Australia's gun ban...total failure

http://louderwithcrowder.com/report-australia-gun-control-fail/

Remember Australia’s gun buyback confiscation program? It received more undeserved, empty praise than Lena Dunham’s underwear selfies. Said praise is mostly coming from American liberals, mind you (see Obama Praises Australia’s Gun Ban. The Actual Results…). The funny thing about that? American leftists don’t live in Australia, so they don’t see the results of the gun ban (or they do, and don’t give two craps about “results). Lucky for us, there’s reports that tell us what happened, like this one. Turns out gun control? Not looking so good…
Despite Australia’s strict gun control regime, criminals are now better armed than at any time since then-Prime Minister John Howard introduced a nationwide firearm buyback scheme in response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. Shootings have become almost a weekly occurrence, with more than 125 people, mostly young men, wounded in the past five years.
Got that? Emphasis added. For the anti-gun leftist ninnies who pretend to care about people dying.
…More people have been seriously maimed in the recent spate of shootings and reprisals. Crimes associated with firearm possession have also more than doubled… The violence reached a fever pitch in March, when there were two shootings a day for a week.
The investigation has found:
There have been at least 99 shootings in the past 20 months – more than one incident a week since January 2015
Known criminals were caught with firearms 755 times last year, compared to 143 times in 2011
Assault rifles and handguns smuggled into Australia via shipments of electronics and metal parts

Another lie. You are like an engineers pocket watch. The chances of being killed by a gun in Australia has dropped by 72%.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-guns-idUSKCN0XP0HG

Violent crime in Australia far WORSE than in the United States. Something 2seaoat knows, and knows well, along with all the other Progressives but they "pretend" to be ignorant.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.



The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz22LrhP2fC

You are a pathological liar. You fully know for the sixth time that I have shown you that you are comparing apples to oranges in violent crime. A burglary is not considered a violent crime in America crime Stats.....it is in Britain. You sir are a knowing liar.

2seaoat wrote:Another lie. You are like an engineers pocket watch. The chances of being killed by a gun in Australia has dropped by 72%.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-guns-idUSKCN0XP0HG

You wouldn't know a fact if it were stealing your pain meds.

I gave you the link to the facts. I am not surprised that you do not want to read the same. It blows all your tinfoil theories out of the water.

But you ignore the fact that pulling the large inner cities out of our statistics and we are one of the least violent countries... gun rights and all. We do have a problem... but it isn't systemic. It's definable... it's taking place in a specific location... it's taking place by known individuals. Any other focus is an agenda.

I don't give a shit what any law says, as long as there's any chance Dump can become president, I ain't giving up any of my guns. Dump is precisely the reason why we have a 2nd amendment.

That's right vote Trump and you can keep your arsenal's, vote for Hillary have soldier's coming to your doors and confiscating your weapons right down to your squirt guns. Never happened under Obama and won't in any of our life times under future Presidents.

This bullshit and anyone who believes it just doesn't understand what it takes to amend an amendment, I suggest you research it.

It isn't done in one fell swoop. Research progressivism.

PkrBum wrote:It isn't done in one fell swoop. Research progressivism.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

The Constitutional Amendment Process
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

I doubt very much it will happen in our life times, unless your 25.

It isn't done in one fell swoop. Research progressivism.


Research government......your ivory tower perception of the world without government and regulations is simply ignorant. In Australia you have seen the chance of dying from a gun reduced by 72%........gun safety is not gun confiscation anymore than traffic safety is taking your privilege to drive away.