-of-control gun violence.”

Or this from News Limited Network Aug. 2, 2013, “Is Australia staring down the barrel of a gun crisis?”

“There is a gun battle going on in Australia. As bike gang members and drug dealers gun each other down on a regular basis, sending fear through the community, authorities seem to be fighting a losing battle to keep firearms out of their hands.”

As for mass murders, Howard, who once summed up his optic on freedom saying, “I hate guns,” wrote in his New York Times op-ed:

“The fundamental problem was the ready availability of high-powered weapons, which enabled people to convert their murderous impulses into mass killing.”

“People?” Ordinary citizens?

The confiscatory bans were a hysterical response to the insanity of one person. One crazy person in Port Arthur. One crazy person in Hungerford. One crazy person in Dunblane. One crazy person in Aurora, Colo. One crazy person in Sandy Hook, Conn. And one crazy person at the Washington Navy Yard.

All of these killers had one thing in common: all were totally and recognizably deranged. And nobody reacted to their insanity. Nobody interceded.

In the case of the Navy Yard killer—a contract IT worker—police had warned the Navy he was a violent schizophrenic hearing voices and tormented by “extremely low frequency electromagnetic waves.” And he had a record of firearm abuse. Yet, he held a “secret” security clearance and carried a valid Navy ID that allowed him free access to military installations.

And, as I said on “Meet the Press,” equally important in the Navy Yard killings was the lax base security in what amounts to a gun-free zone: “That can’t stand. We need to look at letting men and women who know firearms and are trained in them to do what they do best, which is protect and survive.”

Yet Obama and his gun-ban cabal demand that millions of sane, ordinary peaceable Americans—you and me—pay the price for lone sociopaths with the loss of our rights.

USA Today reported that Obama plans to bring his Australia/UK “transformation” and “obsession” to bear on the 2014 congressional elections. All I can say is “Bring it on, because Americans—by the millions upon millions—will fight to defend our freedom.”

The Daily Caller

[Join the NRA – click here]

14 Comments on “Gun Rights and History: A Primer on the ‘Transformation’ of Europe and Australia”

  1. […] The Butcher Europe and Australia’s worst gun violence flourishes in the wake of Government’s forced […]

  2. As an Australian living in an inner suburb of Sydney, I am grateful for the buyback we had.

    To claim in your headline that gun crime is flourishing in Australia isn’t altogether true. A report from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research report on ‘Criminal offences involving firearms in New South Wales, 1995-2011’ states on page 8 “Most categories of crime involving firearms have decreased or stayed stable since 1995.”

    Click to access bb82v1pdf.pdf

    It’s not just about 1 crazy guy going troppo with a gun, truly determined people will find a means to the end they want to bring about. But what about those who aren’t truly determined who are temporarily influenced?

    And besides that 1 in a million type scenario, guns affect us all in our daily lives. That report mentioned above shows that we’ve gone from 1,252 gun related robberies in 1997 to just 361 in 2011. Anyone working in a retail outlet in NSW feels a lot safer in their job now than in 1997. That’s got to be a good thing right?

    • The Butcher says:

      “buyback” is code for forced confiscation from legal gun owners. (unless they were free to respectfully decline? And keep their gun? I doubt it) The government now has a complete monopoly on force, and the citizens are domesticated subjects with no right of self protection. There’s no statistically meaningful relationship to the number of law-abiding citizens owning guns, and gun crimes. Violence in general goes up when citizens are disarmed. Gun-related “robberies” is a misleading statistic, isolated. Actual violence and threat of violence against the defenseless, is the valid statistic. Criminals naturally disregard state-mandated laws forbidding gun possession, and are free to violate Also, “guns” don’t affect anyones daily lives. Where did you get that idea? A gun is an inanimate object. Criminals–and yes, it is about that rare crazy person–take away the rights of millions of people, because of an exceedingly small number of mentally deranged–is poor policy, that in most places, makes citizens less safe, and completely dependent on law enforcement for safety. No thanks.

      • Gun ownership here is still common, but it’s regulated in terms of how guns must be stored and transported.

        My family in the country have guns to go hunting, a good friend around the corner had an impromptu check by police on how his rifles were stored when I was visiting once. We’re not banned from having them, we just have to keep them responsibly – and keep the legal types, no automatics or high capacity weapons. Fair enough, I think. No one needs a semi to shoot a roo.

        I believe our buyback was only compulsory for guns that were no longer legal (high capacity) because of changes in legislation following several serious massacres in relatively quick succession – not just the Port Arthur one, that one was the last straw.

        I do disagree with you about guns not affecting our daily life – but that may also be subjective. As a single woman who frequently walks home late, I feel safer knowing that if I’m going to be mugged I won’t be shot as I run away, if I can run away or if I was that retail worker, I’m not likely to be held up at gunpoint and accidentally shot or if I had kids they’re not likely to be a school massacre.

        I understand in America there is genuine attachment to the idea that the freedom of owning a gun or several is a constitutional right. I won’t disagree, it’s not my place to – I live here.

        However as an Australian, I felt compelled to comment as your headline and commentary relating to Australian gun crime isn’t reflective of how it is here.

        I enjoyed reading what you had to say all the same.

      • The Butcher says:

        Good points. To be fair, it’s not an ‘attachment to an idea that the freedom of owning a gun or several is a constitutional right’, it actually IS a constitutional right. A primary one, along with freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and so forth. I realize that not all western democratic nations have this embedded in the foundational architecture of their governing law. Really, it’s not an idea, it’s law. Designed to protect the sovereignty and freedom of a self-governing people.

        To really change it–to change it honestly–would require a constitutional amendment. And if Americans decide its important enough and have truly wide support, and consensus, it could be changed, like anything else in the constitution. Which was designed to be changed when needed.

        And even in the U.S., it’s not an absolute right, it comes with restrictions. Quite a lot, actually.

        I appreciate your comments.

        The unfortunate irony is, citizens who legally possess firearms–took care to follow the law, qualify, pass tests, give fingerprints to the FBI, maintain a spotless record–these are among the most thoughtful, responsible, and cautious people in society, compared to non-gun owners.

        These people pose the LEAST threat to society, the least likely to do harm. (lower crime rates than the average person) yet these are the people that gun control laws affect. They are the only people gun control laws effect.

        Gun control laws don’t affect criminals. Or the mentally deranged (or suicidal, which accounts for a large share of statistical ‘gun deaths’, which are often lumped in with murders, to make the figures look higher) Who by their nature don’t follow standards, customs, and laws in the first place.

        So even if the intentions are good, gun control enables the wrong people (criminals) and restricts the wrong (law-abiding) people.

        The most difficult thing is to find a policy that can address that problem, those individuals. And those people only. The criminally deranged. Most folks on both sides of the gun rights/gun control debate agree that this is the problem, and–I’d like to think–each struggles honestly to find a solution.

        What to do with the criminally insane, the murderous, the truly violent– tiny minority, but one capable of causing great harm–without doing unnecessary harm to the rights of everyone else, by creating additional burdensome, ineffective restrictions on these law-abiding members of society.

        The other irony is, each blatant effort to threaten these rights has the opposite of the intended effect. It makes Americans buy more guns! When seeing the rights in peril, many who are otherwise neutral, will decide to exercise that right. And take gun safety classes, too. Guns and ammunition sales increase, not decrease, during these periods of government gun-control mania.

        And perhaps with good reason. Anyone reading the news has seen how abusive the U.S. Government is, to its citizens, and non-citizens, and neighbors, these days, its disregard for law, disregard for privacy, and corruption. There’s a healthy distrust of concentrated state power, and abuse of authority, in the U.S.. Which our founders more or less intended there to be.

        So ironically, there has been a spike–not only in gun sales–but in people taking safety courses, and learning responsible gun ownership. An unintentionally good thing, as a result of this climate of ‘control’. A dose of self-reliance, and common sense. As well as a shared concern for those who are the most vulnerable to violence.

        One last thought: If you take away just four urban centers–Washington D.C., Chicago, New Orleans, Detroit–cities with the strictest gun control laws–the U.S. would be 4th from the bottom for murders. In other words, outside these high-crime zones, the U.S. is a remarkably peaceful, non-violent place.

  3. I am an American Living in Australia and Gun Violence here is a non issue, there have been all of 39 shootings in Sydney this year, not deaths, shootings…. Compare that to 400+ this year in both Chicago and New york each! and of those 39 most are Bikey gangs shooting eachother, I have to admit I feel much safer in Australia without a gun than packing in the states, I am a long time hunter and outdoorsman but I don’t need a gun, it is not what identifies me as a human, keep your guns I don’t care, but your stats don’t add up.

    • The Butcher says:

      If gun-control worked, Chicago would be the most peaceful city in the USA. The U.S. cities that have the most violence and murders also have the strictest gun control laws. Worldwide, the regions that have the most law abiding citizens owning guns have less violence than those with strict gun control (defenseless citizens) Since the evidence has repeatedly proven that gun control doesn’t reduce violence, one has to wonder what the real agenda of gun-control advocates is? It’s not about reducing crime. It’s about control.

  4. The Butcher says:

    Statistics you can bank on:
    U.N. Maps Show U.S. High in Gun Ownership, Low in Homicides –

  5. What, you think UK gun law has been successful? Hang on while I wet myself laughing.

    During the “pistol purge” of 1997 me and a couple of friends had to travel to Holland to sell our 9 mm’s. It was either that or watch them being destroyed. To what end? Read on.

    Traveling through “the wrong area” in just about every major UK city you’ll come across weapons ranging from craft knives to firearms.
    As for getting firearms? Forget the Silk Road, if you are in the know you need look no further than your friendly drug dealer, gang member, or inner city back street pub.
    £200-£500 buys you a pistol, and £1-5 a bullet.
    For £1000 to £1300 you are looking at a hunting rifle or even an AK with a full magazine.
    Shotguns, £150 upwards.

    The paranoia spilled over onto airguns too with a purge on the Brocock air cartridge revolvers as they were apparently easy to convert to ammunition guzzling guns. Now these 6 ft lb air toys have to be kept on a firearms license.
    To finish off the laughter, air rifles over 12 ft lbs of power are also classified as firearms and airsoft over 1 joule ( 328 fps) are banned.

    In the UK you also stand more of a chance being threatened with a firearm (if not gunned down) by the police than a criminal.
    After all they specialize in taking people out carrying chair legs and arresting people on the end of weapon for carrying a tennis rackets, tasering blind OAP’s, I could go on.

    Most “gun crime” is not reported by the media because it embarrasses the UK government too much. No, thanks to the stupid gun laws the law abiding citizen has been rendered a reactive target for the police and criminal worlds to practice on.

    As for the US? Fight for your weapons else you’ll just turn into victims like us.
    Just waiting for the next criminal (either in or out of uniform) to happen.

    • The Butcher says:

      Thanks for your comments. The things I’ve read about the worsening climate of crime and violence in England are troubling, particularly the constant low-level robberies, muggings, beatings. The culture of blaming the victim, rather than the offender, is peculiar there. An ordinary citizen using deadly force against a violent or murderous attacker? Unthinkable. It is considered “barbaric” in England. One is not allowed to protect life and property with lethal force, or they are treated as a criminal. The concept of ‘property’ rights is different there. Here in the U.S. it varies. Castle laws in some regions (your home is sacred, a violent attacker/intruder can expect to be met with lethal force) but not in others (where you are forbidden to defend your property with lethal force, but can defend your life) but in most places an individual in their home, or out of their home, have the right to defend themselves.

      We are fortunate to have millions of informed citizens who never waver in their vigilance against overreaching gun-control efforts. And as mentioned, most efforts to increase gun-control only result in increased gun purchases.

      What happened in the U.K.? Why did citizens not succeed in resisting the pro-gun control laws?

      • If I could paste a picture here to describe UK politics it would be one of a weak, self important, limp little man, sweaty, insipid, weasel like, a liar, a criminal, and with their pockets bulging from all the money they make.

        Since the dawn of modern politics, UK governments have always brought out ill considered legislation on the back of popular media witch hunts (often instigated by themselves).

        Add a dead child or two and if it’s not one of their government departments fault, you can guarantee a RAFT OF STUPID LEGISLATION to appease the rabid dictates of the media.

        Everything about UK politics is about being politically correct and capturing the next vote.
        For the most part the UK people nod quietly, agree to most anything, then turn on the televisions and fall asleep. I can’t think of a more passive, compliant, gullible, and politically naive race as the Mark 1 British Sheeple.

        You want to know why “we” the enlightened people let things happen?
        Because it’s not people power that run the country but the government controlled media who are muzzled to prevent “the truth” from getting in the way of how the government want to present “their facts”.

  6. sirdanmur says:

    Everyone fails to realize guns are not a constitutional right but a universal human right based in the right to self preservation. Believing that your government can ban you from owning guns is to believe that one set of humans in a society is morally superior to you. This just is not the case. In my opinion the stats don’t matter. Your government is a servant to the public. If they own guns so can you. Equal application of law to all people. If mass shootings happen don’t blame guns, blame your public servants, your police chief and your criminal justice system for not working hard enough to stop it. Don’t let them take your guns because they sucked at effectively protecting society, which you hired them to do. Vote them out, force them to resign.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.