Dems: "We need to ban guns, to prevent mass shootings. Hey, it worked for Australia!"

Democrats and liberals want to ban Americans from owning any guns, regardless of type.  They claim this will eliminate mass shootings, reduce ordinary crimes and drastically cut the number of murders and suicides.

Win-win, right?

Conservatives counter that no law will get criminals--the folks who have decided obeying laws just isn't their thing--to give up their guns, so the net effect of "banning guns" will--and must--be to leave law-abiding citizens defenseless against armed criminals.

Democrats and liberals have no rational counter to this, so they do what liberals and Democrats always do when confronted with a point they can't counter:  They ignore it and change the subject.

"But banning guns will reduce the number of murders by the mentally unbalanced, and the number of suicides.  So society as a whole will see a net benefit.  If a few citizens are unlucky enough to be victims of armed criminals, it's a small price to pay for the huge, huge net benefit of banning guns."

Of course libs and Dems carefully ignore the fact that when a government bans private citizens from owning guns, only the law-abiding will surrender their guns--since that kills 90 percent of their rationale for banning the things.

Fortunately we don't need to speculate:  Thanks to the internet--and ONLY the net--we know that Australia has just had a mass murder near Perth.  Three adults and four children killed with a gun.  Liberals and Dems: "See??  This is exactly why the U.S. needs to ban private citizens from owning guns!  We simply cannot continue to tolerate the mass killing of innocent chirren!  So we need to...

"Wait, what?  You say Australia banned private gun ownership back in 1996?  No, citizen, that's simply un-possible.  Banning guns prevents tragedies like this.  You're lying."

Ah.  Well, click here and tell us why the Aussie media seem to think this really happened:

An Australian community is reeling from the deadliest mass shooting the country has seen in more than 20 years after seven people, including four children, were discovered dead on a rural property near Margaret River.

Authorities responded to a home in Osmington, not far from Perth, where the four children and three adults were found dead from gunshot wounds.
 
The shooting has rattled Australia, where lawmakers passed some of the world's most restrictive gun-control laws after a 1996 massacre in Tasmania.

The deadly incident was Australia's worst mass shooting since the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, when a gunman opened fire in a cafe in Tasmania and then hunted down more victims in his vehicle, killing 35 and injuring many others.

Soon after the 1996 incident Australia's liberal prime minister enacted strict gun control--the National Firearms Agreement--banning the possession of all semiautomatic firearms and pump-action shotguns except for military and police.

Ya gotta love the cunning title the libs gave the bill banning private gun ownership:  the National Firearms Agreement.  The pols want citizens to think they actually agreed to it.

The absurdly socialist-backing, gun-hating Washington Post reported,

There was, of course, opposition to the proposed new gun restrictions [cunning Post: total ban = "restrictions"]:  Gun owners argued that the law would not reduce gun crime, but instead that crime would actually increase because criminals would be know their victims would be unarmed. 

Sure enough, a 2016 investigation by an Australian newspaper, the Age, found that 20 years after the ban, gun-related crimes in Melbourne had doubled just in the previous five years.


Also in 2016, research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that although Australia had not had a mass shooting since the changes, and that suicide rates had declined, the number of gun-related homicides in the country hadn't changed.  In other words, after the ban gun crime was up and gun homicides were unchanged. 

But totally, totally worth it, eh?  And if more people become victims of crime--seeing as how they have no chance whatsoever to defend themselves--tough shit, citizen.  Cuz we jus' hafta' eliminate them mass shootings.  Just like Australia did when they "banned" guns.  Totally, totally worth it.

How mny liberals or Dems support banning private ownership of guns?  How many think criminals will surrender their guns if such a ban were passed?  Finally, how many think having those "This is a gun-free zone" decals on doors of schools, libraries, city property and businesses prevents bad guys from barging in and shooting people?