Death of A Nation DVD Advertisement

Gun Control and the Sydney Siege

email Email
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?
email Email

Comments (7)

Leave a comment
  1. Leanne  •  Dec 18, 2014 at 3:40 am

    I’m guessing you moderate and don’t publish all of your comments. But here goes anyway. I find your post offensive. I’m an Australian who has lived in multiple countries around the world, including the USA. I have spent a lot of time in Texas. Even after the events in Sydney I would rather live under those kinds of gun controls. We still have less gun related deaths per head of population that the USA, by a long shot. Your reasoning in this post is daft – having guns for “protection” still didn’t stop the massacre at Fort Hood Army Base for instance. I cannot check the source of these figures (and we all know about lies, lies and damn statistics) but this link gives some food for thought:
    Shocking to see that the types of countries that share similar gun death rates to the USA?
    Certainly criminals around the world are unlikely to be deterred by gun laws. But those laws do deter the loonies who are having a bad day and get to blast away at other innocent people – think about the multiple school deaths within the USA for instance.

    • David  •  Dec 18, 2014 at 11:50 am

      More gun regulations are a material solution to a problem that is spiritual in nature. We need stronger families and not more regulations on guns. Anything that we can do as a society to promote religion, good character and high morales is an investment towards civility and a morale society. Empowering responsible citizens by training them to use guns and issuing more permits to these types of individuals as well as enforcing reasonable existing gun regulations will result in less crime; the only thing that these evil murderous criminals understand is strength and your liberal platitudes, hyperbole and good intentions might make some feel better but don’t provide the results we all want.

    • Ed  •  Dec 18, 2014 at 3:20 pm

      You find the post offensive? Such as fragile ego, but typical of the Leftist mindset. Boo Hoo. Next you’ll be calling for a ban on free speech. Get ready to be offended again. People don’t have a natural right NOT to be offended. Stay in Australia, please.

    • Dylan  •  Dec 28, 2014 at 4:07 pm

      Leanne, forgive me, but your argument is an example of a very classic, pathetic European leftist mentality that the state can, nay should, protect you from yourself, let alone from all the scary people out there that suffer from not being you, thus cannot be trusted with pointy sticks. Consider an original truth, you are responsible for yourself if only because the most efficient and quickest, i.e. best, protection you have, is in your own hands. It’s just math, count to one, try not to get lost. The answer isn’t 17, it’s just one, you. And as for those you are responsible to and for? Your children, your family, your friends and even simply your fellow good people around you that are guilty of nothing more than you are, and only wish to see their loved ones that one more time, who will protect them? That fatal and most unfortunate moment will choose you, not the other way around. Consider that you are absolutely safe, nowhere. To think and presume otherwise is a fallacy, as well as arrogance, and ultimately deadly. Even if you are so insistently reluctant to safeguard your own safety for fear of your presumed ultimate sin, taking another life even at the direct expense of your own, it is the hight of failure to forget that you will harm so many that you love, and that love you, with your own unnecessary death and suffering. They will not think for a moment, your thoughts that “at least she didn’t kill her attacker first,” rather they will be vexed with the opposite, the never ending thought, “if only…”

      Sustaining an argument of morality by temporary statistics is inherently flawed and of little worth. Moral answers are ones that predate all of us and will persist, insistently, long after any of us. We are not an evolving human society, I’m sorry, but this is true despite your side’s blind faith in the contrary at the expense of so much. What we are is man, just the race of man, with all his/her flaws and failings, we will always be only, and especially just that. What I mean is, we are not a perfectible thing, this thing called “society.” Not yours vs. ours or anyone else’s. There is no race, no collective that is a perfectible thing, we are all equal in at least that consideration. So if this true, you will need to protect yourself as the history of man is rather insistent, you are at a disadvantage and under threat, always.

      But if you want statistics, if you insist on numbers to fortify your reasoning, consider a simply thought experiment, it will require no more than your own “open mindedness,” if this is even possible with a closed minded leftist. We Americans live and flourish and excel in a society full of guns, and with so many trillions of moments, so many vast uncountable opportunities for failure, we ONLY have what statistically few gun incidents that the news reports. I know, it’s a mental leap of faith on your part to realize, but try to consider it honestly. My friends and I have countless millions of hours of life around our guns and not a one, not even one of us has ever been harmed, yet many of us have been instead saved from harm instead, because of our firearms. We do not live in fear, as you do. We do not hear about the incident in Sydney and fear that may happen to us, instead we know that we are prepared, if ever necessary.

    • Danny Mann  •  Jan 2, 2015 at 4:23 pm

      As a US vet that has been around the globe and spent time on the deserts of Sinai in 1973 when REAL bullets were flying, here is my answer to the gun issue.
      I was mugged on the streets in Chicago on my way to work late at night.
      If you don’t want one DON’T get one. If you want to be a possible victim that’s your problem. Being nice does not count when the bad guy pulls a bowie knife on you. This was personal and changed my opinion on a lot of things. Its like combat, last man standing is the ONLY thing that counts and the bad guys are down for the count. As for me if I’m going DOWN it will be in a pile of brass.
      Quoting WORLD stats is a cop out. No other nation on the planet has the demographics USA has.
      Some history is called for.
      In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
      In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians,
      unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
      Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
      China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
      Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
      Enough said.

  2. Kelly  •  Dec 19, 2014 at 10:12 am

    i.e. Fort Hood-the military forbids its members from being armed or having ammunition in weapons on bases except for the Military Police which makes them perfect targets for the ‘loonies’.

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.


Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement

Follow Michael

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Listen to the show on your amazon echo devices
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn