Haz.
Regular Member
imported post
[align=left]I wonder if anyone can tell me who said this: [/align]
“We will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns. I don’t think people should have guns, unless they are police, or in the military or security industry. Ordinary citizens should not have weapons. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia.”
It was John Howard, the former Prime Minister. And my guess is he probably spoke for a majority of Australians. Quite likely a fair few people here too.
There were three assumptions implicit in his comment.
First, he assumed strict gun laws lead to gun control, which in turn leads to reduced levels of violence.
Second, he assumed the so-called “American gun culture” is bad and something to be avoided.
Third, he assumed it was perfectly OK for the government to have all the guns and for ordinary people to have none.
I’ll focus on the first two – that strict gun laws lead to a safer society, and the American gun culture. The third is a different topic and I can’t deal with it adequately in 10 minutes.
If I said to you that neither of these two assumptions is true, a lot of you would instinctively disagree. Such is the nature of the gun debate.
But it is a fact that gun laws do not control guns. And even if they did it wouldn’t reduce crime.
And the so-called American gun culture is derived from movies and TV, with a bit of media imagination thrown in. The reality is altogether different.
I recognise some people are reluctant to reconsider their opinion of guns. Even liberal minded people on things like drugs, censorship and prostitution tend to have a blind spot on guns.
Some people actually fear guns, like some fear heights or spiders. The term for fear of guns is hoplophobia. People who fear guns are not open to rational persuasion, just as some people can never relax when there’s a spider on the wall no matter how much scientific data is offered explaining how spiders can’t jump.
I believe John Howard is a hoplophobia (amongst other things).
In 1996 following the Port Arthur massacre, he forced the States to sign up to an agreement to make major changes to their gun laws. More changes followed in 2002 after the murder of two people at Monash University.
Unless you were a sporting shooter or hunter, or a farmer, you probably wouldn’t be familiar with the detail; you’ll have simply heard about “tough gun laws”. You quite likely assumed tough gun laws sounded good and never thought further about it.
Prohibition can be a bit like that. Unless you are directly affected, you tend not to notice when others lose a bit of their liberty.
So let me tell you a little bit about the Howard gun laws.
They banned civilians from owning self-loading (ie semi-automatic) rifles and shotguns, plus pump action shotguns.
They restricted magazine capacity on everything else, introduced individual registration of rifles and shotguns, and imposed a range of other restrictions on firearm acquisition.
In 2002/03 pistols with short barrels were prohibited, plus calibres greater than .38 or magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Additional licensing obligations were imposed too.
A special tax was introduced via the Medicare levy to fund a confiscation with compensation scheme, euphemistically called a “buy-back” (you can’t buy back something that was never yours to start with, but no matter.) The cost was at least $700 million plus State costs, with more than 700,000 firearms surrendered.
For those with an interest in firearms, like me, the new laws were profoundly coercive.
First, you could be liable for 15 years in prison simply by doing nothing.
That’s what an Australian Rip van Winkle would face if he fell asleep in 1996 with a totally legal semi-automatic rifle, and awoke in 1998 owning an unregistered prohibited weapon.
The shooting sports had to abandon or restructure popular disciplines. Rifle matches were forced to make do with rifles introduced more than 50 years ago, because everything since then is semi-automatic.
In some disciplines pistol shooters became internationally uncompetitive because of the restrictions on calibres or magazine capacity. As far as I know, none of the restrictions would have made any difference to the Monash murderer.
Clay target shooters who can prove a double barrel shotgun is too big or heavy are permitted to own a self-loading shotgun, but they can’t have a spare in case the first one breaks. It’s like forcing a tennis player to make do with a single tennis racket.
Farmers can own a single semi-automatic rifle for destroying vermin such as rabbits, foxes and pigs, or injured livestock, but can’t own a spare one. And their employees, family members or contractors can’t have even one such rifle.
A mass of petty legal traps were created relating to things such as having your licence with you, storage and transport of firearms and ammunition, and licence conditions including minimum attendance at club meetings.
Even firearms collectors must belong to an approved collectors club and attend at least two meetings a year.
Any police officer can look up the police computer and see who legally owns guns.
When the police come to my house, they are always in pairs and one stands back with a hand near their pistol, just in case I burst out the door and spray them with bullets. Of course they don’t do that when they visit one of my friends. He also has a gun but he hasn’t bothered with a licence, so they assume he can’t spray them with bullets.
The safe in which I store my guns in my home is subject to inspection at virtually any time. And if I am found with so much as a single 22 bullet not locked up, I’m likely to lose my licence.
In fact, it is very easy to break the law if you are a firearm owner. In some cases regulations were written to make compliance difficult in the hope it would discourage licence applications.
Prosecution, even without conviction, usually results in suspension of your firearms licence and seizure of your guns.
Apprehended violence orders, often taken out frivolously by angry wives or husbands in divorce or custody disputes, always result in the loss of licence and guns.
The sheer bastardry of the gun laws is one reason why gun owners never “get over” or even “get used to” the gun laws.
But that only affects you if you are a gun owner.
More relevant to everyone is the fact that all remaining rights to own a gun for self-defence were eliminated. For all practical purposes, and there are no exceptions in NSW, it is now impossible to own any kind of gun for protection anywhere, including in the home.
Most people never felt the need to arm themselves for self-defence. But you used to be able to make that choice yourself. It was once OK for people faced with a realistic threat of violence to get a permit to carry a pistol. The police would often recommend it.
Wives pursued by violent ex-husbands, celebrities hounded by crazed fans, and of course jewellers and owners of gun shops, were among them. You didn’t hear about it much, but I knew several people who had permits.
These days, politicians are protected by armed guards at taxpayers expense and the well-heeled hire armed security guards. Everyone else takes his or her chances.
In fact, you can’t carry a weapon of any kind. Even non-lethal alternatives like pepper sprays, mace and Tasers are banned. You are not allowed to carry a pocket-knife. Bullet-proof body armour is banned too.
In theory, the right of self-defence hasn’t been lost. Self-defence is still available as a defence and juries consistently refuse to convict those charged with serious offences whenever self-defence is established.
But it is no longer a practical option for a lot of people. Realistically, only the young, the strong and the agile have options. I often hear young fit men scoff at the idea that they need a weapon for self-defence. But they seem to forget about their grandmother, mother or sister.
If your ex-husband has bashed you half a dozen times, breached numerous restraining orders, made threats to come and finish you off and knows where you live, you still cannot legally arm yourself. If you do, you’ll be the one that gets arrested.
Your vulnerability is no less in your own home except for the fact that you are still allowed to use whatever is at hand, and kitchen knives and screwdrivers are so far still legal.
And don’t believe that old story about criminals being more likely to use your own weapon against you. It’s another myth. Especially if the weapon is a gun and you have practised using it.
Even if you own a gun for sport, as I do, anyone coming to do me in would have to give me 10 minutes notice for it to be any use. That’s how long it would take to unlock my compulsory safe, unlock my compulsory ammunition box, load one of the guns and get it ready to use.
A Warning to the Rest of the Free World
In May 1996 35 people were killed by a lone gunman at Port Arthur, Tasmania. John Howard, Australia's recently elected Prime Minister, wasted no time in travelling to the scene of the tragedy to make all the right political noises, vowing on national television to ensure this could never happen again. The nation's shooting fraternity has been reeling ever since as it fights to save its sport.
In the two months following Port Arthur there has been a carefully calculated and well orchestrated media campaign to change the way the people of Australia think about gun laws. George Orwell would have been proud, as with their 1984 style tactics they have convinced themselves, and possibly the non-shooting public, that the majority of Australians support the Federal government in their anti-gun stance.
From the outset Howard seized the initiative. He promised to ban all military-style semi automatic weapons from civilian ownership. He also promised to have a close look at recent trends to release mental patients into the community to save money. The first was no surprise, as even the gun fraternity has been long expecting the loss of centrefire semi autos, and the second was a welcome sign that for once the blame was not to be placed wholly and solely on an inanimate object.
But no mention has since been made about mental health. Within days a draft agreement was made up for State Police Ministers to tighten all states' gun laws with the following major points:
1. A ban on all automatic and semi automatic firearms. This includes rimfires and shotguns. As a matter of interest, full autos have been illegal in mainland Australia for more than seventy years, but their reasons for including this will become obvious later.
2. A ban of all pump action shotguns.
3. National registration of all firearms.
4. Tough new criteria for granting a shooters licence (to include existing licence holders). Licences only granted to competitive target shooters who regularly attend ranges or regular hunters of feral pests who can produce letters from landowners. Personal protection is not a reason to own a gun.
5. A 28-day "cooling off" period for the purchase of any firearm (airguns included), regardless of how many firearms you already own.
A couple of states made noises that they would not follow Howard's guidelines. These soon faded to a whimper after Howard threatened to reduce their funding.
The ban on semi autos was modified to exclude pistols after a few days as it became obvious that our Olympic Team could be badly affected in Rapid Fire and Sport Pistol, and that could be too unpopular if we hope to hold the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. Besides, pistols are so well regulated they will be no problem to confiscate at a later date when the political climate is ripe.
In order to appease the growing howls of protest from shooters, the government decided to offer a buy-back scheme of all banned firearms. Of course, they would not fund this themselves, so they increased the Medicare Levy (medical benefit levy on all taxpayers) by 0.2% to cover the projected costs.
None of the events so far have been remarkable. What followed, and what continues, should be a warning to all free people of the world. The issues here are truth and freedom, and while the media is free to say what it likes, they are not held accountable should they bend the truth a little.
[align=left]I wonder if anyone can tell me who said this: [/align]
“We will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns. I don’t think people should have guns, unless they are police, or in the military or security industry. Ordinary citizens should not have weapons. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia.”
It was John Howard, the former Prime Minister. And my guess is he probably spoke for a majority of Australians. Quite likely a fair few people here too.
There were three assumptions implicit in his comment.
First, he assumed strict gun laws lead to gun control, which in turn leads to reduced levels of violence.
Second, he assumed the so-called “American gun culture” is bad and something to be avoided.
Third, he assumed it was perfectly OK for the government to have all the guns and for ordinary people to have none.
I’ll focus on the first two – that strict gun laws lead to a safer society, and the American gun culture. The third is a different topic and I can’t deal with it adequately in 10 minutes.
If I said to you that neither of these two assumptions is true, a lot of you would instinctively disagree. Such is the nature of the gun debate.
But it is a fact that gun laws do not control guns. And even if they did it wouldn’t reduce crime.
And the so-called American gun culture is derived from movies and TV, with a bit of media imagination thrown in. The reality is altogether different.
I recognise some people are reluctant to reconsider their opinion of guns. Even liberal minded people on things like drugs, censorship and prostitution tend to have a blind spot on guns.
Some people actually fear guns, like some fear heights or spiders. The term for fear of guns is hoplophobia. People who fear guns are not open to rational persuasion, just as some people can never relax when there’s a spider on the wall no matter how much scientific data is offered explaining how spiders can’t jump.
I believe John Howard is a hoplophobia (amongst other things).
In 1996 following the Port Arthur massacre, he forced the States to sign up to an agreement to make major changes to their gun laws. More changes followed in 2002 after the murder of two people at Monash University.
Unless you were a sporting shooter or hunter, or a farmer, you probably wouldn’t be familiar with the detail; you’ll have simply heard about “tough gun laws”. You quite likely assumed tough gun laws sounded good and never thought further about it.
Prohibition can be a bit like that. Unless you are directly affected, you tend not to notice when others lose a bit of their liberty.
So let me tell you a little bit about the Howard gun laws.
They banned civilians from owning self-loading (ie semi-automatic) rifles and shotguns, plus pump action shotguns.
They restricted magazine capacity on everything else, introduced individual registration of rifles and shotguns, and imposed a range of other restrictions on firearm acquisition.
In 2002/03 pistols with short barrels were prohibited, plus calibres greater than .38 or magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Additional licensing obligations were imposed too.
A special tax was introduced via the Medicare levy to fund a confiscation with compensation scheme, euphemistically called a “buy-back” (you can’t buy back something that was never yours to start with, but no matter.) The cost was at least $700 million plus State costs, with more than 700,000 firearms surrendered.
For those with an interest in firearms, like me, the new laws were profoundly coercive.
First, you could be liable for 15 years in prison simply by doing nothing.
That’s what an Australian Rip van Winkle would face if he fell asleep in 1996 with a totally legal semi-automatic rifle, and awoke in 1998 owning an unregistered prohibited weapon.
The shooting sports had to abandon or restructure popular disciplines. Rifle matches were forced to make do with rifles introduced more than 50 years ago, because everything since then is semi-automatic.
In some disciplines pistol shooters became internationally uncompetitive because of the restrictions on calibres or magazine capacity. As far as I know, none of the restrictions would have made any difference to the Monash murderer.
Clay target shooters who can prove a double barrel shotgun is too big or heavy are permitted to own a self-loading shotgun, but they can’t have a spare in case the first one breaks. It’s like forcing a tennis player to make do with a single tennis racket.
Farmers can own a single semi-automatic rifle for destroying vermin such as rabbits, foxes and pigs, or injured livestock, but can’t own a spare one. And their employees, family members or contractors can’t have even one such rifle.
A mass of petty legal traps were created relating to things such as having your licence with you, storage and transport of firearms and ammunition, and licence conditions including minimum attendance at club meetings.
Even firearms collectors must belong to an approved collectors club and attend at least two meetings a year.
Any police officer can look up the police computer and see who legally owns guns.
When the police come to my house, they are always in pairs and one stands back with a hand near their pistol, just in case I burst out the door and spray them with bullets. Of course they don’t do that when they visit one of my friends. He also has a gun but he hasn’t bothered with a licence, so they assume he can’t spray them with bullets.
The safe in which I store my guns in my home is subject to inspection at virtually any time. And if I am found with so much as a single 22 bullet not locked up, I’m likely to lose my licence.
In fact, it is very easy to break the law if you are a firearm owner. In some cases regulations were written to make compliance difficult in the hope it would discourage licence applications.
Prosecution, even without conviction, usually results in suspension of your firearms licence and seizure of your guns.
Apprehended violence orders, often taken out frivolously by angry wives or husbands in divorce or custody disputes, always result in the loss of licence and guns.
The sheer bastardry of the gun laws is one reason why gun owners never “get over” or even “get used to” the gun laws.
But that only affects you if you are a gun owner.
More relevant to everyone is the fact that all remaining rights to own a gun for self-defence were eliminated. For all practical purposes, and there are no exceptions in NSW, it is now impossible to own any kind of gun for protection anywhere, including in the home.
Most people never felt the need to arm themselves for self-defence. But you used to be able to make that choice yourself. It was once OK for people faced with a realistic threat of violence to get a permit to carry a pistol. The police would often recommend it.
Wives pursued by violent ex-husbands, celebrities hounded by crazed fans, and of course jewellers and owners of gun shops, were among them. You didn’t hear about it much, but I knew several people who had permits.
These days, politicians are protected by armed guards at taxpayers expense and the well-heeled hire armed security guards. Everyone else takes his or her chances.
In fact, you can’t carry a weapon of any kind. Even non-lethal alternatives like pepper sprays, mace and Tasers are banned. You are not allowed to carry a pocket-knife. Bullet-proof body armour is banned too.
In theory, the right of self-defence hasn’t been lost. Self-defence is still available as a defence and juries consistently refuse to convict those charged with serious offences whenever self-defence is established.
But it is no longer a practical option for a lot of people. Realistically, only the young, the strong and the agile have options. I often hear young fit men scoff at the idea that they need a weapon for self-defence. But they seem to forget about their grandmother, mother or sister.
If your ex-husband has bashed you half a dozen times, breached numerous restraining orders, made threats to come and finish you off and knows where you live, you still cannot legally arm yourself. If you do, you’ll be the one that gets arrested.
Your vulnerability is no less in your own home except for the fact that you are still allowed to use whatever is at hand, and kitchen knives and screwdrivers are so far still legal.
And don’t believe that old story about criminals being more likely to use your own weapon against you. It’s another myth. Especially if the weapon is a gun and you have practised using it.
Even if you own a gun for sport, as I do, anyone coming to do me in would have to give me 10 minutes notice for it to be any use. That’s how long it would take to unlock my compulsory safe, unlock my compulsory ammunition box, load one of the guns and get it ready to use.
A Warning to the Rest of the Free World
In May 1996 35 people were killed by a lone gunman at Port Arthur, Tasmania. John Howard, Australia's recently elected Prime Minister, wasted no time in travelling to the scene of the tragedy to make all the right political noises, vowing on national television to ensure this could never happen again. The nation's shooting fraternity has been reeling ever since as it fights to save its sport.
In the two months following Port Arthur there has been a carefully calculated and well orchestrated media campaign to change the way the people of Australia think about gun laws. George Orwell would have been proud, as with their 1984 style tactics they have convinced themselves, and possibly the non-shooting public, that the majority of Australians support the Federal government in their anti-gun stance.
From the outset Howard seized the initiative. He promised to ban all military-style semi automatic weapons from civilian ownership. He also promised to have a close look at recent trends to release mental patients into the community to save money. The first was no surprise, as even the gun fraternity has been long expecting the loss of centrefire semi autos, and the second was a welcome sign that for once the blame was not to be placed wholly and solely on an inanimate object.
But no mention has since been made about mental health. Within days a draft agreement was made up for State Police Ministers to tighten all states' gun laws with the following major points:
1. A ban on all automatic and semi automatic firearms. This includes rimfires and shotguns. As a matter of interest, full autos have been illegal in mainland Australia for more than seventy years, but their reasons for including this will become obvious later.
2. A ban of all pump action shotguns.
3. National registration of all firearms.
4. Tough new criteria for granting a shooters licence (to include existing licence holders). Licences only granted to competitive target shooters who regularly attend ranges or regular hunters of feral pests who can produce letters from landowners. Personal protection is not a reason to own a gun.
5. A 28-day "cooling off" period for the purchase of any firearm (airguns included), regardless of how many firearms you already own.
A couple of states made noises that they would not follow Howard's guidelines. These soon faded to a whimper after Howard threatened to reduce their funding.
The ban on semi autos was modified to exclude pistols after a few days as it became obvious that our Olympic Team could be badly affected in Rapid Fire and Sport Pistol, and that could be too unpopular if we hope to hold the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. Besides, pistols are so well regulated they will be no problem to confiscate at a later date when the political climate is ripe.
In order to appease the growing howls of protest from shooters, the government decided to offer a buy-back scheme of all banned firearms. Of course, they would not fund this themselves, so they increased the Medicare Levy (medical benefit levy on all taxpayers) by 0.2% to cover the projected costs.
None of the events so far have been remarkable. What followed, and what continues, should be a warning to all free people of the world. The issues here are truth and freedom, and while the media is free to say what it likes, they are not held accountable should they bend the truth a little.
