Third Mass Murder by Shooting in Australia since Passage of Strict Gun Law

Darwin Australia, Mass Murder by Shooting, Third since Passage of Strict Gun Law
Darwin Australia, Mass Murder by Shooting, Third since Passage of Strict Gun Law

Australia -(Ammoland.com)- Those who pushed for the severe restrictions on guns in Australian society can no longer claim the one success they had touted as a result of their expensive, intrusive, experiment.

They claimed there had not been any mass murder with firearms since the law was passed.

The latest mass public shooting/murder occurred in Darwin, Australia.  From the west.com:

Four people are confirmed dead and police are investigating five crime scenes after a mass shooting in Darwin tonight.

Northern Territory Police said four men are confirmed dead and one woman has also been taken to the Royal Darwin Hospital with gunshot wounds, in a stable condition, a Northern Territory Health spokeswoman said.

NT commissioner Reece Kershaw said this evening that the alleged offender, who has since been arrested, was on parole at the time.

The murders happened over much of Darwin over several locations. I had traveled near those locations only two weeks ago.  I recall driving by the Buff Club.  From 7news.com.au:

The five crime scene locations were The Buffalo Club, Gardens Hill Crescent, the Palms Hotel, at a Coles Express and at the Peter McCauley Centre, NT Police Commissioner Reece Kershaw confirmed.

Those who push for a disarmed society, used to claim, although suicides had not declined, and the gun restrictions had not affected the homicide rates, at least there had been no mass public shootings since PM John Howard pushed the extreme law through, in an emotional media blizzard, in 1997.

Gun Ban, Aussie Style
Gun Ban, Aussie Style

This recent mass murder by shooting is the third since the 1997 law was passed.

Much of this is moot, if you examine the facts with intellectual honesty. Mass murder with guns by deranged individuals is a minuscule portion of the total number of murders.

Moreover, there are many other ways to commit mass murder. Focusing on guns is a way for people who do not want an armed population to create a simplistic reason to restrict guns from law abiding people.

No guns, no murders with guns. This is a straw man fallacy.

The point is not to reduce the murder rate with guns. The objective is to reduce the murder rate. The correct, purely pragmatic question would be: was the total murder rate reduced?

If the murders with guns were reduced, but the total murder rate was unchanged or increased, what is the point of expending so many resources on restricting guns?

By limiting the discussion to murders or suicides with guns, those who have an emotional aversion to guns create a false narrative. Many of the pragmatic arguments about the value of guns in society are about potential substitution effects. Those who emotionally hate guns try to eliminate those arguments by defining them out of existence.

The usual sequence of events, when a gun control policy fails, is for the proponents of the policy to claim it did not go far enough, it was not restrictive enough, or it was not enforced in a sufficiently draconian manner.

This has been evident in Brazil, where the proponents of a disarmed Brazil claimed the high murder rate was because their extreme gun laws had not been enforce sufficiently.  From the far left, disarmament proponent Robert Muggah:

On paper at least, Brazil has comprehensive gun legislation. In 2003, the country passed a disarmament statute that, among other things, introduced a set of common-sense restrictions for gun ownership. For example, it permitted ownership but set a minimum age for gun possession at 25 and included mandatory background checks and requirements to renew licenses every five years. The statute suffered a major setback, however: It was never fully enforced.

When President Bolsonaro loosened restrictions on the administration of the law, the homicide rate immediately fell.

It is an article of faith of those who promote citizen disarmament, that fewer guns results in fewer deaths.

It is not true. Guns can be used for protection as well as destruction. It is the values in society that determine murder rates, and how much the society accepts the rule of law.

Australia has had an extremely law-abiding culture for over 100 years.

That made it vulnerable to people pushing for a disarmed society. If there is little reason for self defense, in the short term, people who do not own guns see little reason not to severely restrict them.

In the United States, the Second Amendment provides a rallying point to protect the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

In Australia, the people who live in the rural areas did not want the extreme gun laws. They were outvoted by the city people who knew nothing about guns,  and the media, who were and are completely one-sided in the gun law debate.

It is likely the media in Australia will call for even more extreme gun control laws. Laws that would not have effected the last mass murder (he was ineligible for a gun license).

It is the usual pattern.


About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

  • 35 thoughts on “Third Mass Murder by Shooting in Australia since Passage of Strict Gun Law

    1. Taking firearms away from law abiding citizens to stop crime is like taking cars away from people who never drink to stop drunk driving.
      The big lie from the democrats, progressives, liberals, left, etc. is that they say they want gun control to lessen crime. They use crime as an excuse. The real reason is to disarm all people.

      1. There have been more than three mass-shootings since 1995.

        More importantly, there have been many mass-murders with weapons other than guns. Or do only gun mass-murders matter? Are a dozen people burned to death any more dead than if they had been shot?

    2. On a sidebar note, does anyone know if Alan Gura will argue New York State Rifle and Pistol Assoc. v. City of New York in SCOTUS’ upcoming fall term? Thx.

    3. 3 in 23 years. 3.

      Now, in the same time in the U.S. there have been hundreds. Hundreds of mass shootings.

      But yeah. Those are equal.

      1. There were as many mass killings in the 25 years following Port Arthur as there were in the 25 years prior and yes not all were committed with firearms ,but you would be hard pressed to convince me that those that were burned alive were somehow better off

    4. I understand the problem I just wonder how to solve it?? Obviously we need people educated properly about guns but, the media has a firm grip on educating Americans and for the most part they don’t agree with our 2nd Amendment views. The only way things change is if we tell them the truth and share facts but, unfortunately we haven’t found a way to get them to listen. So isn’t that the real problem?

    5. Actually, if you look at the Wikipedia page, Major Crimes in Australia, you find about a dozen public shootings in Australia after the confiscation. They do not rise to “mass public shooting” simply because the shooter decided to stop shooting people, or the people who were shot did not die, since a mass public shooting requires at least 3 to be killed for that status……this is how they are able to lie about mass shootings in Australia. They have had public shootings, a lot of them….word needs to get out about them…

    6. No law(s) past, present or in the future will stop an individual who wants to kill you.
      These laws are only tools for prosecution.

      Since they collected all the guns, are the police unarmed, after all, the guns are gone right?

    7. First and foremost the Police are armed for their protection, your safety is secondary.
      They are a reactionary force only after the fact. There is no way of knowing if they prevent crime.
      Remember, nobody can protect you but.

      Shame on any Gun Owner who votes Democrat.

    8. I live in Australia and have lived in Darwin.
      This guy was a criminal lifelong , that was on parole with a tracking ankle accessory that I’m sure would’ve helped the cops track the perp for the full hour that he spent running amok. This was a major fuck up by the police ,, and more to the point the parole board.
      Early or mis judged parolee murder/ rape rates are high here.
      The government accepts no responsibity.
      You’re on your own , and if some methed up cunt decides to make this day your last? And you end the worthless piece of shit and do the world a favor ? ?
      You WILL go to jail.

      1. One of my favourite gun writers has often said this, and he is spot on:

        “If a man cannot be trusted in public WITH a gun, why would he be trusted in public without a custodian?”

        I would like to add this, proven true in this instance and many more:

        an ankle tracking accessory is NOT a custodian. The ONLY information it can supply is the location of its wearer at that time. Dean had driven past that Buff Club. No harm was done. This perp was in the same area….. but his INTENT was very different.
        The bleeding heart libruls need to take a chill pill and understand that a hardened crimiinal will NOT be well able to change the direction of his life on his own, and the “feel good” couseling these lot get as part of their “therapy does not work. Now we’ve got to dig some hold to hold the erstwhile living thanks to this monster the GOVERNMENT allowed to roam free. T

        1. Ankle monitors are as useless as gun registration.

          They only matter to honest people — criminals will commit crimes and don’t care in the least about the paperwork.

      2. I agree totally.
        you forgot a couple of things.
        The shot gun was unregistered, which makes it illegal.
        It was a pump action, which also makes it illegal and it is listed as stolen back in the 90s, which makes it illegal.
        He has a criminal record which makes his possession of a firearm illegal. ARE WE SEEING A PATTERN HERE?

        1. Yes, the pattern is Politicians making Natural laws illegal!
          Other than natural laws man made laws are nothing more than opinions of politicians. They outlaw the right of self defense because of a past record when they themselves are the biggest criminals in the country!
          Once a person serves their sentence they should be the same as anyone else with the same rights! They have the same right to pay taxes. If they straiten up, work and pay taxes, They shouldn’t have their past thrown up in their face and told by people like you that have things in their past that they will never admit to but just were not caught doing them. If they pay taxes they shouldn’t be told they will never be anything more than a second class citizen! But a loud mouth will always condemn them!
          In reality, most of the shootings/murders are committed by people with no prior record.

    9. Laddyboy, it’s been 13 – 17 years since I’ve seen “To Protect and Serve” on a civilian police vehicle. It’s been about 3 years since they took them off the military police vehicles here on base. I think they have signaled their motivation quite well. I’ve told people for years that their safety is their responsibility and the police aren’t there to protect them. Most express disbelief even when shown the various court rulings saying so.

      Our idiot governor, Ralph “Blackface” Northam is pushing the usual democrat gun control points while calling for a special session of the legislature. In typical fashion, none of the things he’s calling for would have prevented or reduced the killing here in Virginia Beach. VAB prohibits arms in their municipal buildings, where the shootings took place, and family members should sue for the lack of protection. Even the VAB police chief said in a televised news conference that gun control laws wouldn’t have stopped this shooting.

    10. Gun control laws work about as good as a broken condom !! No matter how much they hope and tell you it’s worth using it no one can protect yourselves but you !!

      1. One MUST remember what the SUPREME COURT JUDGES STATED:
        “The Police are NOT responsible to protect ANYONE. You ARE RESPONSIBLE for YOUR OWN SAFETY.”
        This means that the slogan on Police cars; “To Protect and Serve” IS a LIE!!!
        The government MUST allow Constitutional Carry by the LEGAL LAW ABIDING American CITIZENS. STOP INFRINGING on Americans’ Constitutionally RESTATED, ACKNOWLEDGED RIGHT of possessing and carrying of a weapon – – IF that Citizen deems it appropriate. All establishments that refuse Americans’ their RIGHT, MUST be held FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE for damages caused by actions of WANTON KILLERS on their properties.

        1. Paddy boy, criminals are also have the right to self-defense, the has also affirmed that. Self-defense isn’t only the “law-abiding”; it is a natural, inalienable right we all have.

          1. Sorry, spellcheck changed your ID. I did write “Laddyboy”. I wasn’t trying to be childish in changing your ID.

      2. This must be fake news. President Obama said we are the only country on earth with mass shootings. Plus Australia has tough gun laws and those always work so therefore this must not have happened? Must be President Bush’s fault…..

        1. Obama also said that anyone could buy machine guns here and buy guns over the internet. Still the lying POS we all know.

    11. Gun control has never been about crime control.

      It has always been about people control.

      No matter how many times the anti’s say other wise.

    Leave a Comment 35 Comments

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