The Sydney siege raised the issue of Australian gun control.  First the Left jumped on the report that the gunman had a gun licence and a legal gun.  Tony Abbott was quick on the draw on this one too as the Liberals, following John Howard’s pathetic lead have been as strongly anti-gun as Labor.  But Monis was not a registered firearms holder.  The Australian Federal Police have now admitted that thye wrongly told Tony Abbott that the gunman held a gun licence.  But this was an error due to an incorrect entry in the National Police Reference system.  It doesn’t inspire me with much confidence in the system. (The Australian December 19, 2014, p.6)

 

 

Libertarian senator David Leyonhjelm, and others such as Nick Adams (author of “The American Boomerang”, supporter of the US and critic of feminism) should be praised for their manly commonsense in saying that if Australia was armed we would be able to deal with the likes of the Sydney gunman, who had an illegal gun.  The media had their usual biased anti-gun columns, saying that the America system is a failure.  Letters-to-the-editor pages featured the rantings of the anti-gun lobby, recycled long refuted arguments with not a single defence of gun ownership.

 

The fact is, as argued by sociologist John Lott, is that “more guns, less crime”.  People carry guns in societies that are already violent – the Left reverses causality in saying that guns make societies violent.  There are peaceful societies with gun banning (Japan), peaceful societies with most males having assault rifles (Switzerland), and violent societies with strict gun control (Mexico).  In general multicultural, highly diverse societies tend to break down and end up in violence, as in the United States.  The presence of guns allows people to be able to defend themselves and not become victims.  Guns prevent crimes happening.

It appears that the café manager sacrificed his life trying to wrestle the illegal gun from the gunman, making him, in my opinion, Australian of the Year.

 

Surely a reasonable person in such a situation would be wishing to have carried a concealed handgun?  What about women living at remote farm houses where people may take hours to get to help?  The gun banners never deal with the practical examples of how, in such situations, people can defend themselves without a gun.  Usually the police can’t get there in time and only “mop up”.

And don’t talk about using Medieval weapons such as swords.  In the state of Victoria even these hunks of steel are banned, along with most martial arts weapons.  IN fact, even though one still has the right to self defence, incoherently the law doesn’t permit one to have the means to do so.  Why hasn’t any lawyer ever addressed this contradiction?

 

 

The System wants ordinary people to be unable to defend themselves as a form of social control.  The Left goes right along with this, showing that as far as the Establishment goes, they are just the other side of the coin.