The attack at Bondi in Australia was beyond awful. It was an act of terrorism perpetuated by a father-son duo that used the firearms still available in Australia to kill 15 people, as of this writing, though the body count may still increase. It was beyond terrible, and it was something that shouldn't have happened.
Especially if gun control works as people claim.
It doesn't, but many pointed to Australia as proof that it does, and this is not helping their case today.
That won't stop the folks at The Guardian, though.
For almost three decades, Australia’s gun laws have been recognised as among the most stringent – and effective – in the world.
After the horror of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre that killed 35 people in Tasmania, Australia’s then conservative government stared down the gun lobby to introduce restrictions that led to a dramatic decrease in the number of guns.
In an almost unprecedented display of national collaboration, the federal government worked with the states to restrict semiautomatic weapons, toughen up licensing requirements and introduce a new requirement for gun holders to demonstrate a “genuine reason” for ownership.
Australians have been rightly proud of these reforms, confident that the community remains relatively safe from gun violence and far from the American reality of frequent mass shootings.
Sunday’s Bondi attack will shake that confidence and may force the country to again grapple with its gun laws.
Police confirmed on Monday morning that one of the alleged shooters was a registered gun owner and had six legally obtained firearms.
There has been growing concern among gun control advocates that firearms remain far too easy to access despite the country’s “gold standard” framework.
Gun safety experts have been warning of complacency, pointing to booming gun numbers and weaknesses across state and territory laws that can be easily exploited, or see lawful weapons end up in criminal hands.
So all those gun control laws aren't working? Shocking.
To be sure, I have no doubt we'll hear an awful lot about how one of these knobs was a legal gun owner, and so the whole thing needs to be re-evaluated and such, but let's understand here and now that if these two were filled with that much hatred, do we really have any reason to think another law would have stopped them?
Following Port Arthur, Australia jumped for every gun control measure they could think of. Guns became more highly restricted than in most other nations, and many American gun grabbers started saying we needed to do the exact same thing.
But what we saw was a group of Jewish people who were unable to defend themselves from a vicious and unprovoked attack that targeted them because of their faith.
The fact that more and more Australians own guns isn't the problem. Most of those who have gone through the steps to own guns lawfully will continue following the law. They're not the issue, and they never have been.
The problem is criminals and terrorists who have no intention of following the laws. If they'll kill 15 innocent people, do you think they'd blink about breaking a few gun control laws beforehand?
If you do, please do humanity a favor and don't reproduce. We don't need any more urine in the gene pool.
And a lot of that urine seems to work for places like The Guardian.
Editor's Note: The mainstream media continues to lie about gun owners and the Second Amendment.
Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member