Despite Australia’s gun control laws, a gunman held hostages for 16 hours at a Sydney cafe, resulting in at least three deaths including the perpetrator.
Australia’s gun laws, which have nearly eradicated private gun ownership in the country, allowed Man Haron Monis, 49, to walk into the Lindt Chocolate Cafe and take hostages at gunpoint Sunday because he neither encountered nor likely expected any resistance.
Monis had no intention to obey the country’s gun laws because he was willing to commit violent crimes anyway.
After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australian lawmakers enacted heavy restrictions on gun ownership, including a ban on semi-automatic weapons.
“There is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides or suicides,” researchers at the University of Melbourne, Australia, discovered after a study.
If peaceful, law abiding Australians were allowed to carry guns, Monis may have thought twice about storming the cafe, but even if he didn’t, armed citizens could have still fought back.
Of course this logic won’t be promoted by politicians who’d rather use the tragedy to enact more gun restrictions which only result in more violent crimes by criminals who don’t obey laws to begin with.
So why do big government politicians promote gun control to begin with if it doesn’t work as intended? Because disarmed populations are easier to control.
“Those regimes seeking to assert and maintain absolute control over the citizenry will always try to disarm them first by means of confiscation, regulation, taxation, and through controlling markets for firearms and ammunition,” journalist Edward Wimberley wrote. “Without exception, an unarmed citizenry is one that can be effectively bullied and coerced and are readily controlled by the government.”
And it was American patriot George Mason who said to disarm the people “was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
It’s no coincidence that the politicians who promote gun control also promote other draconian laws which expand government control at the expense of personal liberties.
For example, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is perhaps the staunchest anti-gun proponent in American politics, spearheaded an initiative to ban the sale of soft drinks over 16oz in the city.
Now just think of what politicians like him would do if they had complete control over a disarmed population.
Here’s a hint: they won’t limit themselves to just regulating the size of soft drinks.