David Leyonhjelm is correct: Australians should be able to arm themselves against terror

After the London Terrorist Attack and Brighton Shooting, much of the discourse of the past week has been spent on Australia’s capacity to respond to terrorism. Senator David Leyonhjelm appeared on the Today Show to discuss lethal and non-lethal self-defence for Australian citizens. It was a markedly different Karl Stefanovic to the infamous 9 v 1 attack on Bob Katter from 2015.

The London Terror attack saw people run over, stabbed in the neck and this gentleman being forced to fight off knife wielding assailants unarmed (nearly literally becoming unarmed in the process). Police were “lauded” by the media for their 8 minute response time and glossed over the fact unarmed constables had to retreat, much like Keith Palmer sadly found out two months ago.  Here’s what you can also do in 8 minutes: run 2kms, fight one and a half UFC rounds or bleed to death two or three times over, which unfortunately many victims did.

There is no doubt that the security situation globally is going south in many Western countries. Unfortunately, the response from the Australian government has been entirely predictable – no addressing of the real problems of our immigration program, increased state authoritarianism such as preventative detention and last but not least, increased armament of the Police.

To put that in context, the National Firearms Agreement said Semi-Automatic Self Loading Rifles are too dangerous and would destabilize the community, but now Police “desperately need them” because the security situation has deteriorated. Explain that one, Michael Keenan.

Daniel Andrews also thought he was here to save the day with bollards – a plan which lasted all of 48 hours. And where would we be with the token Australian call to ban something for safety, this time being trucks without autonomous braking technology.

So how about self-defence for citizens then? We’ve indeed talked about this at length before in the face of Victoria’s out of control violent crime problem.

Leyonhjelm was 100% correct in his statement that Australia is one of the few countries that enforced victimhood is the norm. After 21 years of indoctrination regarding firearms and other means of self-defence, it has become almost cultural in Australia to accept victimhood, while not blinking as the PM struts around with M4 wielding and ballistic vest wearing, tax payer funded body guards.

Sure, you can legally use “reasonable force” to defend yourself but you can’t practically prepare for it – you’re expected to improvise against an assailant(s) that has come prepared. Carrying something will land you in hot water and/or gaol. The legal right to defend yourself is essentially meaningless when you are prohibited the legal means to do so. The fact that non-lethal items remain illegal for self-defence in Australia is completely unconscionable.

Concealed Carry

Naturally, the topic of firearms came up and aside from the US, David brought up the Czech Republic, a country that endured oppressive communist rule and also their successful concealed carry program. The Czech Republic has previously advised it’s own citizens to shoot terrorists themselves. There is also a push in the UK for gun owners to be able to protect themselves.

There are countless examples of mass shootings being prevented by CCW permit holders. The Clackamas Mall Shooting. New Life Church. This Uber Driver. This Barber Shop. And just a few weeks ago, this gentleman at a bar in Texas. Just because the Australian media deliberately doesn’t report on them, doesn’t mean they don’t happen.

The Australian media hate guns but love it when Police use them for self defence, as seen in the Herald Sun:

Furthermore, Concealed Carry Permit Holders have also come to the rescue of Police in trouble, just like this man in Florida earlier in the year.

There are also countless daily firearm self-defence examples. And then some. You can Google the rest. And as found by the CDC’s own research , they far outweigh homicides.

Contrary to Stefanovic’s assertion, more guns doesn’t equal more crime. The long term trend shows it is not even true in the most armed country on earth.

Other than the simplistic “Look at America!” argument, the argument against concealed carry is foremostly “only the Police are trained well enough.”  Well, apart from SOG/SERT units, no they aren’t. Queensland Police even admitted this. Lindt Café. Hornsby. The list goes on. This makes the recent calls to arm police with Semi-Automatic Rifles negligible when in many cases their current firearm training standards are already arguably insufficient.

Further, by stating only Police should carry for self-defence you are essentially arguing that a vetted member of the public cannot handle the 80 hour, two week course that trainee Police Constables endure at most Police Academies around Australia. This is of course, nonsense. While we 100% support Police having access to the right tools for their job so they can stay safe, why are Police a protected species when it comes to self-defence? It should not come at the expense of the law-abiding. They also can’t take their firearms home (when they clearly should be able to) to protect themselves against crims, like this Victorian Police constable sadly found out. The ridiculous fact they are trusted when in uniform but found not to be trusted when out of uniform is indeed an interesting point Senator Leyonhjelm made.

There are a plethora of private training facilities in the United States that provide for realistic training for armed civilians. Armed robberies, home invasions, car jacking, active shooters, etc, this is all catered for. There’s no reason accredited private businesses cannot conduct this training for citizens in Australia as well.

Also, no one is arguing to “give everybody guns” – that argument is just an alarmist derailing tactic. By all means, screen the undesirables out and minimize your risk. Not everyone is obviously going to want one either. However, Australian citizens who are vetted and trained should be allowed to conceal and carry a firearm for self-defence. And for those who will inevitably shriek “Port Arthur!” one concealed carry holder could have been the difference on that fateful day instead of waiting hours for Police help.

Criminals and terrorists have guns already. Acknowledge that and get over it. If Rick Maddison can get his hands on an apparent full auto firearm and kill a Policeman with it, what can’t they get? Man Monis? Yacqub Khayre? Farad Jabbar? You aren’t going to make a difference to bad people by denying good people their right to practical self-defence, you’re just making their job easier.

To those who do not wish to be armed, that’s fine and your choice – but what is your alternative when you find yourself in a situation like London last week? And to top it off, the shooting of congressman this morning in Virginia was ceased by armed bodyguardstrained good guys with guns. 

Those who don’t want to defend themselves don’t have to. Where their argument falls over is they have no business telling others they can’t in similar circumstances. Self-defence is one of the most basic of human rights, no matter how much the state chooses to infringe on it. And if recent events are any indication, the Australian state is doing a continually mediocre job of protecting you – ask any Victorian. Their own Police Force is telling people to be compliant with violent criminals.

Kudos, Senator Leyonhjelm.

7 thoughts on “David Leyonhjelm is correct: Australians should be able to arm themselves against terror”

  1. Every living person has the natural given right to self defense and no government should ever be allow to restrict that or access to the tools needed to defend yourself and your family.

  2. The right to self defence is a given pre existing human right no government can take away from a citizen in a free country. Only in non free countries is it an issue.

  3. As a bare minimum, every Australian should have the right to carry a telescoping metal baton for self defence – that takes away the huge advantage a knife gives an attacker, and thereby takes a lot of idiots out of the Jihad business, after that law abiding ex-military, serving military, pistol club members, ex and serving police officers should be able to do a concealed carry course and, having passed it carry in public to provide the extra force required.
    Unfortunately it will take a serious mass casualty event to bring this into consideration, Govts like control above all else and delegating control and responsibility to the public is something they desperately want to avoid.

  4. Interestingly – Senator, you echoed my thoughts (submitted to Herald Sun letters 2010) on the Port Arthur ‘massacre. A solitary, capable, concealed carry – could have (possibly) taken out the shooter – and saved many lives

    1. I’m not disagreeing with you Don, but an important point is that a concealed carrier wouldn’t need to have killed Bryant (though that is the ideal result), Bryant killed as many as he did because he could move around the area with impunity – even if the concealed carrier didn’t hit him, shooting at him would have severely curtailed his movement and allowed many more to escape and this applies to any mass casualty event where a moving killer/s is able to move freely, pin them down fast and the casualty numbers go down.

  5. This whole corrupt crazy scheme has gone on long enough and needs to be pitched self defence is the right of every descent human being on the planet.

Leave a Reply