Australian Lawmaker: Our Gun Control Laws Created a Nation of Victims

Sympathy for those who lost loved ones.

However, these horrific events will not be stopped by oppressing the law abiding from exercising an armed self-defense against those committed to unlawfully causing serious bodily harm or the taking of innocent life.

People will be safe from other people intent on the unlawful taking of life only when free will is eliminated from the human experience.

For a government to take the option of self-defense from the citizen under the guise of creating a safer environment and then making them criminals for carrying a firearm with the singular intent to defend innocent life in a lawful manner is misguided at best and an exercise in pure tyranny in practice.

This Aussie lawmaker gets it

Did you ever wonder why a criminal killer intent on murdering his victims has never (reportedly) taken over a police station with armed police officers in attendance. Hmmm, does make you wonder why.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...gun-control-laws-created-a-nation-of-victims/

 

This must be why there has never been a hostage situation in the US.

 

I wonder how many of those hostages wished they had a gun.

 

If an armed public makes society safer, as you imply, why isn't America a safer country than Australia?

What I find rather humorous is the seemingly coincidental discussion of arming citizens always coming up after fact, with blatant disregard to other reasons. Saying that the 'lone jihadi' attack would have been less likely if Australians were free to arm themselves is unfounded because situations like this have rarely ever happened, and so predicting how the event would have played out is nothing more than an assumption. But that doesn't even enter into because there were several other instances where this event could have been snuffed out, and all of them have nothing to do with firearms.

By refusing to extradite the man to Iran and letting him slip through the courts on bail despite his extensive criminal record, this damaged individual was free to do as he liked. What he did afterwards is, in my opinion, largely irrelevant as it was always going to have a bad ending.

When you let a drunk man drive, it's not the cars fault that he runs someone over. In the same fashion, gun control has little do with the situation, as by the time it was relevant, it was already too late.

In a country where people are already paranoid of individuals potentially carrying knives, you aren't going to be able to convince them to add firearms to that. American's fetishizing their 2nd Amendment is a part of the problem, since if it really were the solution, they'd have used to get rid of Obama a long time ago.

 

They tend to happen in "gun free" zones.

 

And 90% of Australians disagree with this fruitloop.

 

The use of firearms in choosing deadly force is the choice of last resort. All else has failed. Discussion, deportation or revoking a license are ineffective options.

Of course for every strategy there is a counter strategy, still firearms are great equalizers, empowering the citizen and forcing a tyrant to pause.

Consider this situation in which the murder victims were held...what would you have done or allowed them to do to save them from their fate in the moment before their death?

Do anti-self defense/gun control folks ever ponder what these murder victims would have chose as an option to avoid being imminently murdered? Would they have chosen to be armed?

 

We'll never know but the two dead victims might find the senator's position now validated...at least for them.

 

I doubt any Australians leave their homes thinking they should be armed.

 

The media has interviewed the partner of one of the victims. Not once was firearms mentioned in any way, shape or form.

 

Points worth discussing after the tragedy, exactly where we are at. But when you are in that life and death situation your only thought is preventing and failing that stopping additional murders.

 

The average citizen has neither the time nor the money to become competent enough with a gun in an armed confrontation like hostage taking to be anything other than a liability.

 

Thank you for sharing that and I realize this tragedy touches your heart but is your point the dead partner would not have chosen to continue on in life if a firearm was used to save it?

 

Just one example of why you are wrong. There are thousands more.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/ar...d-female-pawn-shop-owner/#lpLm5FxRmzpboTOc.97

 

Just fer fun, I suggest that you look into the cost of attending a CCW class and going to a shooting range at least once a month to fire 50~100 rounds of practice ammo. Anyone with a job can afford it. Take that a whole lot farther, and look into the cost of attending a tactical force on force class. Not exactly over priced. A one week vacation to just about anywhere is comparable.
Reading up and participating in discussion forums online costs zero. The average Citizen not only can afford it, but they owe it to themselves and to their Loved ones.

 

In one afternoon I could teach a person to be efficient enough to take out that gunman.

In 1 month with 3 2 hour sessions per week I can make a person more efficient then most cops.

 

Well, certainly not in Texas.

 

How many hostage situations in the USA end up messier?'??

 

Leftists need victims like cars need gas.

 

Just proves Australia has rednecks too



This a hole did not even get 10% of the vote for the bloody senate!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Leyonhjelm

Mostly he got elected on the donkey vote - Geeeesh!!!

If memory serves he is also the Twonk who wants to open our national parks to shooters

 

Wasn't Waco in Texas???

If I remember that ended well........

 

You post a point and shoot biddy who gets lucky as evidence that I'm wrong?

lol.

 

You're taking shots at everything and missing the issue entirely. If the state had not prohibited the citizen his defense of innocent life by firearm (conversely, in fact, the state has not stopped/prohibited its use as a murder weapon) would the victims be alive today?

 

10,000 hours. That's the ballpark for mastery of anything and when it comes to shooters who need to deal with the likes of a hostage taker that's just the starting point of a continual training regime.

Your amateur hour heroes are hopeless in comparison.

 

The only efficient training you're likely to offer anyone with this kind of nonsense is how to become a suicide victim.

In fact your 'trained' shooter is just as likely to be the first one clipped by a pro just to get them out of the way.