Guns_ABC.EUPolice Authorities Implicated in Australian Gun Thefts

By Andrew S. MacGregor

[Image Credit]

This article is based on a report by Mark Morri from the Daily Telegraph.

Hundreds of guns stolen across NSW as thieves target private homes and firearms charges rise” is the headline Mark Morri has used to introduce his report.

This is followed by:

THIEVES are targeting the private homes of registered gun owners as NSW’s illegal firearms crisis escalates.

Nearly 600 guns have been stolen in the past year. Of the 578 weapons stolen about 80 per cent were from homes, mainly in rural NSW, according to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics.

The bureau said there had been a 34 per cent increase in “prohibited and regulated weapons offences”.

It is worthwhile studying exactly what Mark Morri tells us in the initial reports in regards to the theft of firearms in New South Wales. Mind you, similar thefts have been occurring in other states especially in Tasmania but news on these matters stopped once firearm owners came to understand exactly who was responsible for those thefts.

Mark Morri’s article resounds with “NSW’s illegal firearms crisis escalates” and that is pure sensationalising on his part as there is in reality no real crisis in regard to criminals possessing either stolen or unregistered firearms, as criminals have done that since before the days of Ben Hall.

Mark Morri then reports that: “Of the 578 weapons stolen about 80 per cent were from homes,” and you have to ask yourself, “just exactly where were the other 115 (the 20%) firearms stolen from, as that is not a small quantity of firearms?” Where could they be stolen from? From gunshops? (I wouldn’t think so) From firing ranges? (Again, I wouldn’t think so) From gunsafes located on rural properties in areas other than homes? (quite possibly)

Safer_AustraliaIt is though the next sentence that becomes extremely telling. “The bureau said there had been a 34 per cent increase in “prohibited and regulated weapons offences”.” This statistic has nothing to do with the prosecution of thieves but rather firearm owners who have failed to fully observe their requirements under the ‘Firearms Act”

[Image Credit:]

Immediately following this statement in Mark Morri’s are two links to other agendas. The first link is “COURTS GO SOFT ON SERIOUS GUN CRIME” which is (Courts go soft on serious gun crime criminals caught with loaded semiautomatic pistols and machineguns are getting low prison sentences). When you read the heading on the linked article one realises that it has absolutely nothing to do with the theft of firearms in New South Wales.

The second link is even more telling! “GUN NUMBERS IN NSW ARE SOARING” which is (a gun for every 1 in 10 people as numbers soar to above 700,000 across NSW)

A 34% increase in ‘Prohibited and Regulated Weapons Offences’

Let us consider this point with statements made within this report, especially where Mark Morri quotes Samantha Lee, the former ‘Spokesperson for the United Nations’, and now of Gun Control Australia. It has previously been demonstrated that Samantha Lee is the only member of ‘Gun Control Australia’, and so Samantha Lee must be viewed as a ‘Political Lobbyist’.

Samantha Lee has been cited as stating, “As many as 44 per cent of gun owners who had their weapons stolen had failed to comply with firearm storage requirements, leaving them within easy reach of thieves.” This explains the 34% increase in the ‘Prohibited and regulated Weapons Offences”.

Law-abiding firearm owners whose property has been burglarised and their firearms stolen are prosecuted by the New South Wales Police for ‘assisting’ the thieves to steal their property.

But we must look again at Samantha Lee’s statement that 44% of these gun owners had failed to comply with ‘Firearm storage requirements. If this statement was factual, then there would have to be a large percentage (56%) of burglaries of residences of firearm owners where the firearms were inaccessible to normal thieves but still firearms were able to be stolen.

There is though no data on ‘burglaries’, where thieves have unlawfully entered firearm owners residencies but failed to steal those weapons, and so we must accept that such events didn’t occur. This raises the question as to exactly how did the thieves know which residencies had accessible firearms and the appropriate time to burgle those residencies?

If we consider these 56% of firearms stolen whilst appropriately stored and locked in secure ‘gunsafes’ then exactly how were these firearms stolen?

A retired resident of the Riverina District in New South Wales, who is a retired gunsmith, has told me that of the cases he was aware of in his district, most of the thefts involved the thieves using grinders to cut open the gunsafes. There was only one case where the thieves used a trolley to remove the gunsafe.

In the State of Tasmania it was reported that the majority of thefts there involved the entire gunsafe being trolleyed out of the residence. The Tasmanians also noted that these burglaries normally occurred about a month after a visit by a Police Firearms Inspector!

Bryant_KillerIn other words, the thieves were prepared for such a situation, and that then simply means that these thefts were not opportunistic, but were planned and committed by professionals. In nearly every instance, the only goods targeted were firearms.

[Image Credit:]

“She (Samantha Lee) said Australian Institute of Criminology research showed that most firearm thefts were opportunistic, with weapons taken during a burglary”

For a start, as per Samantha Lee’s own argument and those statements made by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research demonstrate quite clearly that 56% were not “opportunistic” but rather ‘premeditated’!

But exactly what is the ‘Australian Institute of Criminology’? It was an Intelligence body within the Federal Attorney Generals Department. The AIC in 1995 signed a MOU with the United Nations in regard to the implementation of new Federal firearm Laws that would be implemented in May of 1996. The problem being that Australia’s ‘Firearm laws’ are still a State responsibility and thus outside the AIC’S sphere of responsibility, in 1995 just as it is today. The AIC also has access to all Police Firearms Registers.

Operation Talon and Operation Raptor strike forces

What we do have though is the correlation between firearm thefts from residencies and charges made in regard to ‘Prohibited and Regulated weapons Offences.’!

Mark Morri’s report states: “NSW Police has been targeting illegal firearms through its Operation Talon and Operation Raptor strike forces. Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione said officers had discovered a record number of illegal firearms.”

This then raises the question of exactly what were those ‘illegal’ firearms seized by the NSW police in Operations Talon and Raptor? Samantha Lee again tells us; “The majority of firearms stolen are never recovered and are on many occasions used for serious offences.” She (Samantha Lee) said” Now since Samantha Lee has informed us that the stolen firearms are never recovered there can be no data to justify her comment that these firearms have been used for serious offences.

This then leaves us to comprehend exactly what type of ‘illegal firearms’ were seized by the NSW police re their Operations Talon and Raptor? Those seized firearms can only be firearms seized from licensed shooters or firearm dealers who have failed to fully implement the monstrosity of paperwork and/or security requirements, or those who have had their firearms licence cancelled or revoked.

What can be noted is that licenced shooters in New South Wales are vulnerable targets not only to the New South Wales Police but also criminals who also have the knowledge of exactly who to target. In other words those burglars have access to the NSW Police Firearms Registry.

Who is stealing the firearms in New South Wales

Mark Morri’s report gives us some excellent clues as to who is stealing firearms within New South Wales. One of those clues is the actual stolen goods themselves. “The most popular weapons to steal were rifles, followed by shotguns and handguns” is what Mark Morri informs us.

Now these are all registered firearms, so just exactly what is the market for stolen firearms? For a start, no legitimate firearm owner or dealer would consider touching any stolen firearm. That leaves us with just the ‘criminal’ element within New South Wales.

The main criminals that are expected to handle firearms are those within the ‘Drug’ industry. However these criminals require a firearm that is small and capable of being hidden on the body, and thus normally possess either handguns or hand machine guns. (Go back to the link regarding Judges being lenient on such criminals.)

So, when we are told that the most popular firearms to be targeted by thieves are firstly rifles and then shotguns, we note that they are not the preferred weapon of the criminal. Again most registered rifles today are bolt action as ‘semi-automatic rifles are virtually banned in Australia. It is also noted that magazines for these firearms are normally restricted to three or four rounds, and again, these fall outside of a criminal’s requirements.

In other words there is absolutely no market within Australia for the majority of these stole firearms, (rifles and shotguns). No self-respecting criminal would touch them and neither would any licenced firearm owner or dealer. So exactly how does the criminal who steals these firearms make a living of these criminal activities? He cannot.

And please consider that this is not a ‘1 man’ operation. There would be at least two men to enter the building, forcefully open the locked gunsafe and then remove the firearms from within that safe to an inconspicuous vehicle parked within the premises. Then there also has to be a ‘lookout’ to watch out in case the owners or a neighbour may intrude upon the crime scene. Thus at the very minimum the gun-stealing criminals would comprise of a team of three.

So we now look at the areas within New South Wales where the thefts of firearms have occurred, and Mark Morri has supplied his readers with such a list. The list is extremely revealing, from Far West and Orana (72) to Mid-North Coast (52), to New England and North-West (62)To Central West, the Hunter Valley, (40), Riverina, (39) to within the Sydney areas of Outer West and Blue Mountains (22) Outer South-West (15 Inner South West (13) and the Baulkham Hills and Hawkesbury (17).

In other words, whoever is stealing firearms in New South Wales have the ability to cover the entire State of New South Wales, that is 809,444 Km2 and the entire population of 7,439,000 persons. It could be considered that there are several gangs of such criminals operating within the state, but that thought has to be negated by two factors, (1) the amount of firearms stolen (578 in the last year, or nearly 2,000 firearms in the past three years) and (2) that no offender/s has/have been apprehended in regard to the majority of these offences. This is an incredible statistic considering the NSW Police Operations Talon and Raptor!

Obama_ArmedNew South Wales Police named as perpetrators of firearms burglaries

Approximately two years ago there were several similar house breakings, burglaries and thefts of firearms reported in the state of Tasmania. What was also noted in Tasmania was that frequently these burglaries followed an inspection by the Tasmania Police Firearm Registration Branch. What was also noted was that there were no other items of value targeted by the thieves.

[Image Credit:]

It was then stated by a NSW licensed shooter whose residence had been a target of one such burglary that the only possible perpetrator of the burglary was the New South Wales Police, as he had recently moved into a new residence and had only informed the NSW Firearms Registry Office of his change of address just prior to the burglary.

The NSW Police countered this accusation with the story that the criminals must have been using scanners to listen in on the police radio. This rebuttal is extremely inadequate on several grounds. For a start, even if criminals had been using scanners to listen in on police vehicles visiting premises in regard to firearms inspections, the criminals would still lack information in regard to what equipment was required to steal the firearms within those premises, the number of firearms and where exactly the gunsafe and other required items were situated as well when the residence would be unoccupied.

But what the New South Wales Police have confirmed is that these firearm burglaries are only occurring after a visit by the New South Wales Police Firearms Inspectors! That means complicity.

Again with one of Australia’s best police forces being so slurred, they have not been able to kerb or even apprehend the offenders as these criminal acts continue with impunity. Again this demonstrates the professionalism of the firearm thieves. Again, the fact that virtually none of the stolen items has ever resurfaced within the state simply adds to the belief that these criminal acts are being done for a political reason and protected by a government bureaucracy.

Andrew S. MacGregor is an experienced military and law enforcement officer. Born in 1947 in Yarraville, Melbourne, Australia, Mr. MacGregor served in the Citizens Military Forces of the Victoria Scottish Regiment and as Senior Constable with the Victoria Police. Since 1998 he has conducted extensive research on the Port Arthur Massacre and other Australian ‘lone-nut’ shootings. MacGregor began playing the Bagpipes at age ten, and was active for 14 years as a member of the Victoria Police Highland Pipe Band.

Leave a Reply

28 thought on “Gun Control Down Under”
  1. Thank you Andrew MacGregor for the news on the Down Under.

    Actually had the impression that all guns were confiscated and massive crime was the result of those who no longer could defend themselves. Sure wonder where all those confiscated weapons end up.

    It appears here on the mainland, the media has been unsuccessfully provoked to be the identifier of our lawful gun owners.

  2. “Gun control” is implicitly defined as the control of guns of the civilian population. It explicitly excludes the number and intensity of weapons provided the members and organs of the power system, such as the militarized police.

    This is an illustration of the truncated and fragmented conceptions that is used to compartmentalize truth to deceive the misinform the population. Compartmentalization is an explicit technique in the intelligence agencies to prevent the spread of information.

    If “gun control’ were defined holistically to include its control by power, I would be for it. I’m in favor of taking guns away from the military and police; also bombs. To assist this anti-violence process, I think we should arm and train the American people in the use of violence weapons as a deterent,

    This is precisely the same logic as used in international relations. Non-Whites should especially be armed to prevent them from being shot by the out-of-control military police. This highly trained armed and disciplined population would prevent the random murder by the police, effectively justified operatively by the law. If you don’t shoot at us, we won’t shoot at you.

  3. “Non-Whites should especially be armed to prevent them from being shot by the out-of-control military police. This highly trained armed and disciplined population would prevent the random murder by the police…”

    Well, Mark, once again I am confused by your logic. The “gentle giant” of Ferguson Missouri, we are repeatedly informed, was unarmed, which we are somehow to conclude makes his killing less justified. What we are never told by the press is how the cop could possibly have known that the man was unarmed. Clearly he wasn’t racing at the politzai with a gun in his hand (he was, after all, unarmed). In your opinion, SHOULD he have been armed, and have been pointing his pistol at the cop the moment he was confronted, telling the cop to back down and go away? Is that what you are proposing our disaffected minorities make a routine practice? If so, do you think the cops will say “sure, buddy, no harm no foul,” and slink away?

    By your words, I gather that that is precisely what you are suggesting our resentful minorities should be doing, as a matter of collective strategy. I gather that you wish to see the “non-white” underclass make it a policy to menace the robocops, brandishing firearms in an intimidating fashion. Do I read you wrongly?

    Most importantly, remember, (if the story is as it was reported) the cop could not possibly have known that the Gentle Giant was unarmed. The only way for people like that (the minority underclass) to produce the result you are hoping for would be to make a point of going around with pistols visible on hip-holsters, like movies about the old west. And, like in those movies, if the robocops are going to be properly intimidated, these resentful minorities will have to prove, by practice, that they are eager to use those guns against these dirty coppers, when aggrieved.

    Is that what you are saying?

    1. A drill followed Brown’s murder, and it always seemed to me the officer was instructed to murder an innocent man. Cynical view perhaps but accurate after flow of events.

  4. No, that isn’t what I am saying, although it certainly could be distorted to mean that, not that I would ever think that you would do something like that, Patrick. I think all the people of Ferguson should be trained in arms, not only pistols but the automatic weapons used by the American military. Indeed, I think there should be a rainbow coalition, including Whites of course, that forms an anti-imperialist grouping against American fascism.

    This is necessary because American law is highly racist and classist, and instead of forming a shield for the people, forms a sword for the powerful. It is obvious that the people under the War on Terrorism, and especially the non-White people, are not protected by the law, but are murdered by it. When a cop kills someone, he is given a paid vacation and is not penalized for random murder. So the tendency is to indulge in it, especially as the people cannot shoot back.

    This will get worse as America sinks into postmodern fascism, and the powerful attempt to subjugate the people. Therefore the people should arm themselves, not only with guns but with teargas and other non-lethal weapons. Because as power increasingly impoverishes the people under Free Enterprise, it will become increasingly brutal politically. And the lies are becoming Bigger to justify the resulting inequality and oppression. Inequality, brutality, untruth, the trinity of American power.

    So the people have no defense except themselves, uniting politically to resist despotic power. What I am saying is that this should be an armed politics, encompassing a large political movement. This was the strategy of the Black Panthers before they were massacred, because they did not unite with other groupings, and were isolated. A general movement uniting Whites and non-Whites would decrease the random killing by fear, since the racist police and legal system does not convey respect.

    1. I think a better strategy than arming yourself would be to master martial arts. This is a much safer way to defend against someone pointing a gun at you: disarm your attacker.

      A huge part of our problem in America is that we have become a nation of lazy fatties. (This may also be by design of The Powers That Be.) Practicing judo or karate would get us in shape physically; make us feel more in control of our destinies; and strengthen certain habits of thought and mind, possibly leading to a more peaceful society.

      We desperately need to expunge the tendency to respond to any and every problem with violence, now inculcated in a huge proportion of our population.

  5. The purpose of arming the population, Dino, is not to increase violence, but to decrease it, since most of it is done by the violence organs of American power. Would these random police shootings of unarmed non-Whites occur if the police knew that the population was armed?

    Detroit is shutting off the water of the people when they can’t pay their bills, eliminating not only drinking water but the use of toilets. Would this be done if the population was armed?

    It is difficult to think rationally as a society becomes terminally irrational. How would martial arts prevent the subjugation of the population. The powerful must have some political reason to stop stealing from the population, who are powerless to prevent it. The threat of revolt is such a reason. A portion of the White population is armed; but the major oppression is occurring to the non-White population, who increasingly are being treated as ‘sub-humans.’ Do you think, Dino, that without some radical change, this tendency will decrease in the future?

    1. Mark’s question: “Would these random police shootings of unarmed non-Whites occur if the police knew that the population was armed?”

      Answer: Only if, (1) the politzai indeed knew that ALL the people they come in contact with are armed, and (2) those people are likely to shoot them. This could only be the case if minorities demonstrated both things, repeatedly.

      You completely avoided my direct statement of the core of your argument, Mark, in your non-reply. You called my raising these issues a “distortion” of your argument, but you did not explain why these simple facts I derive from your argument are not essential to defend. They are not, in fact, “distortions,” but the core of your case.

      If the robocops are to to be made to be afraid of the negroes and Mexicans they herd around like cattle, it can’t be because they know that these individuals are “trained” in the use of firearms. It can only be because they know they are armed at all times, and will kill the aggressor before the aggressor can kill them. As a matter of course. This will have to happen lots of times before this reality sinks in, and the dirty coppers, as I said, slink away.

      You simply ignored all this, and besmirched me with a vague wave of the hand. I expect nothing better from you, Mark, but your evasion does not answer the question. You are obviously saying that blacks must be known to be always armed, and always be ready to shoot first before the dirty coppers get a chance to “randomly” “murder” them. That is your argument. I am just restating it to you. Your reply to dinophile only proved that this is precisely what you mean, canceling out your comment (since you never click the “reply” button, you can’t be said ever to really “reply” in the strict sense) in response to me.

      In other words, unless and until the coppers know that ALL negroes are always armed and ready to shoot first, the only way they can ever know that the black person they confront is armed is if the gun is in hand or in a hip holster. QED. And the only way the coppers will, in your scenario, not shoot blacks and others you like to call “non-white” is if they know these people are not only ALWAYS armed, but ALWAYS likely to kill the dirty coppers before the dirty coppers have a chance to kill them.

      This is not a misstatement of your logic, as your reply to dino makes clear, and as your non-reply to me proves your disingenuousness. As I am certain that all who listen to this exchange can see.

    2. I am realizing how simplistic my post about martial arts looked. Of course that is not the whole answer–but the idea of everyone carrying guns isn’t what’s missing from it. That idea is the opposite of where we want to be as a society. What we need to aim for is exactly what the City of Davis, California, has done, which is to rise up and demand that the police department de-militarize: get rid of the armed vehicles bestowed on it by the feds, and add their scary Nazi Stormtrooper get-up to the heap.

      We have to restore the rule of law: the social contract. Without it the lives of humans are “nasty, brutish, and short.” Our country has left the rule of law far behind. Our goal must be to reinstitute it or we are going to descend into hell.

  6. Great article. The kind of investigative journalism that will soon be illegal in this country, if not by law, by its failure to be exercised.

    It looks to me like Mark has finally realized why white folks like their guns… freedom. Of course his silly idea is to create a race war, which would only end up in the slaughter of a lot of decent minority folks. If minorities would like to arm up, I am all for it. firearms are still legal in some way or another pretty much anywhere. Most poor minorities probably won’t save up and buy one because it will just get stolen given the neighborhood they live in, so they don’t bother.
    Marks idea is flawed because he is wrong about the nature of the conflict. The decent minorities need to arm up to clean up their own backyard first, and be given the leeway to do this. The problem is, most families(regardless of race) have at least one bad apple, and the vigilante may be faced with the moral dilemma of letting one of his own family members get whacked to help clean up the neighborhood. However, that bad apple may be bringing in cash to the household by way of illegal activity.
    The problem is economic. Not enough jobs for too many people, and people getting paid by the government to have children who will never have a job. If you don’t want white cops killing black folks, don’t allow white cops into black neighborhoods. Have a black only police force in that neighborhood, and see if anything changes, and for God sake bring back the beat cop, and get to know the neighborhood. I don’t think segregation is the answer, that would be racist. But look around, haven’t we de facto segregation if not de jure?

  7. The purpose of arming a political movement is not to deter the cops, but to deter the cop owners, the bankster and Wall Street oligarchs and their minions. The threat is for the population to consider the power system opposed to the people, in which case the people have no choice in their methods. When the distrust has reached that point, the life of the power system ends. So the oligarchs will delay the end as long as possible.

    A people’s movement is always primarily political, not military.

    1. Absolutely, and when we have achieved utopia, the leaders of the movement will voluntarily step down for the good of their now fellow proletarians. The means of production will then run by themselves, and we can now get on with the free love part of the revolution. Where have I heard this before? LOL!

      Ha! Mark, do you really think you could arm a political movement, threaten “the man”, and then the power elite will get out of the way? Have you passed on the Marxist mantle and moved into comedy? All while never firing a shot? You must mean without shots fired, because I know you never advocate violence.

  8. I think we are all missing the point here. What if we all just got along? White, black, red, yellow, old, young, etc? The most radial thinkers were and are those who promoted peace and non-violence, Jesus, Gandi, MLK, John Lennon. Now that is scary to the puppet masters. It’s easier to conquer and destroy, to pit “us against them” whoever that might be for the moment. I personally believe that Sandy Hook was not so much a social experiment to have us give up our arms, as to create panic and disorder so that more guns than ever were purchased, which is exactly what happened for a while. Who benefited? Remember who is behind all of this madness of Ferguson, Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon, are warmongers…”the military industrial complex” and they really don’t care who is fighting as long as someone is.

    1. Your point is well taken, and I doubt there is anyone who could disagree. The problem is initiatory force. As long as government can force its will on people with threat of violence or imprisonment, and there are people willing to use that force, we will never have peace. Sure, we can have intermittent periods of relative peace, but it isn’t long before that generation passes, and a new one forgets the old lessons. The problem isn’t just force initiated by government, but force initiated by individuals against each other. The only way to cure our fallen state will be chemical or electronic manipulation of our mind. Unfortunately, when that happens we will lose our divine spark, life will lose its mystery and meaning, and it will not be worth living.
      Even when there is no government at all, people will gather together to survive, eventually chose leaders, and give up some freedom for the promise of order, and peace. Eventually they pick the wrong guy, and conflict erupts within the group, or the group goes out and initiates force on another group to solve its problems. look at India. The most peaceful man in centuries comes along, he advocates peaceful revolution, gains there independence, and but a few generations later, they are on the verge of nuclear war with Pakistan every day. As long as our allegiance is to the gods, and flags of this world, peace will be a dream.

    2. I’m with you, bewise.

      I wrote something similar to yours last night, but then my post vanished into cyberspace again. I know my earlier comment about martial arts was somewhat simplistic–part of the answer, but not the whole answer. Carrying guns around, drawing them and responding with violence at the slightest threat, are definitely NOT the answer, though, nor even PART of the answer. That’s the way to ensure that our lives are “nasty, brutish and short.”

      We need to remember the social contract, and return to the rule of law. The model is the City of Davis, where residents demanded that the police divest themselves of all the armaments provided them by the feds–the armored vehicles and the scary Nazi Stormtrooper gear–and their city council acceded to their demands. We need to do the same thing in every community–THAT is our only insurance against utter mayhem.

    3. I’m with you, bewise.

      This is now my third attempt to reply on this issue! I wrote something similar to yours last night, but then my post vanished into cyberspace, and it has just vanished once again.

      I know my earlier comment about martial arts was somewhat simplistic–part of the answer, but not the whole answer. Carrying guns around, drawing them and responding with violence at the slightest threat, are definitely NOT the answer, though, nor even PART of the answer. That’s the way to ensure that our lives are “nasty, brutish and short.”

      We need to remember the social contract, and return to the rule of law. The model is the City of Davis, where residents demanded that the police divest themselves of all the armaments provided them by the feds–the armored vehicles and the scary Nazi Stormtrooper gear–and their city council acceded to their demands. We need to do the same thing in every community–THAT is our only insurance against utter mayhem.

  9. ‘As long as the government can force its will on people…..we will never have peace.” Very good, Rich. The interests of the powerful, and the moneyed and Educated classes that support them, deviate sharply from the power interests of the people, the vast majority. Until the people control the powerful, conflict will always include violence.

  10. So I’ve been hooked on the Australian crime drama, “Underbelly”, that follows a different generation of Aussie gangsters in each season. Though details are fictionalized, the characters and situations are historically accurate; sex and violence aside (and who DOESN’T like that?), it’s a helluva story.

    More than providing a little historical entertainment, though, the show’s real value is how well it illustrates the Voluntaryist/Anarchist view that the REAL problem isn’t the gangsters, per se, but government. Organized crime wouldn’t exist…at least to the degree it does today…if the government didn’t make so many things illegal. It’s government that creates the black market…the criminals only profit from it.

    As for making everyone safer by getting guns out of the hands of the general public, did you know that in the 1920s, in response to increasing penalties for carrying concealed handguns, the weapon of choice for Australian gangsters switched from handguns to straight-edged razors? That’s quite a trade-off.

    As the government continues to restrict potential income-garnering opportunities, and at the same time criminalizes more of our personal behaviors, it stands to reason that a greater number of us will be willing to turn to illegal (and thus high-risk) activities both to put food on the table and for the chance to get rich.

Leave a Reply