Gun control doesn't work in Australia either....this bust proves it...

[2aguy]

yes....gun control only works on law abiding citizens who will not break the law.....criminals will get whatever guns they want or need, when they want them or need them......

Australian Gun Bust - The Truth About Guns

“An Uzi submachine gun, an assault rifle and more than $20 million worth of drugs has been seized by police during a house raid,” dailymail.co.uk reports. “Detectives raided a property at Edensor Park in Sydney’s west last Thursday and found a number of firearms as they investigated signs of drug manufacturing.” Are we sure that Uzi was full-auto? Anyway, the coppers also confiscated a silencer, two sawn-off shotguns and a GLOCK pistol (“one of many”).

And pedal the "they have fewer murders" in Australia somewhere else, the only reason they have fewer murders is that their citizens have not decided to commit more murders....they have the guns and can kill as much as they want...they just don't....and this arrest shows....guns are always available, even in the gun controlled paradise of Australia....

 

[FA_Q2]

A single arrest proves nothing. That does not mean the law does not work - it means that there are people silling to break it. Murder laws work even though there is still murder. The facts back up the reality that gun control does not work though - even in Australia. from an earlier post of mine:

It means I'm busy asswipe. Do it yourself.

You're not very busy if you're posting on here. Your assertion is null and void.

No, it isn't dumbass. Now go play, you bore me.

Null and void. The further you carry this without backing up your assertion, the more ridiculous you look.

What a whiny little pussy you are. Here asswipe, read it and weep: Did gun control work in Australia - The Washington Post

the direct data disagrees with the assertions of that paper though.

When you mess with the data you can make it say anything you want. Mess with it by, say, taking large amounts of time and covering up the fact that there was almost no change at all in homicide rates from 96 (when the law was passed) and 03. Why, if the law was affective at all, did it take 7 years to see ANY GAINS?

Why are the homicide rates going down being attributed to a law that passed 7 years before it started to occur?

Its also noteworthy that the overall incidents have been on a downward trend for a long time - both before and after the law passed. Looking at the raw data shows that the law itself likely had zero impact on the actual number of incidents in general. There is no real drop after the law passed or change in direction from before the law passed.

Using raw data instead of allowing Washington Post authors do your thinking for you will show much more information.
Australian Institute of Criminology - Homicide statistics