Well considering that Australia has a gun related homicide rate of .11 per 100,000 people and the US has 2.83 per 100,000, that argument will fall on deaf ears over there. There is little support over there to change the gun laws. Why do these incidents always come to this discussion? It's like you are saying," If you allow the Australians to own guns this would not have happened." It's a significantly oversimplified argument. Giving the unwilling a gun will not automatically turn sheep into sheep dogs. Overcoming anti-gun culture takes more than the introduction of guns into it. We have this issue here in the US and we are awash in guns. It's not a hardware problem. A true sheepdog is never "unarmed" regardless of availability of guns. Look at Flight 93, a plane of "unarmed" sheepdogs. Also, being armed in a hostage situation does not automatically mean you can use it. There are too many factors involved that makes a simple statement like that meaningless.
Your points are valid, but so is the point of gun control.
How often do you see something like this, or any lone person committing violence on a large number of people, in a US location where citizens are allowed to carry?
Predators go after prey. A group of people in an upscale coffeehouse in a city, in a locality where no lawful citizen can carry, are likely "prey" to a guy like this.
Or let's make a more specific analogy. Would the dude try this in a cafe in rural America? If he did, would the news report likely look different?
Last edited: