The people most at risk from armed citizens in a free society are probably politicians.   Four USA presidents (out of about 40) were removed from office by gunshot in about two centuries.  Six other USA presidents survived serious attempts on their lives.   This is not very good odds for politicians.  Based on those figures being a politician is more dangerous than being a soldier or a policeman.   One can sympathize with the urgent (craven?) desire of politicians, the press & other public figures to register & remove long range weapons from the hands of the people.  While having fewer concealed gun controls might be a proven method of decreasing the sum of violence in the community, it certainly makes the lives of politicians & public figures more hazardous.

In the wake of the Port Arthur Massacre (March 1996), gun laws in Australia were tightened.  The immediate and predictable effect was to cause the growth rate of armed robbery, which had been growing at about the same rate as unarmed robbery, to double that of unarmed robbery:  (The ABS does seem to move it's web pages around a lot.  Previously I supplied links to relevant pages.  Now, to confirm the data, you will have to search the ABS site.)
 

Fig. 25 of the Australian Institute of Criminology graph 2000 clearly shows the 1996 and 1997 increase. Noticeable is a decrease in 1999 following public concern and increased police activity.  Figure 31 is of particular interest.  It shows how, preceding the introduction of gun controls (following Port Arthur in 1996), armed robberies were below 6000 per annum.  Following control legislation in 1996, armed robberies rose to a peak of 11,000 per annum in 1998, nearly doubling in the two years following introduction of gun controls.

The Australian evidence continues to mount.   The following cutting was taken from "The Australian" of 31 May 2001 on page 3.

(The Australian Bureau of Statistics has found) "that a robber today is less likely to use a gun than at any time during the past eight years - however people are almost twice as likely to be robbed.  It is clear that the number of firearms used in robberies and murders is decreasing, but the overall number of murders and robberies has nearly doubled over the same period."

In August 2001 the situation has degenerated so much that street rape (where a random woman is kidnapped from the street, bundled into a car, driven off and raped by multiple gang members & then released) seems to happen on a daily basis.  In "The Australian" of 19th August 2001 police are quoted as explaining how a gang splits up until one of them finds a likely mark, then they "SMS" each other (Sender Message Service on a mobile phone) that "It's on" with a location, and the gang bang curdles.   Shootings are reported on average on a weekly basis in Sydney.   In 1996, such incidents were very rare, and made the front pages.  (Remember Anita Cobby?).

On 2nd. September 2002 the BBC news website reported that Bjork's Maida Vale home had been burgled while Bjork was present.  The BBC also reported that "Actress Joan Collins has denied reports a decision to base herself in New York was because of her fear of crime in London" she was quoted "Groups of muggers are frequently attacking people in the area where I live in London."

What happens in England is what a thoughtful & objective person would anticipate in a society where gun access is controlled. (This was written May 2002)

Most Australians now realize that (despite a total ban on handguns) we have become a more violent society than we believed existed in the USA.  On the other hand, most Australians are unaware that the USA has become much safer since gun laws there have been relaxed.

In Australia we do not want to empower the police.  We have only just finished setting up safeguards against police corruption (as recommended by the commission against police corruption).  These safeguards were necessary because some police officers were found taking bribes, using drugs and rorting the police promotion system.  Other police were using guns from their own stash of illegal weapons as "evidence" against people whom they brought before the court as alleged criminals.

Now criminals are using those safeguards to hamstring police efforts to curb violence and crime.

An increase in the number of armed citizens coincided with the reduced crime & murder rate in the USA.  An increase in gun control in the UK (from zero circa 1900 to zero handguns in 2002) is what has coincided with increased crime and violence in the UK.

When will the people of Australia realize that the best way to reduce crime in a democracy is to allow the citizens to bear arms?  When arms are forbidden to law abiding citizens, what law abiding citizen can oppose an armed thug?

Unfortunately, we are governed by a Prime Minister who wears a Kevlar (bulletproof) vest in public, but forbids the same protection to we the citizens of Australia.

Those who believe that a high homicide rate results from greater firearms availability might like to consider the data compiled by the National Injury Surveillance Unit (from Killias 1993) comparing firearms ownership and homicide rate in Switzerland with that in England & Wales (reproduced below).

If availability of firearms caused homicide, then why do the SWISS, who have five times as many guns per head of population when compared to ENGLAND, have fewer murders per head of population?

"Well why", you might ask, "do the Australian authorities not admit that they were wrong, and liberalize gun laws?"

Why indeed.  As my grandfather used to say, "That is the $64,000 question".

John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois  60637 and David B. Mustard; Department of Economics; University of Chicago; Chicago, Illinois  60637 wrote an academic paper dated July 26, 1996 on their research into "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns".  Following is the abstract:

Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths. If those states without right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, county- and state-level data indicate that approximately 1,500 murders would have been avoided yearly. Similarly, we predict that rapes would have declined by over 4,000, robbery by over 11,000, and aggravated assaults by over 60,000. We also find criminals substituting into property crimes involving stealth, where the probability of contact between the criminal and the victim is minimal. Further, higher arrest and conviction rates consistently reduce crime. The estimated annual gain from all remaining states adopting these laws was at least $5.74 billion in 1992. The annual social benefit from an additional concealed handgun permit is as high as $5,000.

When the Lott-Mustard article originally appeared it provoked an uproar among control advocates.   In the intervening four years nobody has been able to refute Lott & Mustard's findings.   In 1998 local gun control advocate Associate Professor Chapman admitted defeat when he wrote "With the national armed robbery rate up 47%, . . no downturn in gun suicides or domestic slayings . . was it(i.e. the taxation funded buyback of guns) all for nothing?

This column was started in September 1997.  The previous version was dated December 2002

email from here