Posted on 12/17/2014 2:48:32 PM PST by naturalman1975
Australia is a "nation of victims" with citizens unable to properly protect themselves with weapons, pro-gun crossbench senator David Leyonhjelm has said.
The Liberal Democrat said he wanted a calm, measured discussion about the right to "practical self-defence" in the wake of the deadly Sydney siege.
"What happened in that cafe would have been most unlikely to have occurred in Florida, Texas, or Vermont, or Alaska in America, or perhaps even Switzerland as well," Senator Leyonhjelm told the ABC's AM program.
"Statistically speaking" in those jurisdictions, "one or two of the victims" would have had a concealed gun, he said.
"That nutcase who held them all hostage wouldn't have known they were armed and bad guys don't like to be shot back at," Senator Leyonhjelm said.
He said the Lindt cafe hostages were helpless because they were not allowed to carry a lethal or non-lethal weapon.
"It would have been illegal for them to have had a knife, a stick, a pepper spray, a personal taser, mace, anything like that for self-defence," he said.
"I regard that [as] an absolute travesty. To turn an entire population into a nation of victims is just unforgiveable in my estimation."
Senator Leyonhjelm has long argued Australians should be allowed greater access to weapons.
He left the Liberal Party because of John Howard's crackdown on guns following the Port Arthur massacre and said the public could not be confident police or tougher laws will stop violent crime or acts of terrorism.
"We've got tougher laws, they were introduced by the Government just in the last few months, they did nothing to prevent this bloke from committing evil acts in the name of Islamism", Senator Leyonhjelm said.
"They didn't prevent him from getting a gun. It's just not acceptable that we are all disarmed victims."
Print Email Facebook Twitter More Have your say Australia a 'nation of victims', deadly Sydney siege unlikely in Texas, says pro-gun senator Leyonhjelm AM By James Glenday
Updated 49 minutes agoThu 18 Dec 2014, 8:58am Senator Leyonhjelm said it was not acceptable Australians were "disarmed victims". Photo: Senator Leyonhjelm said it was not acceptable Australians were "disarmed victims". (AAP: Lukas Coch) Audio: Listen to James Glenday's report (AM) Related Story: Abbott announces urgent review into Sydney siege Related Story: Gunman and two hostages dead after police storm Lindt cafe to end siege Map: Sydney 2000
Australia is a "nation of victims" with citizens unable to properly protect themselves with weapons, pro-gun crossbench senator David Leyonhjelm has said.
The Liberal Democrat said he wanted a calm, measured discussion about the right to "practical self-defence" in the wake of the deadly Sydney siege.
"What happened in that cafe would have been most unlikely to have occurred in Florida, Texas, or Vermont, or Alaska in America, or perhaps even Switzerland as well," Senator Leyonhjelm told the ABC's AM program.
"Statistically speaking" in those jurisdictions, "one or two of the victims" would have had a concealed gun, he said.
"That nutcase who held them all hostage wouldn't have known they were armed and bad guys don't like to be shot back at," Senator Leyonhjelm said.
He said the Lindt cafe hostages were helpless because they were not allowed to carry a lethal or non-lethal weapon. Have your say: what do you think of Senator Leyonhjelm's comments on gun laws?
"It would have been illegal for them to have had a knife, a stick, a pepper spray, a personal taser, mace, anything like that for self-defence," he said.
"I regard that [as] an absolute travesty. To turn an entire population into a nation of victims is just unforgiveable in my estimation."
Senator Leyonhjelm has long argued Australians should be allowed greater access to weapons.
He left the Liberal Party because of John Howard's crackdown on guns following the Port Arthur massacre and said the public could not be confident police or tougher laws will stop violent crime or acts of terrorism.
"We've got tougher laws, they were introduced by the Government just in the last few months, they did nothing to prevent this bloke from committing evil acts in the name of Islamism", Senator Leyonhjelm said.
"They didn't prevent him from getting a gun. It's just not acceptable that we are all disarmed victims." Sydney siege is Tony Abbott's Port Arthur moment, Greens say
On the opposite side of the political spectrum, the Greens have labelled the horrific hostage situation Tony Abbott's Port Arthur moment.
"In the wake of the Port Arthur massacre John Howard did the right thing," Greens acting leader Adam Bandt said.
"He said, 'this is a tragedy and shows what happens when someone who is unstable gets access to a gun'.
"Tony Abbott needs to take a leaf out of John Howard's book."
The Greens want the joint NSW and federal inquiry into the siege to focus largely on the question of how Man Haron Monis was able to obtain a weapon.
"How did someone who had mental health issues, who is charged with being accessory to murder, get a gun?" Mr Bandt said.
"If the inquiry focuses on that it has the potential to make this country safer and we might see some positive reform arise out of this tragedy.
"The idea that we will make Australia safer by becoming more like the United States... and giving more people access to guns just beggars belief."
Mr Abbott was initially told by security officials that Monis had a gun licence, but police said they have no record of it.
A spokesman for Gun Control Australia, Roland Browne, told RN Breakfast that for someone to get a licence, they have to demonstrate that they are a fit and proper person with a need for a firearm, but he said there were ways to get around the laws.
"People can lie when they apply for gun licences and they can make themselves out to be, for example, a hunter, which is an inaccurate expression and allows people to slip under what would otherwise be an effective restriction," he said.
Former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer backed tough gun control laws in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre.
He said it was "seductive nonsense" to suggest American-style firearm policies would be appropriate in Australia.
"Debate will always go on in a good democracy but where it is built on a pack of lies from the NRA (National Rifle Association) it should be dealt with swiftly," he said.
"It is seductive nonsense to say concealed gun laws would somehow work here in Australia."
US president Barack Obama reiterated that Washington stood ready to provide assistance following the siege.
In a phone conversation with Mr Abbott, Mr Obama expressed condolences to the families who lost loved ones.
Mr Obama also praised Australia's rejection of any violence taken in the name of religion.
Lambs to the slaughter.
Interesting. I wonder if he thought that someone would have had a gun whether he would have gone in shooting from the start - it wouldn’t have been a siege it would have been a shout out from the beginning.
I am licenced, and on occasion, I do carry. I can’t say exactly what I would have done, because there are so many variables, but if I was in a room with a man with a shotgun who was holding hostages, and I got the chance, I would shoot him. The legal standard to use deadly force is that a reasonable person would feel themselves or another to be in real danger or serious injury. I would have felt absolutely justified. It just depends whether or not I would have got the chance.
In our state a valid driver’s license is also our concealed carry permit. Everybody seems to realize that except the bozos with the Border Patrol.
Nice to see this debate.
Kangaroos got holsters.
The comments at the article seem to reveal a totally pussified, defeated, populace. What a sad reality for a country that has fought so bravely in the past.
You certainly would have been justified. I do wonder though at the mindset of criminals - for example if Australia had a culture of being armed whether this guy would have gone in shooting as a first instinct. i.e. rather than planning a siege would he have planned a massacre or not gone into it at all? - it raises the stakes for those determined to commit the crime - does it therefore raise what they are willing to do to be successful? Having worked in Security I know the prospect of people being armed scares your average unarmed criminal out of direct confrontation. I have no experience with armed criminals!
That’s why you can’t believe everything you read Bob!
The ABC is probably the most left wing mainstream news source in Australia. Left wing people are far more likely to comment on its stories, and right wing comments are more likely to be deleted.
The views you see in the comment section are therefore not representative of anywhere near all Australians - although unfortunately they certainly represent some.
I was actually reasonably impressed to see an article as balanced as that on the ABC website - not perfect, but it actually did a reasonably good job of presenting Senator Leyonhjelm’s views clearly. That may have been enough to outrage the left wing readers even more than normal.
Yes, the problem is the left is completely dishonest in this debate, claiming, for example, that Englands gun control laws reduced crime, and that America’s lack of controls increased crime. Neither statement is supported by the facts.
The opposite, saying that American lack of controls decreases crime, and that England and Australia’s extremely strict controls increase crime is debatable, but there is some evidence for it.
The real question is: do you trust your people to be armed? The English and Australian governments have emphatically shouted NO!
The American government has been constrained by the Constitution and the spirit of independence that it supports.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.