Sydney Shows Disarmament’s Dark Downside

Welcome to Australian gun politics, courtesy the hive mind at wikipedia: “Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a [gun] licence, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defense.” The chances of having a legal gun around the place with which to defend yourself? “Currently, about 5.2% of Australian adults (765,000 people) own and use firearms for purposes such as hunting, controlling feral animals, collecting, and target shooting.” So not very high then. Infinitesimal in urban areas. Where the crime is. Duh. Clock this from the scribes at dailytelegraph.com.au: “SYDNEY is under siege from gangs of heavily armed robbers terrorising shopkeepers, pub staff and residents . . .

Meat cleavers, machetes, sawn-off shotguns and axes are among the weapons used in recent weeks as thugs smashed their way into so-called “soft targets” – mostly service stations, bottle shops and licensed premises – demanding cash, wallets, jewellery and mobile phones.

Details of more than 50 of the most violent incidents have been released by police this month.

However they are just the tip of the iceberg, with as many as a dozen more reported every 24 hours according to logs of the police encrypted radio network . . .

The surge in the number of hold-ups is a major concern for police because it bucks a downward trend that has seen the lowest rates for armed robbery in years.

Also alarming is the increase in gangs and lone bandits hitting multiple targets in a single night.

These included an 18-year-old man charged over a rampage in which he allegedly robbed six service stations armed with a hammer and knife at Liverpool and Casula within two hours on December 19. Later the same day two men armed with pistols are believed to have held up two pubs at Glebe and Newtown.

The escalating violence is also happening on the street, with growing numbers of people being threatened and assaulted by armed hoodlums who rob them of wallets, phones and personal items.

Police have downplayed the increase, claiming a handful of offenders were thought to be responsible for numerous robberies, which have skewed the figures.

Good point. Because it’s all about collective security. It doesn’t matter so much if you’re robbed by a man with a hammer and knife or gun so long as society in general has an acceptable crime rate. In other words, when the government disarms its population (or the population disarms itself), it’s not about you. 

In a society where only criminals have guns, it’s not your job to defend yourself. In fact, the government actively discourages you from doing so.

It comes as police urged shop keepers, hotel staff and the public caught in the middle of a hold-up to do whatever the assailants asked – not to be a hero and not to make sudden movements.

That’s the way uh-huh uh-huh they like it. Disarmed, defenseless and beholden to the Powers That Be. It’s a state of affairs that’s all-too-familiar to situationally aware citizens living in New York City, Chicago and anywhere else where the right to keep and bear arms is treated with contempt by the guardians of the public trust.

Australia. Mexico. Norway. How many examples of gun control’s failures do the fence sitters need, anyway?

comments

  1. avatar Matt Gregg says:

    I pity a society that values the safety of a criminal over that of a law biding citizen.

  2. avatar Matt Gregg says:

    I pity a society that values the safety of a criminal over that of a law biding citizen.

    I have high hopes for America though as CCW permit applications seem to be on the rise every year.

  3. avatar mikeb302000 says:

    If there are as many DGUs as you guys say, shouldn’t Australia’s murder rate be off the charts? But it’s not.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      So I guess they are all wrong about the crime then? I doubt you have been there like I have so maybe you don’t know what you’re rambling about. The Aussie situation is a gun ban embarrassment, right up there with the UK. The authorities failed to protect people after assuming responsibility for their defense. Police from all areas of NSW assured everyone that hooliganism, crime and predation would not be tolerated. How they planned to go about that was not clear.
      Queensland residents told them to pound salt and most kept their guns hidden. QLand is a bit like the wild west of old, they do things a little different there.

    2. avatar JustSomeGuy says:

      Mike, really, what’s it like inside your head?? I’d be baffled but I’m too flabbergasted…

      JSG

    3. avatar mikeyt95608 says:

      Feeding time for the troll. Hey, Mikey, did you read the article? Perhaps some anal/cranial diffusion is required here. The way the laws in the land of Oz are written, the common folk are NOT SUPPOSED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. They are truly subjects to those with the will and force to dominate them. Period. Imagine the insult to the integrity of a person who actually has some fortitude and is forced to hand over anything that an armed intruder asks for because it is the mandate of law.
      I would ask for a response, but the neutered words of a fractional man like yourself would probably fall on deaf ears here. Live in fear you miserable surrender monkey. We who choose to live by our rights will always be there to dig you out of whatever mess you find yourself in.

    4. avatar Rokurota says:

      Mike, I’m not sure what the question is. Are you asking if Australia used to have a lot of DGUs, and if so, shouldn’t the current murder rate be high?

      Not necessarily. Murder is not the only crime one can prevent with a DGU. As stated in the story above, armed robbery and assault are apparently on the rise. That’s scary enough. So is rape. I will grant you that a spontaneous assault with a hammer could have a lower chance of killing you than one with a gun (a common argument for gun control). But I’ll still take drawing my handgun and stopping the attack over hoping my assailant doesn’t hit me too hard, or only hard enough to reduce me to a drooling vegetable.

      And, oh yes, it’s in the Constitution. Hard to get around that.

      1. avatar Silver says:

        You forget, according to mike and other morally bankrupt cowards, you have no reason to use force to protect yourself or your property. So if armed robbers break into your house, it’s your moral duty to hand over everything you own simply to avoid conflict. If your child is being kidnapped, it’s your duty to wave goodbye then call the police.

        I understand it’s difficult for those of us with responsibility and morality to comprehend mike’s way of thinking; just imagine “what would I be if I was everything wrong with modern humanity?” and that should get you there.

        1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          No, Silver, that’s not what I stand for. Your passion and enthusiasm I suppose is so great and justified that you think you can lie as well as call names all you like. But, if you really had such a good argument you’d be able to make it without doing either of those things.

          My idea is not that you cannot resist no matter what, that would be stupid. My idea is you cannot murder a kid who’s climbing into your window to steal your TV. You have to make some attempt to determine if there really is a lethal threat. I object to all the macho bullshit and bluster that you’re really good at which says “anybody breaking into my house is dead.” That’s not responsible.

        2. avatar Jericho941 says:

          If you want to talk about fairness, it’s not really fair to someone who wakes up and shoots a “kid” who broke into his house in the middle of the night… and then a bunch of armchair detectives and psychics determine that he was in the wrong, because the kid only wanted a TV.

          Besides, how exactly do you imagine this determination taking place?

          “Excuse me sir, but you seem to have broken into my house. What do you want?”
          “Oh! Good evening to you, sir. I just thought I’d take your TV.”
          “Oh very well then, carry on.”

          Or

          “What the hell do you think you’re doing?”
          “I’m gonna kill you, rape your wife, and steal your TV.”
          “Well that just won’t do. Would you mind holding on a second while I fetch my firearm?”

        3. avatar Stu Strickler says:

          So I am not responsible? I guess if you really want to find out, break into my house!

        4. avatar Jon says:

          Generally if someone is desperate enough to break into a house, they are going to be extremely nervous and keyed-up, therefore unpredictable and more likely to react violently if surprised. If there is any chance of a perp posing a threat to me or my loved ones, you can bet that I’ll drop them without hesitation, once I have confirmed that it isn’t one of my kids coming in for the night.

  4. avatar Ging says:

    Sigh, stories like these make me want to move to the US.

    Can’t even EDC a knife these days…

  5. avatar ST says:

    If an armed society is a polite society,then a disarmed population equals a frightened society.Once the constituency is so scared they’re jumping every time a car backfires the politicans have a blank check to pass any law they want to ‘keep people safe ‘.

    Soon high taxes, high business fees, and cuts in the police force are passed.The mayor asks for more money to ‘fight crime’ which goes into a no bid contract
    for his brothers camera company.
    The final stage of the process is realized when fed up people start leaving.

    1. avatar Tom says:

      When the 2A type rights go away, a lot more tends to go with them. The 2A was not really there for defense against petty criminals. 2A had more to do with checks on a potential dictatorial police state.

      1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

        Tom, When you say“When the 2A type rights go away, a lot more tends to go with them.”are you just guessing? I thought I’m the only one who makes unsubstantiated guesses around here.Please don’t tell me you’re talking about the European Jews in the 1030s and 1940s.

        1. Try the UK from WWII onwards.

  6. avatar GS650G says:

    Australia also got a heavily armed police state in the bargain too. Before the gun ban home invasions were unheard of, now they are quite common. Once the threat of being plugged was removed from the equation it became a free for all.
    Too bad they didn’t train the citizens in martial arts and hand to hand combat prior to stripping them naked before the mob.

  7. avatar Tom says:

    Later the same day two men armed with pistols are believed to have held up two pubs at Glebe and Newtown.

    Where did they get the pistols in the Land of Plenty Police State?

  8. avatar John Fritz says:

    There was a girl from Australia (I think, maybe New Zealand?) on the CZ forum a while back that was posting about her new CZ’s and what she had to go through to buy them, keep them and shoot them. Yikes.

    Even thought the US of A seems to be swirling the bowl these days, I am still reminded of my favorite expression: There is no limit to how bad things can get. Listening to one enthusiast in the southern hemisphere talk about her gun ownership really brings my little saying home.

    1. avatar Pale Horse says:

      The process one has to go through to get a handgun license (B) in New Zealand is very laborious:

      One has to be a member of a pistol club for six months before they can apply. (it may be a year)

      Must had five written letters of reference (three must be people other than family that have known you for over five years)

      Safe has to be installed per Police code and checked. (alarms may be required also, been a long time since I live there)

      Must attend the club a minimum of 12 times a year. (Government issues a book to the club that you have to sign into)

      When transporting said handgun it must be unloaded and you must travel from home to the club and back, you cannot stop for lunch, etc.

      And if you use that handgun to save your life or any other third party they will bury you.

      Australia is the same way with the exception being one cannot own a handgun greater that .38 cal.

  9. avatar Pale Horse says:

    I lived and worked in Sydney for a number of years right after the 96 gun ban, I carried a handgun day in day out on a security license (carried all the time because I was always “on call”). Police Officers at that time, at the end of their shift had to sign their handgun/ammo back in and could not carry off duty. Most officers I dealt with were rabidly anti-gun and didn’t want to be like those Americans. CNN was showing footage of Columbine seven days a week for six months at this time saying that Australia would never have there issues due to the ban, of course we all know that was BS.Australia has progressively gotten worse and will continue to do so, so glad that I was able to flee to America.

  10. avatar Joe Grine says:

    “Because it’s all about collective security. It doesn’t matter so much if you’re robbed by a man with a hammer and knife or gun so long as society in general has an acceptable crime rate. In other words, when the government disarms its population (or the population disarms itself), it’s not about you.”

    Very well stated, Robert.

  11. avatar IdahoPete says:

    “It comes as police urged shop keepers, hotel staff and the public caught in the middle of a hold-up to do whatever the assailants asked – not to be a hero and not to make sudden movements.” And are they urging women to not resist rape? To “do whatever the assailants asked”?

    Gee, gun sales in America have been going up by huge amounts every year since 2008, and our violent crime rate continues to go down. In rural areas such as mine, home invasion robberies (when the owner is at home) are extremely rare. SUCCESSFUL home invasion robberies are nearly non-existent, because the scum usually ends up dead or bleeding. I guess mikeb would consider that to be another example of “gun violence”, rather than self-defense. Oh, hey, mikey, that was just sarcasm/humor, so don’t take offense.

  12. avatar Aharon says:

    “Police have downplayed the increase, claiming a handful of offenders were thought to be responsible”

    I don’t care if it is 100 thugs with meat cleavers breaking into one home each per night or one thug with a cleaver breaking into 100 homes every night. Everyone has the right to obtain the means to defend himself.

  13. avatar O.N. says:

    Weren’t the Australians disarmed after a spree shooting? That was the occasion and/or impetus for bans in New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

  14. avatar mikeyt95608 says:

    Orwellian plutocracy forgetting what “public service” really means. Subjugation is not representation.

  15. You missed the UK off the list of nations that are Victim Disarmament Zones.

    Of course our violent crime rate being double that of the US has no relationship with this…..

  16. avatar Doug says:

    Anytime a lawful Citizenery Gets disarmed……….The Exterminiation of the Population are soon to follow……. “You Cannot Protect Individuals From Themselves and / or all of them all the time…. When tried ,you create a Tyrannical State” ——-Ron Paul

  17. avatar Wisconsin Instructor says:

    Please you all need to read this article, it will help you understand the anti self defense mindset.http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htmThis really helped me deal with them in Wisconsin. I carry 100% of the time and will not be a victim.

    Read the results of citizen gun ownership
    http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

    1. Your link’s broke matey(ran into the next word).

      Use this one:

      http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email