> Would somebody who is in Australia, or has been there recently, tell me, is there a shred of truth to either claim?
> Howard

A shred, yes. Opponents naturally use the stats for the crimes which increased the most. The government naturally uses the stats for the crimes which increased the least. This way they can each reach the conclusions they want. The site below was the first one I found which *seemed* like it used valid stats. If you want a conclusion, the linked-to site doesn't provide it.

Whatever can be determined from a measly two years of data, it can be said that the program failed to *decrease* crime, as all the politicians had sworn it would. The usual mantra (more guns = less crime) is supported by worldwide data, and the reasonings to it are quite sensible. You've probably heard them all before, but if you like someone else will probably repeat them in this thread.

Ga"Oops. I haven't been to Australia recently."be