Posted by Bob Owens on August 27, 2015 at 1:40 pm
Vox's Zach Beauchamp is suggesting that the United States should follow the lead of Australia's mandatory gun buyback.
Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.
The on-camera shooting of two Virginia reporters Wednesday morning seems bound to evoke, like so many shootings before it, some sort of national conversation about gun control. Which means there will likely be some of debate about whether it would even be possible for the US to limit its millions of privately held guns - by far a higher per capita gun ownership rate than any other country.
It is worth considering, as one data point in the pool of evidence about what sorts of gun control policies do and do not work, the experience of Australia. Between October 1996 and September 1997, Australia responded to its own gun violence problem with a solution that was both straightforward and severe: It collected roughly 650,000 privately held guns. It was one of the largest mandatory gun buyback programs in recent history.
And it worked. That does not mean that something even remotely similar would work in the US - they are, needless to say, different countries - but it is worth at least looking at their experience.
Let me explain in precise terms how that "experience" would work if anti-gun Democrats attempted to force through ex post facto gun confiscation in what most Americans would view as a clear violation of the Second Amendment.
There are an estimated 100 million gun owners in the United States, and more than 300 million firearms (some estimates are as high as 350 million). Somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of these firearms-between 100 million and 200 million firearms-are of the kind of rifles, shotguns, and pistols that would be be those targeted in an "Australian" mandatory buyback scheme. In 1996 the Australian government spent $500,000,000 AU to get 640381 guns, 56% of the guns in OZ What it would cost
We know from recent attempts to force the registration of certain semi-automatic firearms in New York and Connecticut that somewhere between 85% and 95% of citizens would simply refuse to comply with the buyback order. They would not turn in their guns. If anything, they would stockpile them, amassing more standard capacity magazines of 20-30 rounds for their modern sporting rifles, and thousands of rounds of ammunition each. They'd acquire (more) body armor, and tactical training.
They'd then dare the puny federal government of the United States to do something about it.
If the government is actually dumb enough to try to start confiscation, they will trigger a new kind of war on the North American continent, a fourth generation war most Americans have only seen on television.
Most of the nation's 800,000 law enforcement officers and 2 million-man military will side with the people, and they will either simply refuse to enforce the buyback/confiscation scheme, or will actively switch sides to join the rebellion.
The tiny federal force than remains will get a taste of what fourth generation warfare looks like when it is applied domestically in an urban and suburban environment where bombers, tanks, and long-range missiles are practically inept and politically impossible.
Ambushes, infrastructure sabotage of government installations, and assassination would be the order of the day on a grand scale. Expect dozens of attacks a week by so-called "lone wolves" and small units.
Lawmakers would be in hiding or would flee the country. Federal agencies would shut down, as employees feared being targeted and refused to come to work. A President presiding over such fiasco might be temporarily safe inside the White House, but only until the 1,100 Green Berets who warned Obama in January of 2013 decided to act.
People who have lived their lives in the sheltered world of coastal liberalism, and who have only been exposed to other people like themselves, simply don't understand how seriously Americans take their natural right to armed self defense.
I hope that they can learn to put away their silly fantasies of gun confiscation. The right to bear arms is the right of rebellion and revolution, and the Founders meant us to have to overthrow tyrants just like them.
Chicago top cop warns that his officers will shoot concealed carriers - Bearing ArmsChicago top cop warns that his officers will shoot concealed carriers
FIRST ARREST? Connecticut Man Faces Charges For Unregistered "Assault Rifle," Standard Capacity Magazines - Bearing ArmsFIRST ARREST? Connecticut Man Faces Charges For Unregistered "Assault Rifle," Standard Capacity Magazines
Author: Bob Owens Bob Owens is the Editor of BearingArms.com. He is an alumnus of Gunsite Academy, is an instructor with Project Appleseed, and is the author of the short e-book, So You Want to Own a Gun. He can be found on Twitter at bob_owens.
Frank Giampetro - Provider & Protector at Family Amen Like - Reply - 27 - Aug 27, 2015 11:07am
Frank Ch Eigler For what it's worth, we shouldn't humor gun-grabbers by adoption of their term "buyback" for the scheme. There is no "back": the guns were not purchased from a government. Like - Reply - 59 - Aug 27, 2015 11:10am
Mark Currier Amen Brother! Like - Reply - 23 - Aug 27, 2015 11:46am
Bob Brazill - Pennsylvania State University best to sell them an old POS gun and use the sell price toward a new.........AR-15! and then tell 'em that! Like - Reply - 16 - Aug 27, 2015 3:23pm
John W. Gentry - USC Vera W. Snow this cant be true, if it is , please send me a couple hundred dollars, THANK YOU in advance Like - Reply - 1 - Aug 28, 2015 5:15am Show 3 more replies in this thread
David Pelizzari - University of Phoenix Not only did Connecticut fail in "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazine" (in quotes because the terms are meaningless) registration, but when push came to shove, they decided to back off attempting to enforce said laws, making an estimated 5,000 state and local police officers defacto felons, let alone the estimated 100,000 state residents who refused. When it started to heat up, Bearing Arms reported multiple other-state militias willing to come to the aid of the citizenry of the (un)Constitution State. My fear would be a second Civil War, where there will be mass exodus to like minded states which would tear the country apart. The problem then that will be faced is similar to the technologically advanced North in the civil war - the states that embrace the right to keep and bear arms will have the manufacturers building weapons, where the states backing the government of confiscation will have to look elsewhere to arm their troops. Like - Reply - 22 - Aug 27, 2015 11:18am
Joe Alletto - San Jose State University In the scenario you describe, you fail to mention that the UN and almost every anti-American government on Earth would be chomping at the bit to send not only arms to the US government under attack, but troops as well. The situation would never be a Civil War, but a rebellion that would rapidly escalate into a full-blown revolutionary war. Any illegal aliens here to cause mischief would gravitate toward the government-controlled areas to volunteer to work as guerillas against the "rebels". That would include many muslims and lots of gang members, all of whom B. Hussein Obama would welcome w...See More Like - Reply - 10 - Aug 27, 2015 12:04pm
Joe Alletto - San Jose State University Having said that, and knowing that I would truly hate to see such a situation come to pass, if it MUST come, let it come while I am still mentally and physically able to participate. Both my oaths of enlistment (I enlisted/reenlisted multiple times) and my oath of office upon accepting a commission require me to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies. And, since none of the oaths I swore have expiration dates, I am ready and willing to do just that, if necessary. And I think any administration or regime contemplating the confiscation of civilian-owned firearms in this nation would be wise to consider first just how many veterans feel the same way. But, of course, that's precisely why all vets are considered potential "right-wing terrorists" by our Dept of Homeland (In)Security. Like - Reply - 41 - Aug 27, 2015 12:16pm
John Siemens - Sr. Manager, Flight Operations / Chief Pilot at Emivest Aerospace The people who oppose guns are generally the ones who are afraid of guns and don't know how to use guns properly. They will be seriously out gunned! Like - Reply - 21 - Aug 27, 2015 1:22pm Show 8 more replies in this thread
Cecil Stotts There you have it. So simple even liberals should be able to grasp what's being said here!!! Like - Reply - 16 - Aug 27, 2015 11:24am
Jack Scholbe - Bethalto, Illinois Now you're really stretching it. Like - Reply - 14 - Aug 27, 2015 11:51am
Doc McDonald I know your intent here but I think your giving liberals way to much credit. Like - Reply - 12 - Aug 27, 2015 12:46pm
Donald Cline Doc McDonald Normally I would agree, but the sudden silence I've been encountering on forums where gun control enthusiasts are holding sway when I lmention the violations of the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments represented by background checks when you transfer a firearm indicates to me a few of them have one or two braincells to rub together. Like - Reply - 6 - Aug 27, 2015 1:57pm Show 7 more replies in this thread
Gregg Mcphedrain - Austin, Texas HUNT THEM - WE WOULD... and every unarmed liberal tofu eating moron - would be the target du jour until like the buffalo they were extinct. Like - Reply - 14 - Aug 27, 2015 11:24am
Steven Allred - Studying at Student Actually, the Buffalo never went extinct. In fact, through conservation efforts (largely paid for the hunters the liberals hate) they now number in the millions.
Food for thought. (And body - buffalo burgers are delicious!) Like - Reply - 11 - Aug 27, 2015 12:45pm
Jim Holden Steven Allred So are soft, grass-fed Liberals. Like - Reply - 7 - Aug 27, 2015 1:18pm
Gregg Mcphedrain - Austin, Texas Steven Allred http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/.../genocide...
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/... Like - Reply - Aug 27, 2015 1:23pm Show 2 more replies in this thread
Bob Brazill - Pennsylvania State University great article but wrong about one thing: violent crime, especcially home "invasions" have greatly increased in Australia since the gun grab. Like - Reply - 34 - Aug 27, 2015 11:36am
Robert Tubear - Paxon Hollow Junior High School that is fact bob Like - Reply - 8 - Aug 27, 2015 12:04pm
Greg VanDyke - University of Beer Go to downtown Sydney . Bet you could find any kind of gun in 20 mins. Like - Reply - 9 - Aug 27, 2015 12:49pm
Bob Brazill - Pennsylvania State University Robert Tubear we need to educate our fellow citizens to that. My brother is a tree hugger from Oregon yet is for gun rights and swears that Obama won't take our guns. I had to lay out the UN treaty for him and his eyes were opened! he did not know about the increase in crime in Britain and Australia and now will use that in debates with his lefty friends who are anti gun.....word of mouth one at a time! Like - Reply - 14 - Aug 27, 2015 12:55pm Show 4 more replies in this thread
OregonBuzz Lamoreaux "Participating in a gun buy back program because you think that criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you think your neighbors have too many kids." Clint Eastwood Like - Reply - 41 - Aug 27, 2015 11:43am
Joe Alletto - San Jose State University Eastwood for President - 2016!! Like - Reply - 9 - Aug 27, 2015 12:05pm
Dallas Clark - USC You made my day! Semper Fi Like - Reply - 6 - Aug 27, 2015 2:20pm
Kurt R Thun I lived in Australia for quite a few years recently...and although their "gun crimes" have gone down a little, (expet for the random gang rival mall shootings) their other violent crimes like: RAPE, HOME INVASIONS, ROBBERIES, BURGLARIES, AND STABBINGS, have gone UP. I lived in a small rural town and the Gold Coast where women got raped OFTEN...due to the fact they can't even purchase Pepper Spray. The Gangs still have guns, and control the streets through violence, intimidation, and drugs, and control the police (who are sometimes unarmed) and create fear and control among the citizens. I don't want my Country like "British" Australia...with NO FORM OF SELF-DEFENSE. Because of the British "trying" to confiscate them back in April 1775 (November 10th 1775, when my Marine Corps came ALIVE) That is why we became The United States of America in the first place. So, to confiscate firearms, is to confiscate our American heritage, freedom, and American way of life. Like - Reply - 35 - Aug 27, 2015 11:44am
Donald Cline As another who lived in Australia for a time 1970-1974, I confirm your comment. Like - Reply - 10 - Aug 27, 2015 2:07pm
Bobby Addison - Longview, Texas THUN ---Very good responce to the liying articles put out by the gun grabbing socialist communist government we now have Like - Reply - 4 - 21 hrs
Neville Robeson - Owner-operator at Self-Employed As most articles touting gun control or confiscation the "facts" are hardly more then lies. Taking the guns from down under produced a huge crime wave. Like - Reply - 19 - Aug 27, 2015 11:45am
Kathy Casey No, we will not cooperate with an Australian style "buyback". End of discussion. Like - Reply - 14 - Aug 27, 2015 11:50am
Robert Tubear - Paxon Hollow Junior High School the government told us native americans to turn in our guns and we will take care of you. they never did Like - Reply - 14 - Aug 27, 2015 12:06pm
Stephen Tiilikainen Robert Tubear Unfortunately they did "take care of you", but using the much more sinister implication of that phrase. Like - Reply - 6 - Aug 27, 2015 1:18pm
Frederick P Gibson - San Diego State University Stephen Tiilikainen I've been telling all the Libs-Progs to volunteer to the ATF, BLM, IRS, USPS, etc-etc in order to help them "/C/o/nfis.. "Collect" all the "Firearms". There are so many. They can just walk up to our front doors with outstretched arms and I am sure they will get what they are asking for. Like - Reply - 5 - Aug 27, 2015 4:46pm Show 1 more reply in this thread
Carl Stevenson - Emmaus, Pennsylvania Owens is merely copying the themes described for a long time by Mike V. Of the Sipsey Street Irregulars blog and the folks at Western Rifle Shooters ... He's generally a Fudd who objects to open carry and praised the Waco-like assassination of Christopher Dorner as the police burned him alive with some considerable deliberation, rather than simply waiting him out after he was contained. (They also shot several people who bore no real resemblance to Dorner in their quest to summarially execute him, and Owens was pretty much silent on those abuses of power.) Like - Reply - 7 - Aug 27, 2015 11:50am
Chris Scanlon - Asset Management at C3i yeah im a gun owing liberal(jeffresonian) and at times the author seems more accepting of authoritarian values than i would supposedly be Like - Reply - 2 - Aug 27, 2015 5:24pm
Michael Czmyr - Parish Hill High School they couldn't afford my weapons. Like - Reply - 5 - Aug 27, 2015 11:52am
John Vance - Colorado State University Better check you statistics, you are wrong.!!!!!!! Like - Reply - 1 - Aug 27, 2015 11:57am
Michael Cotrell I was going to say "AMEN" but Mr. Giampetro beat me to it. I think our Government will not be that ignorant--but I could be wrong!! MOLON LABE!! Like - Reply - 1 - Aug 27, 2015 11:58am
Donald Cline Yeah, the ones RUNNING our government will be that ignorant. They have come up short several times already because they overplayed their hand and had to back off. The problem is we are dealing with exactly the same governing mindset exhibited by the British leading to the War for Independence. They don't see "liberty under the Rule of Law" as a good thing; they see "liberty without accountability" as their goal. They intend to govern, and they will sell us whatever cockamamie political ideology we will buy as long as we let them run it, because if we do, very shortly we will have nothing to say about it. The current ideology du jour is cultural Marxism, and they actually believe they will achieve political control very soon (it was planned for the year 2000, but they kep overplayhing their hand). They (illegally) regained economic control in 1913. Like - Reply - 3 - Aug 27, 2015 2:13pm
Tomf Fitzhugh - Works at Century21 Bill Nye Realty Donald Cline , "our?" government? One thing I feel is over-looked here is the certainty that none of the traitors pushing gun confistication will be anywhere to be found if, and more likely when, any conflict might start, so why would they worry? There are millions of people on the dole that WILL NOT be needed nor supported once their votes are no longer needed. I mean, what do they contribute to our society now? And, what better use for them than to create mayhem? Like - Reply - 2 - Aug 27, 2015 8:33pm
Eugene Dumont - Over the road truck driver at Trucking industry in the United States I don't think it is about confiscating guns, or buyback. There aren't enough ani-gunners around who push somethink like that. no, no way. Like - Reply - 3 - Aug 27, 2015 12:02pm
Donald Cline No, there isn't, but they are unified in their quest. They already have turned our right to keep and bear arms into a privilege we have to waive our 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendment rights to get permission to exercise, and now they want to expand that to every transfer of a firearm, not just the purchase of one at a dealer. Anyone who thinks background checks are a good idea had better look at the facts: Not one crime has been prevented by the background checks, but anyone acquiescing to them have waived their 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendment rights and have nothing left to claim when they come to confiscate. Unless they wake up now and recognize that government has no authority to sucker gun owners our of their rights, and start demanding government start obeying our Constitution. No background checks, no permiossions, no privilege granted by government: We have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and that includes the purchase of arms, and government lawfully has NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT. Like - Reply - 2 - Aug 27, 2015 2:19pm
Dan Snelson - Northwestern University and states like TEXAS would get a HUGE influx of new people, armed only plesase Like - Reply - 5 - Aug 27, 2015 12:02pm
George McClellan - Pacific High School (San Bernardino, California) I believe I read that the Austrailian crime rate, in house break-ins, burglary's, armned robberies by knife, etc, has actually increased and Austraiians, generally, now regret complying with their leftist government demands to submit. Like - Reply - 7 - Aug 27, 2015 12:05pm
Donald Cline True, they do. But they have a history of hating "stirrers" -- people who stand up and agitate for liberty. They don't even vote if they can avoid it. Like - Reply - 1 - Aug 27, 2015 2:20pm
Orvis Pigg - Oklahoma State University People who quote the Australia and England experience with removal of guns from citizens do not relate what those people now think of being without guns. The murders might be down but the crime rate is way up. Check the stats. Women are much more likely to be raped in Australia. All other crimes are up also. Ask the Australians if they would like their guns back. Like - Reply - 5 - Aug 27, 2015 12:06pm
Lewis Clements Sr. - Sun Valley Insurance Australia did not have OUR 2nd Amendment! Nor did they have a Hundred Million Citizens ready to take up arms to fight an OUTLAW GOVERNMENT! Like - Reply - 6 - Aug 27, 2015 12:10pm
Chuck Brown - Works at Retired every bit of this is true just try and take guns Like - Reply - 2 - Aug 27, 2015 12:14pm Load 10 more comments