Quote of the Day
In America, we don’t need to look to our nation’s leader for an explanation of how it happened. We know it will happen again, likely too many times to count.
But America’s deep, stubborn will against any logical or sensible gun control is what keeps us stuck in this cycle. We must not become numb to the grief, loss and horror of gun violence.
Robin Epley
December 16, 2025
Two mass shootings, two responses: Australia acts while America accepts | Opinion
Ms. Epley, we already have a very logical and sensible gun law on the books. And if it was enforced it would dramatically reduce the number of mass shootings. The problem is there is not enough political will to enforce it.
Maybe you have heard of this law. It is called the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It can and should be enforced via 18 USC 241 and 242.
How very Costal.
Ms. Epley seems to lack the self-awareness to realize that Australia reacted to mass “gun violence” decades ago … and still experienced the Bondi Beach massacre.
Perhaps the reason America “accepts” is because we can see other countries “react” and nevertheless fail to curb “gun violence”.
The colloquial definition of insanity is attempting the same action over and over again and expecting a different result. Following mass “gun violence,” every nation on the planet — including America — has implemented comprehensive “gun control,” and failed to reduce “gun violence.” And so we watch other countries with even tighter “gun control” than ours continue to experience “gun violence,” we determine that the same actions produce the same results, and decide we don’t want to continue the insanity.
No, Ms. Epley, America doesn’t “accept” violence as the norm. We just see that “gun control” doesn’t fix the problem, and have no interest in feel-good measures that don’t provide real results. Other countries can do what they want, but no matter how tight their controls get, they’ll still fall victim to occasional mass violence.
Sorry-not-sorry for not wanting to give up our essential rights just to be yet another data point in the same trend.
Gun control is not useless, it enables mass violence.
Gun control is hitting what you aim at.
“Gun control” is useless for reducing violence because it ensures helpless victims for the criminal class. The only people who comply are the people who don’t go about victimizing others anyway; the ones who don’t comply and do victimize others suddenly have a much safer work environment.
IOW, “gun control” is not useless, per se — just useless for its claimed purpose…
… which is why some of us have been challenging the claimed purpose for a long time.
Robin’s ideas fit neatly into the standard communist niche.
And as always seems to forget how we got here. The criminality that brought to this point.
From the importation of slaves after 1803 to the open borders of today. The brainwashing of our youth. (Schools of today bring a whole new meaning to the term, “concentration camps”. )
To the outright lies, collusion, conspiracy, treason, and subversion of our legal system. To the point true black letter law is almost lost. Or even mentioned outside criminal courts. And only then against a political “deplorable”.
But true to form (I.E. brainwashing.) Robin’s problem includes fixing none of the real problems. Only giving the communist some more feel good about nothing, Useful idiotry.
And as like most things communist, The unintended consequence of her words show us the real problem, which is Robin herself.
We have this from the master, Thomas Sowell;
” If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization. Be prepared to accept barbarism.”
The choice has always been ours.
Absolutely fascinating to watch the Aussies leaders launch an immediate knee jerk reaction to show that they are going to do more about gun control. Yep, new measures targeted squarely at people that are already abiding by the law. Maybe that was because the perps in the Bondi shooting were already compliant with the existing requirements. After the Port Arthur shooting, all semiautomatic rifles were confiscated & destroyed. Can’t have any rapid fire weapons, dontcha know! And then there was some video from Bondi Beach showing one of the shooters cycling his bolt rifle repeatedly in less than a second. A lot of good that law did.
What I still don’t understand is why the guy that grabbed the one perp’s gun just didn’t shoot him! It would have been great if he had also started firing back at the other perp on the bridge. Odds are the shooting would have ended much sooner.
RE: The bystander who grabbed the perp’s gun: I have a couple ideas why he didn’t shoot the perp:
– Reportedly, that perp was using a shotgun; it may have been out of ammo, and all the spare ammo would have been on the perp’s person.
– The bystander may have effectively zero familiarity with guns and may not have known how to get the gun into battery.
– The legal consequences of shooting a disarmed perp lying on the ground — going from “heroic action” to “unlawful homicide” — may have made him hesitate.
But most likely:
– The bystander was mentally prepared to intervene by disarming and holding the perps for police, but was not mentally prepared to end the perps’ lives.
We can debate over whether he should or should not have intervened at all if he wasn’t willing to pull the trigger on another human being, but that’s the possible explanation that makes the most sense to me.
Out of ammo? It still would have made a very handy “joy stick” with which to beat him to death with.
But as seen in the video of him leaning it against the tree. He might have been afraid of getting shot by the police. (I’m sure he didn’t know they were hiding right behind him.)
As that would have been in my mind as well.
You know the cops. GUN! Boom, boom, boom, Oooh oops. Sorry mate.
Headline news:
Violence is NOT new. Violence against innocent victims existed long before firearms were invented. Long before swords were invented.
Changing technology has made little difference.
What makes a difference? Even and equal distribution of weapons amongst the government and the general population. You still have isolated acts of violence as we have had forever, but we avoid the mass genocide practiced on a disarmed populace. Similarly, if neither the people nor the government have weapons, anarchy results, as the biggest bully quickly learns he won’t be stopped.
Democratization Of Defense. It’s the current vernacular of the Second Amendment.
“Logical and sensible gun control” is defined by neutral observers and proponents of immediate self protection in a single word: “more.” The people who think those five words belong together in the same sentence believe that something more can always be done, since they are blind to the fact that somewhere else in the world more has already been tried and found ineffective. Powerwagon is exactly correct. That was their attempt at eliminating further mass murder through logical and sensible gun control. The Bondi Beach murders show that such “logical and sensible gun control” is ineffective.
Or maybe, like their definition of democracy only includes them making all your decisions for you.
“Logical and sensible gun control”, means just them and their muslim friends having them.
No one in government wants gun control or to end gun violence. They just want to be the only ones pointing them.