Aren’t we glad we banned the 7 shot Adler to stop them falling into criminals hands?
We’ve written extensively about the failure of the Daniel Andrews’ government crime policies since last September. An event like this was sadly always coming and they failed to heed the warnings. This is also one week from an axe attack in Sydney and a jewellery store robbery at gunpoint in Toorak, and two nights from the latest home invasion – it continues.
Now, before the usual emotional reflexing about “Port Arthur” and “America” hear us out.
Firstly, for all the criticisms of “now is not the time to talk about it have some respect” – I disagree. This is the best time to be having the conversation while it is in the public consciousness. Sure, there’s a line between being respectful and being disrespectful. The reality is, it is human nature to discuss and solve problems. Because strangers died in a tragedy that didn’t directly affect you is no reason to enforce blanket censorship or guilt on others who may have something constructive to say. Change will not happen after events like this unless pressure is brought to bear. Victimhood is not a badge of honour and meaningless platitudes and virtue signalling on social media is not constructive.
The fake outrage levelled at David Leyonhjelm illustrated that. Could he have been more tactful? That’s not for me to decide. But in a country that is currently locked in a battle for freedom of speech, dissenting opinions need to be respected. His point was spot on – the hypocrisy and absurdity of the anti-gun argument was laid bare, and they didn’t like it. We could go into their ‘respect for victims’ after a shooting, but we won’t.
Sure, you can validly debate the merits of defensive force in the situation, eg “bystanders/you would’ve just caused more casualties by shooting him.” Be aware that the hypothetical game goes both ways. The Nice truck attack was stopped by good guys with guns.
When two gentlemen stepped in with a baseball bat to try and stop the madman it was futile, but full credit to them for having a go – from the video the bystander effect was in overdrive (to be fair at that point no one knew what was going on and this was just before his rampage). However, the already suspected murderer faced no armed opposition until it was way too late and chose a soft target. Would it have happened if he knew there would have been armed resistance?
It also could’ve been stopped in self defence the night before when he was the suspect in a stabbing and we never would have gotten to this point. However, hindsight is a great thing.
My question to people who always come up against non-lethal items or firearms for self-defence (usually out of personal fear) is: what would you have done and what is your alternative? And the answer is generally one of two things:
- blank stares
- calls for more of the same incompetent, reactionary government that couldn’t protect them in the first place
It shows you just how deep the social engineering has gone in Australia, thanks mainly to a biased media. Was Bourke Street a failure of the justice system? Absolutely. But people have been conditioned to forget that these institutions only deal with punishment long after the fact – scant consolation to the victims. I can only speak from my perspective, but had that been my family that was run over my first questions would be “why did this happen and why did they not have a chance to protect themselves?” I think you would be hard pressed to find any decent human being that wouldn’t ask the same question.
After all, the question of whether we are safer or not in the post NFA era has hit home for a lot of people – we aren’t. Calling for more Police state authoritarianism isn’t the answer either. It’s a copout and Australians have already had so many personal freedoms sacrificed or stolen in the name of ‘security’ and for what? Why do you think One Nation are gaining in popularity? Will Gun Control Australia and the Alannah and Madeline Foundation start issuing edicts that we need restrictions on V8 cars? No one really needs them, you know.
The massive Police and government anti-terror apparatus failed yet again to protect the public. How many more reminders do the public need that the state is not their god and saviour? This is not a sleight at Police, but as we’ve discussed at length previously they are reactionary only and in terms of firearms, held to a lower standard than Category H licence holders. Even Queensland Police admit this.
It’s time to get serious about empowering the public by letting them have the opportunity to defend themselves, and end this useless and dangerous obsession with denying people the basic means and right to practical non-lethal and licenced lethal forms of self-defence, in the name of ‘muh public safety’.
Is it a complete solution? No, but the world environment has changed and the current system of outsourcing it to minimally trained, under resourced third parties that have repeatedly demonstrated they often don’t have the capacity to provide the service is not working. Lindt Cafe, Hornsby, etc all over again.
Bourke Street is an extension of a much wider problem regarding Australian self defence laws.
We all know what the likely response will be though: more useless laws, candlelit vigils, a dog and pony show inquiry, no real change and Police Minister Lisa Neville still in a job on Monday morning.