In the aftermath of the criminal outrage activities at Brown University and at Bondi Beach in Australia, the government types in the US and Australia are both calling for more gun control.
I mean the 20,000+ gun control laws in the US have been so successful, we clearly need more, right? And if you start on the unwinding of these civil rights violations that are anti-gun laws by new legislation and courts finding them unconstitutional, I’d remind you that Rhode Island, the small state home of the ivy league Brown University, gets an “A-“ from the Giffords Gun-Control Gang. It’s not like it was Texas or Wyoming …
Australia, likewise, is a home of statist intrusions into personal safety. According to the CNN website –
“Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced Monday after a meeting of the National Cabinet that state and territory leaders had agreed to pursue tougher controls.
“The new rules would mean only Australian citizens can hold a gun license, and the number and type of guns they can own would be limited. Licenses would expire, under the plan, requiring more frequent checks on gun owners’ suitability to hold a license.”
Since the offence was committed by someone on tourists’ visa – it’s questionable that the license for him to have firearms was actually legal under existing law in Australia – I’m not sure how increasing civil rights violations on Australian citizens would be helpful.
But I’m no expert on Australian laws of any kind, let alone those that amount to civil rights violations – so I could be wrong. Their laws -- they can enforce them (or not) as they will.
I still don’t get the “attack the symptom” part of the treatment plan. People acting out in criminal outrage behaviors (whether or not it’s intifada-inspired) aren’t generally concerned about government restrictions on possession of guns; they’re ignoring one of the “Big 10” (specifically, “You will not murder,” ultimately litigated in the highest of courts).
All that the drive to further citizen disarmament does is ensure that there will be plenty of victims for transgressors.
Notice also the incidence of mass casualty attacks involving improvised munitions (explosives), motor vehicles and bladed instruments. I’m not sure how the silly “patellar reflex” of gun control (h/t, Stephen Wenger) is relevant.
When you lack vision, perspective and some intellect, you go back to old gun control, the snake oil of 1968. Impotent, irrelevant, chicken feed to throw to the suckers who’ll believe anything.
We see no serious ideas to deal with the problem, perhaps because they won’t face up to the problem.
The 1996 National Firearms “agreement” in Australia essentially made gun ownership a privilege. That’s a problem, as the individual right to self-preservation is not bestowed by groups of people – government – but exists at the moment of achieving life.
You give up that right by behaviors that make you a problem for others. The government can’t speak on your behalf and preemptively remove it.
Why turn to gun laws before the victims are cold?
Because the government is said to have failed to keep people safe – in itself a delusional concept. The reason the right to self defense was recognized was because you are the last step in safety; if you fail to stay out of places and activities where active problems search for victims, relying on someone else – outsourcing your safety – is irrelevant.
You’re beyond help.
Note that one person hunted the offenders and successfully (and, it seems, temporarily) disarmed him.
The police? According to accounts, it appears they didn’t immediately engage the threats with countervailing deadly force.
Eventually, one must have as one of the perps is deceased.
Awareness and avoidance are key, more important than guns. Guns are for when those assets fail.
As to gun laws, keep the heat on your elected officials. Let them know you’re not fooled by the silly, unhelpful infringements – and that you’re tired of having to fight to keep the poorly educated pols away from your rights.
— Rich Grassi
