Shortly after the siege in Sydney ended, the Prime Minister of Australia Tony Abbott was using the widely televised event as an excuse to claim that the gun control laws in Australia didn’t go far enough and needed to be changed. “There are questions to be asked when someone with such a history of infatuation with extremism, violent crime and mental instability should be in possession of a gun licence” he said, and added that he would not rest until Australians are safer. Unfortunately for Mr. Abbott’s narrative, it now appears that the New South Wales police have confirmed that the firearm used by the terrorist in question was purchased illegally, and the jihadi did not in fact posses a valid firearms license . . .
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
NSW police say they have no records of Martin Place siege gunman Man Haron Monis ever holding a gun licence.
This is despite the Prime Minister Tony Abbott asserting in a press conference earlier that Monis, killed by police in a gun battle after a 16-hour siege, had been allowed to legally own weapons.
“The NSW Police Force has conducted checks with the NSW Firearms Registry and can confirm there is no record of the 50-year-old man having held a firearms licence,” a statement issued this evening said.
The truth of the matter is that firearms licensing doesn’t really work. It never has. Criminals will get their hands on firearms, no matter how hard you try to control them. It’s in their nature — criminals don’t care enough about the law bother with registering their illegal guns.
This naturally poses a problem for the Australian government. If the Sydney gunman didn’t have a firearms license, that means their licensing system doesn’t work. It’s another chink in the gun control armor that highlights the insanity and security theater aspect of the whole scheme. But if the gunman did have a license — or, rather, if Australians believe he did — then obviously that’s justification to crack down even more on evil gun owners to get deadly firearms off the streets.
Civilian disarmament industrial complex activists have a penchant in the past for ignoring inconvenient facts, preferring to remain blissfully ignorant about what works and what doesn’t. For them, the ends justify the means, and even if they need to tell a few white lies to reach their utopian ideal, it will all be worth it in the end. It has yet to be seen whether the narrative that this was a legal gun owner will change significantly with these new revelations, or whether the Australian media will press ahead with their desire for still more anti-gun laws rather than prosecuting criminals.
Anyone else see the Ozzie film Wolf creek?.. tells me the general public isnt as enthused about gun bans as their anti gun government.
Facts are irrelevant. Guns are bad MmmKay…
“Hey guys”! After consuming a case of rot-gut Australian beer, “Guess What! I have an idea”, he exclaimed.
.
“Wouldn’t it be a great idea if we could pass a law requiring ALL criminals and potential criminals to turn in their firearms?” he shouted.
.
“If such a law had been in effect before last week, this violent incident could never have happened”!
.
“We’ll be able to live in a crime-free society.”
.
“Waddia think”?
.
.
I’m pretty sure half this guys presidential cabinet are marsupials.
Nah. Marsupials have backbones.
Then, once we get all the criminals to give up their guns, we can get busy stuffing genies back into their bottles and refastening that lid on Pandora’s Box.
You know, as long as we are dreaming about fantasies here.
rot-gut Australian beer
That’s repetitive, isn’t it.
The reason Foster’s comes in an oil can is because its flavor is indistinguishable from Castrol 10W-40.
There is a reason that Fosters is exported and referred to as ‘Piss’ in Australia… Only foreigners drink it!
Dunno, have drunk a lot of good beer at the Lord Nelson. Though trying to keep up with my Australian colleagues led to a few painful mornings…
@johnnosk Yep. I realized that after I entered a bar in Australia and there wasn’t a single Fosters to be found. The power of marketing.
Foster’s! Australian for Roo piss!
…and once that’s passed, we’ll get to work on a bill that makes breaking the law illegal!
The Aussie upper financial classes still fancy that they justifiably fear the masses, those who were transported to the colonies for their tendency toward crime. Naturally enough, the descendants of the transported view their ancestor’s case as a mistake, but think many others may have rightly been transported in chains. Being “anti-gun” is a sort of proxy signal saying “I’m really not one of those slavering to own an instrument of crime. Really.” It’s the California Syndrome. On steroids. Both California and Australia obviously suffer from too much sunshine, and from a need among the prosperous to iteratively prove they are not criminal. Despite the facts.
You may have hit the nail on the head here… The four craziest locations on earth are all famous for sunshine (sorta)
Australia: Bunch of crazies and criminals who are the descendents of a bunch of crazies and criminals. Tons of open land, sun, and stupididty.
California: Fun in the sun, unless your fun requires freedom, liberty, or a firing pin.
Middle east: Sun, Sand, and mass murder.
Florida: It’s not called the gunshine state for nothing. Read an insane headline about somebody doing something completely absurd? Chances are that it happened in Florida.
But that still doesn’t explain England’s ban on guns and decent food.
England? I’d say the Norman conquest is finally being completed.
Pssht. Even Billy the Bastard would know what to do with the tossers who currently rule London’s streets after dark.
“Florida: It’s not called the gunshine state for nothing. Read an insane headline about somebody doing something completely absurd? Chances are that it happened in Florida.”
I resemble that remark…
*cough*
We will never know when the, Australian president, knew what.
What we do know is that anti-gun liberals like him lie a ton, to get more laws and a bigger government.
Nick is right about his conclusions. The anti-gun bigger government // more laws bunch will try to twist this to their advantage.
Was it an illegal shotgun besides? I haven’t heard any confirmation on what it actually was.
That’s cause they’re trying to find a way to report it as a nasty black gun with one of those pistol grip thingies that are use to assault children with.
Pump shotgun. So in Aussieland, highly restricted.
That’s what I’d heard, so how’d a guy get a gun that had been banned off the island for nearly the past 20 years?
If the Jihadi had had a firearms license, it would have represented a failure on the part of the government. While I am not in favor of gun licensing schemes, if anyone should be denied the use of firearms it is a known Jihadi who is out on bail from charges of being an accessory to his ex-wife’s murder.
Actually, it was a massive failure of government that he was walking around and not in the clink.
I’m pretty sure this just proves how disconnected and oblivious Australia’s ruling class is the country they’re supposed to be running.
Their civilian, disarmament cherry got popped.
Without lube.
And it still hurts.
So the existence of a law failed to stop someone from intentionally breaking that law while, and in order to, break other laws whose existence failed to stop people breaking. Is anyone actually surprised? These people are what we call criminals. They, by there own definition, knowingly and willfully break the law and ignore regulations on who may possess certain items and the process to acquire them. Laws restricting items and activities not inherently dangerous or harmful to others only affects the law-abiding, by and large. The only things that truly prevent criminals from commiting certain crimes are severe prison sentences if caught and convicted, and an increased risk, real or perceived, to the criminal of death or great bodily harm as a result of their intended victims defending themselves through force of arms.
Armed or unarmed the guy should not have been allowed on the streets. The “authorities” had more than enough reason to detain him. Sounds like the Auzie elite are trying to obscure the fact that the responsibility for this incident and it’s repercussions rests with them.
According to this article in the Guardian, hardly a supporter of gun rights, there are 260k illegal firearms in Australia. They may not sound like many to an American but in country of 23 million people that is probably enough to arm every criminal in the Country. So it is not surprise that nutcase Muslim “cleric” whether a terrorist or just a nutcase, can come up with gun to use.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/13/australia-has-250000-illegal-firearms-guns
Quigley would have taken him out when he was at the window.
But Quigley has, like Elvis, left the bldg. long ago, and left the IANSA and fmr director Rebecca Peters fans and followers, to live with the harsh reality that bad guys, will always be able to get firearms.
Quigley was an American.
Not only did he not have a license, I’ll bet he never even allpied for one. Obviously, all criminals must be required to file for a license so that it can be denied.
That’s interesting and does seem to put the government in an awkward position. If he held a valid license, then this event shows that licensing doesn’t prevent such events. If he didn’t hold a valid license, then this event shows that licensing doesn’t prevent such events. Huh, how about that?
So since the embarrassing outcome is identical regardless the initial condition, what matters at this point is precisely who suffers said embarrassment: legislators of a failed anti-gun law that can’t keep guns from bad guys, or bureaucrats who failed in their execution of the law and granted this guy a license. Well.
I wonder whether he did have a valid license, but bureaucrats in charge of that program have since been able to erase all official record of it and shift blame to the alleged insufficiency of the law itself. Perhaps their hard drive crashed and deleted all licenses?
As usual the people who make the laws don’t know the laws.
Over the years, it’s become more and more difficult to tell the difference between politicians and criminals. But judging from the body count, politicians are far more dangerous. And unlike criminals, politicians don’t kill each other. Except in San Francisco.
I have read a lot of history books. Pretty sure it has always been hard to tell the difference.
Not many criminals are politicians, but many politicians could be considered criminals.
A politician is far, far more dangerous. Crimes can be committed for many reasons, even desperate reasons, like starving. Passion can come into play for crimes.
But politicians…a politician is a criminal who craves and lusts for power. Both have equal mindsets, but while one is content to take your money or your life, a politician seeks to utterly own you.
So long as people value life over freedom, politicians will win.
Despite this new information the only thing that will change will be his twist on the matter. One way or the other the current laws didn’t work as planned so more are required.
I disagree, either way it shows the licensing system is a farce and failed.
If he did have a license, that is proof the licensing system didn’t work since he would have been a clearly prohibited person. Tony Abbot says it himself in so many words. That means the government had to drop the ball big time; government incompetency and/or bureaucracy allowed a prohibited person to get a gun license. That is system failure.
If he didn’t have a license, the lack of a license to purchase a firearm did not deter or prevent him from buying a firearm; that is a failure of the licensing system to prevent illegal firearms sales by requiring a license.
It should make people question how often either scenario is happening and if a licensing system that cannot be flawless is a reasonable solution. Unfortunately we all know the response will be “we need to do MORE with MORE laws for YOUR protection.”
Comments are closed.