Advocates of strict gun control often point to nations like Australia as examples of enlightened policy toward firearms. But all of the regulation didn’t prevent a violent criminal with multiple charges against him—and with known sympathies to Islamic terrorists—from using a shotgun to hold a score of hostages in a café in Sydney.
The gun control did succeed, however, in making sure the victims were unarmed and defenseless—a situation that might have been very different in, say, Texas or another state that freely issues permits for concealed carry. The tragic outcome in Australia, with the shooter and two innocent hostages dead, illustrates the destructive logic of those who believe gun-regulation prevents crime.
Law abiding citizens will likely follow rules against arming themselves, but criminals bent on violence are already determined to break laws. If they’re willing to violate rules against murder why would they be deterred by restrictions on gun ownership?