This Country’s Tried Gun Confiscation Before, and it Didn’t Work…But Now They’re Trying it AGAIN

Despite decades passing since Australia engaged in a massive gun confiscation scheme against its citizens, making them victims against criminals, the country has decided it will engage in amnesty program for people who own guns and offering nothing for them turning in their weapons to police, unlike they did in 1996.

According to Guns in the News, “The program is set to begin in July and last for three months. Despite offering no compensation for surrendered firearms, government officials hope that the plan will net 260,000 of an estimated 600,000 illegally possessed guns.”

Whoever comes up with this stuff has to expect utter and complete failure for what they are proposing.  Furthermore, if gun confiscation and seriously strict gun laws, such as Australia has imposed on its people actually work, why in the world are there still over half a million “illegally possessed guns” there?  It’s because law is for the law-abiding, not the lawless.  However, the right to keep and bear arms is not unique to the US.  Our Second Amendment recognizes the same thing our Declaration of Independence does, and that is the fact that all men, regardless of nationality, are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

take our poll - story continues below

How have you been greeting people this holiday season?

  • How have you been greeting people this holiday season?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Eagle Rising updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: AMAZING: 249 Accomplishments Trump Has Achieved in Office and the List is Growing

Australian Justice Minister Michael Keenan told the Sunday Mail, “This is the first Australia wide gun amnesty since 1996, when the Howard government took action following the devastation of the Port Arthur Massacre,” but acknowledged, “there have been state-based amnesties over that time.”

made this ridiculous statement, “This is as much about giving a family a chance to get rid of an old heirloom as it is about getting rid of guns off our streets.”

An old heirloom?  Doesn’t that mean it is of sentimental value to the family?  Something that should be cherished and preserved in the family?  Why would you encourage people to get rid of that?  Is Mr. Keenan as stupid as he thinks the people are?

In a report by Bob Adelmann, he reminds us of a report on what took place the first time around.

“A study in 2002 headed up by Professor Peter Reuter at the Department of Criminology at the University of Maryland entitled ‘Australia: A Massive Buyback of Low-Risk Guns’ revealed the futility of the buyback program,” wrote Adelmann.

When Australia’s gun confiscation scheme went into effect, there were and estimated 3.2 million guns possessed by law-abiding citizens.  Following the end of the program in 1997, there were still and estimated 2.4 million guns in the hands of private citizens.

Adelman then drops the punchline.  “The report analyzed the available data to see if there was any measurable decline in violent crime in the years following the buyback, and pointed out the futility of the effort: ‘The buyback alone was an implausible candidate for reducing crime rates because the targeted gun type was one not much used in homicides or, presumably, other kinds of violent crime.’ The report concluded: ‘The results provide little insight.'”

“In other words, millions were spent in abrogating the natural rights of Australian citizens, going after weapons that weren’t even being used in violent crime,” Adelman concluded.

Despite the claims of gun grabbers, Australia’s rate of violent crimes didn’t seem to be affected at all when they confiscated guns in 1996.  Robbery did spike for several years while sexual assault, homicide and kidnapping/abduction remained virtually the same.  So, if anything, the confiscation scheme left people more vulnerable, not safer.  A 2013 US Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice review of the data on Australia’s NFA firearm confiscation program and declared that it “found no effect on crime.”

This has all led the NRAILA to conclude, “…the Australian government has admitted that its intent with the new amnesty is to disarm the otherwise law-abiding who are not in total compliance with Australia’s onerous gun control regime. This pursuit of unregistered heirlooms and family keepsakes will no doubt have an effect on violent crime similar to that of previous amnesties; none.”

So, there is not doubt that this little amnesty scheme will have virtually no effect on crime in Australia.  They just want your guns Aussies, and they are basically telling you that.

Reposted With Permission From Freedom Outpost

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

About the author

Tim Brown

Tim Brown

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at, husband to his wife, father of 10, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the brand new Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to a friend