If you’ve noticed one of many recurring themes in Melbourne’s violent crime wave, it’s pretty clear – unarmed business owners being taken advantage of by armed criminals. We also said last year that it would be inevitable that some of the public would take matters into their own hands.
Just yesterday, another jewellery store being knocked off in Melbourne:
A brave witness stole his hammer and threw it at him? Kudos for having a go but the real question is, why was he legally enforced to be unarmed against the assailant in the first place? As usual, being an unarmed victim is twisted into a desirable condition by the Australian press.
This guy also took the initiative:
Kudos to this bloke for also having a go and fighting back and achieving a good outcome. However, he was very lucky that the first swing didn’t connect otherwise he would have been toast.
Furthermore, putting himself in greater danger of being injured or worse by going hands on could have been avoided with so much as a pepper spray or indeed, the presentation of a licenced firearm.
And then there’s this:
Although one of the weakest armed robberies on record considering they were armed and had numbers vs the shop keeper and his mop, it’s a very fortunate state of affairs that they weren’t more determined otherwise it was game over for the shop keeper.
These are just a few of many regular examples, but the point is clear: what kind of backwards country forces it’s citizens to improvise against criminals who have come prepared for an assault?
Australia, that’s who. For all the virtue signalling and lecturing towards Americans about guns, a country that does not even respect the most basic right for of self-defence for it’s citizens to protect themselves and their livelihoods, can hardly claim the moral high ground in this regard.
The arguments for “just get armed security” are tenuous. Sure, if you can afford such an expense then you should have that option but why should you be forced into this choice? Many are priced out of this option because of the already sky-high cost of running a business in Australia. Why can’t a business owner or employee who has been vetted be able to carry a firearm to protect the business and their lives with if they can meet a certain standard?
We saw the epitome of this lunacy during the O’Reilly’s gun store robbery – in essence, a business that sold legal guns was unable to use it’s legal firearms to protect it’s legal firearms from becoming illegal firearms, so it was forced to wait for the government to use it’s firearms until it was too late.
That’s how absurd things have become in this country.
There did exist a time before 1996 where in certain businesses, e.g. service stations and banks, it was not uncommon to have a .38 or a shotgun sitting behind the counter with a staff member. There are no arguments other than “because bureaucrats said so” that this cannot be the case again.
One thing is also clear from these videos: when criminals meet armed resistance, they nearly always turn tail and run.
Criminals are risk/reward operators and the fact there is very little risk for them currently, coupled with a weak as water judicial system and Police that arrive way too late, make Australia a criminal’s paradise.
We all remember this recent example:
A few results like the above, might make criminals think less about reward and more about risk.