To; The Hon Paul WHELAN LLB, MP Minister for Police
To; The Hon Paul WHELAN LLB, MP Minister for Police.
Re; A submission commenting on the “Gun Laws” issue.
From; Michael KAY
Date; 19 September, 2006.
“GUN LAWS”
LIBERTY
Liberty has never come from Government.
Liberty has always come from the subjects of it.
The history of Liberty is a history of resistance.
The history of Liberty is a history of limitations of
Governmental power, NOT the increase of it.
Woodrow Wilson.
INDEX
About the Author. 3
Introduction. 3
Background. 5
It’s Easy. 6
Present “gun laws”. 8
Gun control measures discussed. 11
The USA Situation. 14
“The Right of The People”. 19
Self Defence in Australia. 20
The Bible, Self-defence and Weapons. 22
A Historical Perspective. 33
Firearms and Hunting. 36
Random Spree Killings - the weapons employed. 50
The Armed Citizen/s. 53
What About Japan Then? 55
The Canadian Experience. 56
What About Other Countries? 61
The Face of the Enemy. 63
Is Society Becoming More Violent? 67
Why Guns? 69
But All Guns Start Out as Legal Possessions? 71
Conclusion. 72
ADDENDUM 79
About the Author.
Michael James KAY 42 years old, father of three children. Senior Prison Officer, NSW Department of Corrective Services, 17 years service. Automotive Engineer trade certificate.
Courses “Train the Trainer” Senior Prison Officers Pre-promotion, Emergency Unit, Unit Management, Young Offenders, Job Application, Area Management Training Coordinator, Staff Officer, Correspondence and Submission Writing, Hospital Security Training Course Level 1, Access Control Systems Computer Based Security and Surveillance System Training Course, Certificate in First Line Supervision, Basic Life Support, Certificate in Medical Terminology, St Johns Ambulance First Aid Course, Department of Corrective Services Modular courses 1\2\3, M.S.S Security Course as required by the NSW Security Industry (protection) ACT 1985. Various computer courses.
Qualified Range Officer/Firearms Instructor, Chemical Munitions Operator, NSW Firearms Safety Awareness Testing Officer. Secretary Prison Officers Pistol Club, Member Sporting Shooters Association 15 Years, Member Arms and Militaria Collectors Association 12 years. The author of “The Will to Survive” (Officer survival) published in the Australian Police Journal Vol. 49, No. 3, September 1995. Previous Submissions, “Mini” 14 Rifle, Department of Corrective Services (DCS), 12ga Remington Shotgun, DCS, “Gun Laws” NSW Parliament Committee on “gun laws”, 1991 and submission on “gun laws” for the State Coroner`s inquiry into the deaths of two Police Officers at Crescent Head. This submission is all my own research and with my own opinions and resulting conclusions. Nothing in this submission is to be perceived as anything to do with or coming from any Department of Corrective Services policies. Likewise the various clubs and organisations I am a member of have had no direct input into this submission.
Introduction.
In this submission I propose to present my own expert opinion on the effectiveness of the present gun laws, point out some of the mistakes and misconceptions in the present legislation and submit ideas for reform. Also, I will present facts refuting the common arguments put forward in the media by the anti-gunners. Further I will state the true situation of the so-called gun problem in the USA, as this is what many doomsayers predict for us in Australia. I compare the murder statistics and “gun laws” of various countries including Japan and England. Finally I will dispel a few myths about guns including what the constitution of the United States really declares and how it relates to the self defence issue in Australia via our cultural and historical heritage. I will also comment on the how hunting is a “right” and a valid reason to “keep an bear arms”. If anything the thrust of this submission is against most present and proposed gun control measures. I make no defences for that. However, I do apologies for the tone of the text in some places. As I have drawn on some of my past letters and submissions to various political and media personalities and organisations as well as some data from the U.S.A. The aim is to promote the use of common sense and present the reality of time and resources wasted by unenforceable and illogical legislation. Some points needed to be made very clear so I am sorry for some duplication.
The reasons behind lawful and benign possession of firearms are varied. Some persons have them for multiple purposes. A large percentage of this submission relates to self-defence. An issue that has long been lost, and made an illegal reason to possess a firearm. In that respect the public has been sadly let down by successive Governments, acting on the assumption that crime can be reduced by the disarmament of law-abiding citizens. For me to present the firearms-for-self-defence issue is probably a waste of time and energy. However powerful arguments exist and firearms can and have been used by Australians to save innocent lives in recent times, so the story has to be told. In fact, not only is there no victim in owning a gun, banned or not, but they actually prevent the owner from becoming a victim! Because guns can and are used for self defence, their owners are less likely to end up as someone else's victim.
The sporting shooter should need not justify themselves, their record and performance in a variety of international and national events speak for themselves. Hunters also have a unique position in that Australia is cursed with an abundance of feral animals. Australian hunters can present a far more powerful argument for suitable tools to perform pest reduction than any American based hunter who has mostly native fauna to cull during the limited recognised seasons. Some persons have firearms just for the sake of it be it collecting or “just in case”. These persons if found to be honest reliable citizens, too, need not justify themselves. Nor should any restrictions be placed upon the “type” of the firearm as this submission will detail. It should be a case of demonstrating safe handling and storage and that’s it! Firearm ownership is part of the basic right of choice.
After all who really NEEDS a high velocity automatic BMW, Volvo or a modified Commodore that is capable of at least three times the legal speed limit, anywhere. Who NEEDS a high powered gas guzzling V8 that spews pollution into the air and uses up our fuels at an alarming rate, get a licence and no problem. Nobody NEEDS a case of beer stored in their home, an amount capable of putting you over the legal limit by at least three times, each with a quick release top able to be drunk as fast as you can over eighteen no problems. Nobody really NEEDS a swimming pool at home! A council permit, no problems. Death, destruction and suffering of innocents on a massive scale resulting of all these pastimes appear to be acceptable to a degree.
Why not discuss a ban on private “getaway cars” that can outrun our under equipped police and clearly have no lawful purpose, and result in hundreds of deaths per year when misused by young adults? Surely simple recreation and enjoyment is not a legitimate need, compared to the carnage on the streets we face every day. So what if a ban on fast cars in unenforceable and results in no improvement to the current death rate, at least we've taken a step in the right direction. So what if the criminal use of such vehicles is grossly exaggerated, and accidents continue unabated as they have in every state and city that has taken similar steps. It still makes sense, right?
Now, presumably, you wouldn't dream of taking away my vehicles, but nowhere does any country’s Constitution say I have a right to keep and bear hotrods. It does confirm my right to keep and bear firearms. You can make a much better case for banning alcohol. It kills more people than guns and has no life saving nor crime deterring potential at all; it is purely a recreational product. Its use will adversely affect every decisions and physical task that you attempt while under its influence which makes you an accident waiting to happen.
Why aren't you on that bandwagon? Surely you don't mind giving up one of your pleasures for the common good, do you? You know what; I even think it has been tried before somewhere...
Background.
I felt total sadness at the violent and senseless loss of many innocent lives and suffering of so many families involved in the tragic event at Port Arthur Tasmania. As well as my feelings of sympathy for the families suffering I myself am personally insulted every time firearms are misused in such a violent and offensive manner. It was the same irrational waste and the suffering of so many persons involved in the tragic loss of the two Police officers at Crescent Head NSW on July 7, 1995. That caused me to research and write the article “The Will to Survive” for the Australian Police Journal. It is also the same feeling of loss and the resulting need to “do something” that gives rise to all the recent calls for gun bans and restrictions.
However laws do NOT prevent crime, they can only punish the offender, after, if caught. If a life sentence for murder does not prevent killing, how can gun control laws? Mere possession of so called prohibited weapons are “crimes” clearly in the category of crimes without victims. It is the evil intent that resides in the hearts and minds of the criminals that make the difference.
By making it impossible? (illegal) to take any meaningful precaution against violent criminals, the most important result is that you are making life as safe and easy for violent criminals as possible. Put yourself in the shoes of your typical armed robber or rapist. Now, if every time you pulled a gun on somebody and demanded their wallet/car/cash register/whatever, you were treated politely and given exactly what you asked for, you'd probably be tempted to do it again. And again and again.
You might even get the impression that what you were doing was OK; everyone seems to be most agreeable to your suggestions living in a world of “peaceful cooperation”. Oh sure, there is some risk of you getting caught, but it's quite low. And if you're really cautious, you can avoid cameras and kill all of your victims. They won't mind, they are such nice, polite people.
On the other hand, if you keep getting shot at by your victims and other bystanders, you'll learn pretty fast to get a new line of work. If the general rules of society were such that anyone who runs around sticking guns in peoples faces and demanding money ended up without a head, crime would go down. I'm sure you would call this barbaric, but in my opinion, the barbaric society is the one that lets the barbarians run free. If you don't fight them, they will conquer you. It's just that simple. I can guarantee you that as long as we as a society allow ourselves to be pushed around by violent criminals, the criminals will keep pushing us around.
One in four Australians own guns now compared to one in six in 1979. Yet there has been NO dramatic increase in the homicide rate using firearms during that period! In fact there has been a slight decline in recent years! Only training and education can provide our Police Officers the chances to diminish violent confrontations and survive them. The same applies to private citizens.
As training relates to the increase of Police survivability, if anything, the area that is lacking in our present “gun laws” is training for license holders and education for all the rest of the general public. Many of the recent “gun laws” have been counterproductive. The result of “knee jerk” reactions to the media sensationalism, by persons who have no knowledge of firearms and little knowledge of criminals. It is easy to sympathise with the families of the victims and excuse their loss of objectivity. However the legislators must remain professional as they are responsible for ensuring that changes are valid and are effective.
The pages of the NSW Firearms Act 1989 and the NSW Prohibited Weapons Act 1989 are littered with crude ill-informed attempts to quell a media outcry. Many firearms are prohibited just because they are seen in movies and look “black and bad”? No real study or attempt to find the facts in relation as to what firearms can and cannot do. There is nothing that cannot be achieved with “legal” firearms than can be achieved with prohibited firearms.
By focusing on and banning types of firearms and attempting to define specifications of “legal” firearms. The Acts lose sight of the most basic goal. That is to keep ALL types of firearms out of the hands of certain types of persons and imposing severe sanctions on those who misuse firearms regardless of the make, type, look, background, history, specification, or measurement. Sadly I predict that a tragedy similar in scale to Port Arthur is waiting to happen. Despite the best intentions of the legislators, some Drug/Drink crazed reject of society is now feeling more alienated and will act out his violent video induced fantasies on us all. What will the newspaper editors and the radio stars blame then?
It’s Easy.
It’s easy enough to blame the Tasmanian massacre on lack of gun control. Too easy. And too superficial. It is indeed, rather like blaming greed on food, or avarice on money. There is a link between being greedy and eating food but it doesn’t follow that everyone who eats is greedy. It doesn’t follow that everyone who uses money is a miser. By the same token, plenty of people who possess guns are perfectly peaceable. Many societies, such as France and Switzerland have considered that it is a citizens right - indeed, in the case of France, a proletarian right, ushered in by the French Revolution - to possess a gun without producing centuries of lone gun massacres.
IT'S EASY TO BLAME
The availability of guns for violent crime, Australia's homicide statistics tell a different story. Tasmania may have the slackest gun laws in the nation, but until last week it also had the lowest murder rate-at 0.85 per 100,000, lower even than that of Japan, a country with some of the world's tightest gun laws. Guns account for only 25%of homicides, says the Australian Institute of Criminology. Fists, knives and blunt instruments are the most frequently used weapons. Says Adam Graycar, the institute's director: "Most criminal activities don't involve guns. About one-third of armed robberies have a gun involved two-thirds don't. Attempted murder-about a quarter do, but three-quarters don't. Abduction-about 4% do, but 96% don't. Guns aren't the major thing in criminal activity". And when guns are used to kill, the most frequently used weapon is a simple single-shot .22-caliber rifle used in 40% of fatal shootings; exotic military style ordnance comes into play only 7% of the time.
TIME Australia May 13 1996.
Blaming the availability of the gun in itself is evading the moral issues involved and avoiding the other elements in the story. These include the individuals particular background and instability and the way in which society encourages people to deal with frustrations, disappointment and grievance. Sadly I predict there will be more single-man massacres such as Dunblane and Port Arthur however much gun law is tightened up because our global culture today enhances the climate for such wicked and demented acts.
Virtually everyone now is encouraged to have a grievance and taught they have the “right” to express that grievance at every turn. Traditional virtues such as patience, stoicism, endurance and fortitude are sneered at, and the spontaneous ability to demand, complain, get your own way and grab attention are admired.
What happens after all, if you do commit some horrible crime which shocks the world? First off, you get to be famous on TV. Your picture is flashed around the world. You are the centre of attention if captured alive and immortal if captured dead.
If you do survive, a cluster of psychiatrists, psychologists and smarty-pants lawyers will surround you, probing, analysing, and finally even explaining your crime.
Should you be in a country where the death penalty is administered for capital murder, a caterwauling of sentimental abolitionists will soon be set up to champion you. If you are clapped up in Gaol for life, you will attract a fan club of women with deformed minds who will write to you and ask you to marry them all incarcerated murders, from Peter Sutcliffe to Jeffrey Dahmer, have a slavering fan club of regular female correspondents.
Television and modern information technology will, in short make a mass murder a celebrity.
These deep-seated incentives to commit some outrage are far more compelling, it seems to me, than the legal possession of a gun.
The gun itself is an inanimate object; it requires an act of human will to pull the trigger. And that act in itself is triggered by factors, be they internal madness, or external stimuli, prompting the inherent rage.
Our external stimuli today endorse constant excitement, personal gratification and the validation of self by celebrity.
Men who years ago could take pride and satisfaction in humble accomplishments are now regaled by a parade of stimuli urging them to make their mark on the world. And some such crazed individuals will respond to that by competing for the Port Arthur killing record. After all if semi-automatic rifles are the weapon of choice for crazed out of control killers, WHY can’t I, as an honest citizen, have one for defence against them or for any other reason? These random mass killers do NOT strike out against the armed members of society. They are not stupid enough to attack a Police station full of armed officers or shoot at soliders during live firing excerises.
Present “gun laws”.
“Strathfield Plaza” one man goes berserk. Seven unarmed, innocent persons killed, several injured, many traumatised. Result a Parliament taken over by “John Laws” types. A ban on the semi-automatic SKS/SKK rifle. No attempt to keep ALL deadly weapons out of the wrong hands. And still the mass murders occur.
Many otherwise honest, good solid citizens choose NOT to hand over their hard earned personal possessions. As a result they avoid the now complex and expensive licensing system to evade detection. Result thousands of firearms both legal and illegal in the hands of unlicensed persons with no means of control in any form. Thank god nearly all firearm enthusiasts are both stable and basically honest. 99.9% of all firearms are NOT used in crime.
The fact is many firearms are legally available today that fire the very SAME cartridge as the banned SKS/SKK rifle. No wonder the SKS/SKK owners rebelled. Same velocity, same energy, same projectiles, SAME results. And sane for the rifle alleged to be used by Bryant in Port Arthur. A semi-auto in .223 Remington caliber. After the proposed bans are enforced, I can still have a bolt action “sniper rifle” that fires the exact same cartridge! In fact the muzzle velocity will be greater because of the longer barrel on the bolt action! How can you rationalise that? How far can you run in the time it takes a killer to reload after five shots? I myself would prefer to return fire. Ban firearms because of ex-military background? Fact, all firearms can trace their military roots. “Killer rifle with bayonet” scream the headlines. Fact, same results by attaching carving knife to broom handles. Nobody ever died because of how a firearm looked.
Let me explain two other reasons people find these weapons so desirable. First, the current generation of “assault” rifles are also incredibly fun to shoot. Why? Because one of the problems the military has had over the years is that it is difficult to teach good marksmanship skills to recruits who have had no shooting experience, especially when the rifle hurts them so badly when they shoot it. All current generation military firearms have buffering systems which absorb most of the recoil energy developed by the rifle when it is fired. Therefore, it doesn't hurt. This is even true of those so called “assault” rifles available in .30 caliber such as the Chinese AK-47 and the German HK-91.
Besides any .22 caliber rim-fire rifle, semi-automatic “assault” rifles are perhaps the best choice to use for teaching new shooters how to shoot. In fact, anyone who has gone through basic military training in the last 20 years will tell you that drill instructors routinely demonstrate the low recoil of the M-16 by firing it while holding the butt of the rifle against their crotch, forehead or chin. No one in their right mind would even think of doing that with anything other than a semi-automatic “assault” rifle. Doing so with a bolt-action rifle could be fatal or eliminate any possibility of having children. Second, many newer generation semi-automatic military rifles are designed around, or are available in, a smaller caliber cartridge, usually about .22 caliber (most older generation military rifles were based on a .30 caliber cartridge). This contributes to less recoil energy which in turn means less pain.
The military reason for a smaller caliber is that it allows the individual soldier to carry more ammunition and increases the chances of wounding, rather than killing an enemy soldier. The smaller caliber also costs less to shoot, i.e., more bang for the buck (no pun intended). The advantage of lower costs is not lost on civilian or military shooters. All of this information is totally lost on the anti-gun crowd because they have little personal experience with firearms. It is silly for non-gun-owning “experts” to proclaim why certain classes of firearms are of no use to private citizens. With no personal experience with firearms, what qualifies them to make such assertions? We all agree, however, that something must be done to prevent these, or any other firearms, from easily finding their way into the hands of criminals. More about that later.
The reason ex-military style firearms are suited for many sporting shooters are the SAME reason they were adopted by the military. NOT because of the ability to kill any better. But because of their reliability, ease of use the resulting safety and finally the low cost.
Magazines of more than five (5) rounds banned. An average person with minium practice can change magazines in less than four (4) seconds. What is it that the potential victim/s is supposed to do in that four seconds, or less, after having five shots fired at them, if they are still alive? And the same theory and resulting lethal ability applies to the reloading of any firearm from a single shot shotgun to a ten (10) shot bolt action.
Handguns hold some magical power to those who watch motion pictures and believe all they see. Unfortunately the same persons frame our firearm’s laws and hold related positions in the Police force. Any firearm expert will tell you that nearly all rifles will be far more powerful and accurate out to a distance, far in excess of all handguns. It is unfortunate that the two Police Officers at Crescent Head had to learn this lesson in such a tragic manner. Most rifles, “legal” or not will penetrate any “bullet proof” vests proposed for or, on issue to Police.
Handguns are for the most part far out of the reach for all but the few keen and responsible target pistol shooters, with strict conditions applied. The criminals have no such problem. Criminals’ handguns are nearly always stolen from security guards. If not, the quick and easy solution to a concealable firearm for a criminal, if unable to steal a handgun, is to saw off a shot gun. A far more fierce weapon than the most powerful handgun. The chance of survival and compleat recovery of wounds is far greater if shot with a handgun than if hit with a load of buckshot from a sawn off 12ga shotgun. As both above activities are already crimes only a severe increase in penalties MAY reduce the attraction to criminals. The most effective method for this is mandatory custodial sentences for actual or attempted violent criminal misuse of all firearms.
In the real world, I can tell you, even inside Prison, criminals can make fully functioning firearms! Think what could be made with access to a reasonable workshop and some money. On a technical point automatic weapons (machine guns) are far simpler to manufacture than semi-autos. This is exactly what the Russians did when their backs were against the wall in WW2, they turned out cheap crude but effective machine guns by the thousands from back yard shops and pushed back the invading Germans. Gun control laws only provide the criminal with another means to make money ie; smuggling, making and stealing firearms!
The criminal is a predator who sees you, me and our families as a resource, to be harvested at his will. The fact is that they are greatly relieved that the law-abiding citizen has been effectively disarmed and prohibited from self defence by the very Government and Police Service that is supposed to protect us. Criminals are rarely stupid enough to strike whilst the Police are around! The Police are, in effect, the “Crime Janitors” they clean up and take notes AFTER the event. The very persons who obey the “gun control” laws are the persons we have to fear the least!
It is poor public policy to create laws and then try to justify them by asking what is wrong with them. We should always ask, “what is right with this law?” If a law does not help solve a problem then there is no point in passing it. If the law causes other problems or harms law-abiding citizens then it is immoral on top of that. It is no more constructive for legislators to panic in a public crisis than it is for an individual to panic in a personal crisis.
You should never react to a situation merely because you feel that something must be done or because horrible things are happening. Even if you could prove that an immoral law would actually be effective (keep in mind for the moment that all evidence points to the fact that, gun control laws neither reduce crime nor save lives), the State would be horribly wrong to use this as an excuse to infringe on the rights of its populace. Professor David Bayley (Criminology Australia August 1994) states; “There is no connection between the core strategies of policing - random patrolling and rapid response to public complaints - and the crime rate”. According to Bayley “the cause of crime lies outside law enforcement”.
Gun control is based on the neurotic fear of accepting responsibility for one's share of the community. We have people in our community who hate and want to kill. This is a human problem involving human issues, requiring our community of human beings to look at ourselves and our society, and other human beings. A man or woman who hates and wants to kill will NOT become a peaceful, loving, productive member of society merely because guns are illegal or hard to get. A man or woman who hates and wants to kill has been taught to. Ignoring the human issues and focusing instead on a material object is a pathetic act of denial. Criminals are, by definition, criminals because they break the law. How will a ban on firearms help? Who will obey? Gun control laws CANNOT possibly reduce crime rates unless they affect the very small percent of guns that are actually used in crimes. Even if the laws did this, criminals would find it easy to acquire new guns.
I would respectfully suggest that the influence of alcohol on the incident at Crescent Head should not be discounted. I found it both ironic and sicking, when I saw on the news, that after a meeting addressing the trauma of persons involved in the tragedy at Crescent Head, drinks were served? Not forgetting other massive losses caused to the community by the abuse of alcohol. A good case can be made for the banning of alcohol. There is no beer drinking contest in the Olympic games! Alcohol cannot be used to selectively remove feral pests from the environment. Alcohol cannot be used to defend life and property. The fact is alcohol kills far more persons and destroys so many more lives than even the worst mass murder. The same can case can be made against tobacco.
Ghoulishly capitalising on the tragedy of mass murders, the anti-gun media is surging forward with their plans for total gun confiscation. If law-abiding private citizens were disarmed, they claim, criminals and crazies would be unable to kill and maim. That's an obvious lie -- criminals, by definition, disobey laws, and madmen can kill with knives, cars, matches, champagne bottles or home made explosives as easily and as senselessly as they can with guns. We all know that some lunatic in Oklahoma USA managed to kill well over one hundred innocents all without a shot fired! Try banning diesel and fertilizer. Any mass murder will not be cured or magically turned into a productive member of society just be cause guns are hard to get for law-abiding citizens.
Of course, the proponents of political tyranny are usually well-motivated. Those who wish enacted the gun ban’s law point to criminals who have used firearms to commit horrible, murderous acts. But the illusion, the pipe-dream, is that bad acts can be prevented through the deprivation of liberty. They cannot be! Life is insecure whether under liberty or enslavement. The ONLY choice is between liberty and insecurity, on the one hand, and insecurity and enslavement on the other.
Gun control measures discussed.
• "Registration of all guns".
“1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!” -- Adolf Hitler prior to confiscating all civilian firearms!!!.
Will we get the criminals and lunatics to bring in their guns for registration? Will the already otherwise honest victimised firearm owner bring in his already banned firearm or face the situation that his/her treasured legal and now registered firearm, will be banned and removed by some future, media inspired, political whim?
The scientific evidence in fact overwhelmingly shows “gun registration” has NO effect on firearm misuse. The jurisdictions that have introduced this measure have found it to be a waste of resources with no effect on the crime rate. The criminals keep the firearms they already have and continue to steal/make/smuggle firearms registered or not.
Criminals will not turn up to register their guns. The Police cannot tell the serial number of the firearm used by a criminal by the projectile they dig out of my cold corpse, even if the criminal was moronic enough to “register”.
As for the comparison with the registration of motor vehicles. If you register your car, you get a place to use it. You do not have to register or even have a license if the vehicle is used on private property. This sounds close to what responsible firearms users do now! Except they have to have a licence to use or merely “possess”, on their own private property. You can “possess” as many un-registered cars as you like, roadworthy or not, just don’t use them on the public road.
Finally car registration does not prevent criminals stealing cars or using them to get to and from a crime scene and transporting the evidence away. NOBODY has any evidence to show that “gun registration” works. It is in fact a prelude to total confiscation.
• "A ban on guns in urban homes, community armouries"?
Anybody who proffers this idea clearly has no idea about criminals and firearms. Just where does "urban" end and "rural" start? Has anybody any idea how big this armoury will be? How many do we need? Where will they be? Who will guard it 24 hours a day? The already overworked and understaffed Police have enough problems. Not to mention the extra temptation for corruption.
Don’t forget the fact that half of the shootings involving Police as victims were by themselves or fellow officers, accidents or suicide. Next we put the Police at further risk to the criminal element who conducts an armed raid on a poorly maned Police station so as to avail themselves of the large supply of guns stored there.
What about interstate or international events? The Olympic games for instance. Remember the year 2000? I am certain the criminals will thank the anti-gunners for the location of a regular supply of firearms. After all don’t, they strike where the booty is all in one place, for example, banks, armoured cars, credit unions and the homes of the defenceless.
The criminals will be given much encouragement in the knowledge that all law abiding citizens have their guns unavailable. I will comment on the issue of self defence later in this submission.
Need I go on about such a irresponsible ridiculous proposal? Anyone with common sense would shudder at the thought of "community armouries" as a total waste of Police time and taxpayers resources. Again like the previous idea who will obey this law, and are they the ones we have to fear?
• "A ban on semi-automatic weapons".
A semi-automatic firearm is defined as one which fires a single cartridge with a single pull of the trigger and which automatically loads another fresh cartridge in preparation for the next pull of the trigger. The trigger must be released and pulled again before the next cartridge will fire. Please note the difference from a machine gun. The anti-gun crowd asserts that semi-automatic weapons' sole purpose is to kill people. Technically, that is incorrect. It is much preferable to wound enemy soldiers and that was one of the design criteria that went into the development of the military M-16.
Again will the criminals hand theirs in? What difference does the type of gun make? How does one bullet from a certain type of rifle kill better than one from another type? Who can explain how a gun, any gun? Could be potentially more dangerous and capable of killing more persons at once than a box of matches and a drum of petrol?
The ban semi-auto idea is comes from persons who know very little about firearms. The facts are; semi-autos are almost always chambered for relatively low powered cartridges when compared to the bolt actions and single shots. Nobody uses a semi-auto to hunt elephants! Semi-autos are as a rule always less accurate and have a limited range compared to the bolt actions and single shots.
Is there an acceptable number of persons who can be shot in a shopping mall or at a tourist site? I would prefer none. Yet by focusing on types of firearms the proponents of this suggestion appear to condemn a certain number to die.
Any average rifleman with a bolt action firearm could have fired just as many shots as in the incidents at Strathfield or Port Arthur and most likely been more accurate! During both world wars the Germans thought many times they were under fire by machine guns, it was however the .303 Lee Enfield bolt action. Bolt actions are used by sniper’s world wide both Police and military.
My fear is this; One day some lunatic will set himself up with a bolt action rifle with telescopic sight, in a calibre more powerful than any SKK. Then proceed to shoot persons in the head and behind car doors at say 150 to 200 yards. This type of incident has already happened in the USA. The great media circus will then shout “Sniper killer”, “Elephant Gun Massacre” etc. Innocent persons will die and suffer once again, just because the legislators missed the point. The call will then be, supported by persons who do not know any better, ban all “sniper rifles” single shot and bolt action, any rifle capable of being fitted with a telescopic sight. Result, media hype and manfactured outrage, then no legal firearms left.
You should never react to a situation merely because you feel that something? Must be done or because horrible things are happening? Even if you could prove that an immoral law would actually be effective (keep in mind for the moment that all evidence points to the fact that gun control laws neither reduce crime nor save lives), the State would be horribly wrong to use this as an excuse to infringe on the rights of its populace. Many “civilized” countries don't exactly stop with guns, either. In Japan, where guns are banned, aluminum baseball and softball bats were banned for the same reason. Non-lethal self defence mace is illegal in England and they recently decided to ban steel-toed Doc Martin shoes because they were being used in too many violent crimes. Simply residing in a city without registering with the police constitutes a crime in Germany, and In Singapore, you can be whipped for not having your hair cut short enough and fined for chewing gum. In many countries in Europe and Asia, not having a photo ID whilst out for a walk will result in a stint in Gaol.
Most European countries are based on cradle-to-grave socialism in which citizens are treated like helpless children dependent on a nanny state for security. That the same societies ban guns is simply another manifestation of the overall screw-the-individual attitude there. Australia is already on this path to socialism and oppression;
One should ask where has this law been used before? What were the results? What will the cost be? Could the same time, money and effort be better spent on superior law enforcement services?
The USA Situation.[1]
It is time to end this urban myth about the so-called gun problem in the USA. America has a CRIME problem NOT a gun problem! Undeniably many thousands of lives are saved every year because firearms were available to the private citizen for their protection.
Data supplied by the FBI for 1990 shows that criminals used firearms in about 258,000 violent offences, or about 16 percent of the 1.6 million crimes reported to the Police in the USA.
Using the total known number of firearms for the USA. Even if? The same gun was never used more than once in committing a crime;
• Only one out of every 123 hand guns in the USA (less than one percent) and one out of every 1,247 long guns (less than one tenth of one percent) are used in crime every year!
• If we realistically allow for repeated criminal uses of the same gun, the fraction of all guns that are ever involved in crime would be far less than one percent!!
Gun control laws CANNOT possibly reduce crime rates unless they affect the one percent of guns that are actually used in crimes. Even if the laws did this, criminals would find it easy to acquire new guns. The numbers by themselves raise doubts about the efficacy of general restrictions on gun ownership in decreasing the frequency of gun use in violent crime.
Despite some 20,000 “gun control” laws in the United States, mostly at the state and local levels, there is in fact little evidence that any but the most weakly motivated citizens have been discouraged from gun ownership. And there is no evidence that these “gun control” laws have made a dent in the crime rate.
• New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law in the nation" in 1966. Two years later the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
• In 1976, Washington D.C, enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then the cities murder rate has risen 134 percent! Whilst for the same period, the national murder rate has dropped two percent.
• Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive “gun control” laws.
• New York has the most restrictive “gun control” laws in the nation, upon both hand guns and long arms. Yet has over 20 percent of all the nations armed robberies!
• 20 percent of US homicides occur in four cities housing just 6 percent of the whole population of the United States. New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington D.C. Each has a virtual prohibition on private hand guns.
• Home swimming pools, cigarette lighters and medical mistakes each kill many thousands more children in the USA than gun accidents and suicides combined.
9th Annual National Police Survey
1996 SURVEY OF ALL LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES
The following is a selection of survey questions that were posed in the last 60 days by mail of 5,000 Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs that was completed March 31st, 1996. It represents a cross section of professional officers involving every state with a 10% response. The survey was conducted for the 9th consecutive year by the National Association of Chiefs of Police, Miami, FL.
FIREARMS
11. The Brady Bill (5-day waiting period) has been in effect for more than a year at this date. Has this waiting period prevented any law abiding person in your community from obtaining a firearm?
* NO - 90.8%
12. To your knowledge has the ³5-day waiting period² prevented any criminal from obtaining a firearm from illegal sources in your area?
* NO - 84.6%
13. Do you believe that any law-abiding citizen who wishes to obtain a firearm of the types lawfully sold for recreation or home protection should be able to do so under current state law?
* YES - 94.9%
14. In past years, riots, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and other national disasters have required citizens to protect themselves and their property until order could be restored. Do you believe that any law-abiding citizen should continue under your state laws to purchase any legal weapon
for self defense?
* YES - 93.1%
15. Do you believe that the Second Amendment grants any law-abiding citizen the right to purchase a firearm for sport or self defense under your state and federal laws?
* YES - 89.6%
16. Do you believe that your police department is able to respond to emergency calls where a person is being threatened with a firearm or other deadly weapon in time to save that person from serious injury or death?
* YES - 50.9%
DEATH PENALTY
1. Do you believe that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to certain types of crimes?
* YES - 89.8%
2. Do you believe that any person convicted of heinous crimes and sentenced to death should (after appeals) be executed according to state law within five years?
* YES -96.8%
3. When a person has been convicted of a capital crime on forensic evidence, and the death penalty is imposed, should this person have only three appeals. State Supreme Court, Federal District Court, and U.S. Supreme Court?
* YES - 94.1%
FROM “USA TODAY” Magazine.
Study: Weapons laws deter crime
In a comprehensive study that may reshape the gun control debate, researchers have found that letting people carry concealed guns appears to sharply reduce killings, rapes and other violent crimes. The nationwide study found that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed handguns:
Homicide, down 8.5%.
Rape, down 5%.
Aggravated assault, down 7%.
The University of Chicago study, obtained by USA TODAY, is set to be released next Thursday. But its impending release has already sent shock waves through the gun-control debate because of the effect it may have on one of the most controversial areas of gun law.
Since 1986, the number of states making it legal to carry concealed weapons has grown from nine to 31.
The National Rifle Association has led this fight in state legislatures, arguing that concealed weapons deter crime.
Gun control supporters counter that these laws cost lives by increasing accidental deaths and impulsive killings.
The study analyzed FBI crime statistics in the nation's 3,054 counties from 1977 to 1992 to see if the introduction of concealed-weapons laws had any effect on crime.
The results overwhelmingly supported the idea that these laws deter violent crime.
The drop isn't primarily caused by people defending themselves with guns, says John Lott, the study's author. Rather criminals seem to alter their behavior to avoid coming into contact with a person who might have a gun.
Concealed-weapons laws have drawbacks, too, the study found. Auto theft and larceny increased. Criminals shifted to property offenses, in which contact with a victim is rare, says Lott. "The policy implications are undeniable: If you're interested in reducing murder and rape, then letting law-abiding, mentally competent citizens carry concealed weapons has a positive impact," says Lott. Gun control backer Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center blasted the study: “Anyone who argues that these laws reduce crime either doesn't understand the nature of crime or has a preset agenda.”
Lott, who spent two years on the study, says he sent his research to scholars who might disagree with him and made changes to satisfy the critics.
David Kopel, a gun control scholar who did a smaller study on the same issue, says, "Lott's study is so far ahead of all previous studies that it makes them all worthless."
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
“What do you mean, wait fifteen days? This is America!” -- California citizen attempting to purchase a firearm for self-defense during rioting in Los Angelas, week of 30 April 1992.
U.S Law enforcement officers killed between 1980 and 1990
| |
|Category |
| | | | | | | | | |
|Year |Population |Police |A |B |C |D |E |F |
| | | | | | | | | |
|1981 |228,000,000 |439,000 |86 |13 |73 |58 |0 |5 |
| | | | | | | | | |
|1982 |230,000,000 |424,000 |82 |6 |76 |62 |1 |8 |
| | | | | | | | | |
|1983 |232,000,000 |499,000 |74 |12 |62 |64 |0 |6 |
| | | | | | | | | |
|1984 |234,000,000 |494,000 |66 |13 |53 |63 |1 |6 |
| | | | | | | | | |
|1985 |238,000,000 |517,000 |70 |11 |59 |59 |0 |8 |
| | | | | | | | | |
|1986 |241,000,000 |505,000 |62 |15 |47 |51 |2 |4 |
| | | | | | | | | |
|1987 |244,000,000 |503,000 |67 |14 |53 |65 |1 |7 |
| | | | | | | | | |
|1988 |248,000,000 |501,000 |76 |12 |64 |63 |3 |2 |
| | | | | | | | | |
|1989 |250,000,000 |505,000 |57 |10 |47 |70 |1 |9 |
| | | | | | | | | |
|1990 |252,000,000 |506,000 |56 |35 |3 |59 |1 |9 |
| | | |
|Totals |791 |123 |
| | | |
|England/Wales[8] |4.70 |0.67 |
| | | |
|France |24.70 |1.00 |
| | | |
|Norway |31.20 |1.16 |
| | | |
|Switzerland |32.60 |1.17 |
| | | |
|Netherlands |2.00 |1.18 |
| | | |
|Germany |9.20 |1.48 |
| | | |
|Belgium |16.80 |1.85 |
| | | |
|Australia |20.10 |1.95 |
| | | |
|Canada |30.80 |2.60 |
| | | |
|Finland |25.5 |2.86 |
| | | |
|United States |48.90 |7.59 |
Based on figures from two different sources: Swiss Criminologist Killias (average murder rates for the years of 1983 - 1986) and France data derived from World Health Organization information 1980.
[pic]
Consider the above table: The only support for the anti-gun argument is that the lowest murder rate is for England where only 4.7% of the households have guns. But this can not be attributed to low gun ownership since the French murder rate is only slightly higher. However, the rate of French gun ownership is more than five times greater than in England. Note: The real English murder rate might actually be as high or higher than the French. The English artificially reduce their murder rate by excluding “political” murder, (example: assassinations by the IRA,[9] ), whereas French and American rates include all types of murder.
This brings up a further issue, If firearm bans reduce murder why is “political” murder so much more common in Europe than in the United States or Canada? Further review of the above table shows the English correlation between low gun ownership and low murder is mere coincidence rather than a general rule. The country with the lowest gun ownership is not England but the Netherlands where only 2% of the households have guns. Yet the Netherlands has more murder than most other European countries, including those with rates of gun ownership much higher, as much as 12 to 16 times higher in the cases of France, Switzerland, and Norway. Those countries happen to be three of the highest European countries in household gun ownership, yet they are also three of the four European countries with the lowest murder rate.
Compare the murder rates for the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Norway. They are nearly identical. Yet Switzerland and Norway have 15 to 16 times more gun ownership than the Netherlands. Now compare Canada and Finland. Both of these countries have rates of gun ownership that are almost as high as Norway or Switzerland, but their murder rates are more than twice that of the Netherlands, Norway, or Switzerland. When the full range of comparisons are made, no pattern of correlation appears between high gun ownership rates and high murder rates.
The point of these studies is not that more gun ownership causes more or less murder, but that it has no effect on either. The kind of people who will murder, commit armed robbery, rape, etc are going to do so with or without guns.
The argument that guns are necessary or useful for murder, does not apply to legal gun ownership. There are always going to be enough illegal guns on the market to satisfy a criminals needs. Since the Firearm Control Act was brought in 1978, the number of assaults with firearms in Toronto Canada has quadrupled.
The anti-gun movement is always quoting the crime statistics of England, saying that because England has extremely strict gun control they have less crime. How anyone knows how many people are killed in England with firearms is an interesting issue, because no one compiles any
comprehensive statistics related to armed murder in the United Kingdom.
Fact; ever increasing “gun control” laws introduced in the United Kingdom after a well publicised mass murder during 1987 at “Hungerford”. FAILED to prevent another tragedy at “Dunblane” in 1996.
The English Home Office does compile some statistics relating to firearms, homicides, but they exclude "politically motivated" killings, so these statistics are cooked. Since barely a day goes by without the provisional IRA or the Ulster Volunteer Force or the Welsh National Liberation Front or some bunch of loonies killing someone, these figures are unreliable at best.
However, even these figures show an increase in handgun related crimes between 1976 and 1988 on the order of 200%. The Scottish home office, which complies more reliable figures, tabulated an increase of 27% in armed crime in Scotland in 1990 alone. The most interesting part of all
this is that the largest increases in armed crime in the UK occurred after the enactment of the 1988 Firearm Act, which banned the possession of all centre fire semi-auto and pump action rifles and most semi-auto and pump action shotguns. As the number of these guns, turned in to the police were small in comparison to the number in circulation it is fair to assume that many of them found there way into the hands of criminals.
The Face of the Enemy.
Their is two sides to the gun ownership argument hunting and self defence. I have and will futher argue that the amount “gun crime” is relatively small and remains unchanged over the decades despite changes in the “gun control laws” and within society itself. In this pargraph let us look more at the public perception of crime, what makes a criminal tick and how citizen ownership of firearms can reduce the criminal misuse of firearms.
Are you afraid of criminals..? YES. Then your fears are justified. If you haven't been confronted by a criminal yet, you don't know just how justified you are. To understand the criminal mind, try this purely hypothetical experiment. Take a human embryo; breed it in a ghetto environment where the only people who are successful and enjoy creature comforts seem to be the pimps and the drug dealers and the armed robbers. Give that child only a half a chance of getting even the most menial job in a world where the only cheap entertainment is TV and videos, where the upper middle-class life-style this child can only hope to partake of through criminal enterprise is glorified. What do you expect to end up with? Somebody that lives by their animal instincts!
You're born with intelligence, but not with ethics If crime has become the recognised avenue for success because most of the others are effectively choked off, then it will become ethically acceptable to that organism. When that human organism commits a crime, throw it into a prison system where a whole different dimension of life exists, a world of predatory animals who dwell within a hierarchy based on who is the strongest, the most vicious, the most ruthless a world inhabited by those whose stock-in-trade is crime. These people can teach that young and malleable young organism how to make a hundred thousand a year dealing dope, or a thousand dollars an hour stealing cars or burglarising homes.
Our young organism, if he has a quick mind, can learn enough to pursue his new trade in a couple of weeks, but there's no one out there who would fund him through trade school for a couple of years to learn a middle-class skill acceptable to middle-class society.
In the seething world behind the prison walls, there is one criterion only: “Look out for Number One, and everybody else can go to hell”. If you don't, they'll bash you to steal a few packs of cigarettes or worse rape you and move themselves another step up in the food chain hierarchy of prison life. This is the culture and the habitat where criminals breed. They regard human beings who conform to society as a resource, to be harvested like corn or complacent livestock for their bounty. See them in their prison environment, and you can't help but feel sorry for them. There isn't one of them who won't seem like a victim to you when you talk to him in the visiting room, because there isn't one of them who isn't a victim.
Call it genetic defect, call it society, but something victimised them and robbed them of the rich sensitivities law-abiding citizens enjoy. But sympathising with a criminal in the prison visiting room is like sympathising with the timber wolf caged inside its bars at the Zoo. It's safe enough there, but you don't want to meet either of them in their natural habitat. Veteran prison officers and cops will tell you, “Look, save your sympathy. They're animals”. You respond with outrage and think the guards and cops must be animals themselves for feeling that way about other people. You'd be stupid. Crims themselves will shrug and tell you, “You act like an animal if you're treated like one”. But I don't think of them as animals. Spend time with animals and you can learn to relate with them. To most of you, criminals are as alien as supernatural beings. The best analogy is with werewolves. We all know that werewolves are mythical creatures that exist only in the minds of the script writers, they make you tingle with excitement in the movie theatre, but you don't have to fear that one is going to bite you on the way home.
Most people still feel that way about violent criminals; until they meet one, they simply don't exist. You might say I believe in werewolves. If so, it's because I've met them. One of them just sits there across the desk in the prison office and says, “I've always maintained my innocence”. His eyes are slate-gray, and he has learned to stare people down like Kipling's Mowgli staring down the wolf pack, and he can't keep a mocking hint of a sneer off his face when he speaks of the crime he was convicted for. One senior officer at the prison where he is serving his life term says of him, “He's a model prisoner. We've never had any trouble with him, and we probably never will. He's bright and articulate. And he is possibly the single most dangerous human being in this institution”. He says, he was setup and railroaded on circumstantial evidence.
The police think he's a psychopathic killer who is so good at covering up his hideous murders that they'll never convict him for more than the one. He's bright and engaging and informative to talk to, and when I'm alone in a interview room with him, I keep my hands free and my chair back from the desk so I can move fast, just as if a strange Doberman had walked into the room. The kind of werewolves I've met carry their fangs in their belts or their pockets (almost never in holsters, so they can ditch their weapons immediately with no evidence attached to their persons). They react less to full moons than to bellies full of alcohol or a couple of days doing speed or three weeks without sex or three days without money.
Psychiatrists call them sociopaths. Sociopaths don't really care about other people one way or the other. They see people as a resource, as food as it were. They will steal your belongings the way you devour an apple, feeling good afterward having sated their appetite, and with absolutely no regard for the feelings of the apple tree that grew the bounty and left it where it could be harvested. Being a sociopath isn't necessarily bad. There are times when society deliberately trains sociopaths since they can serve extremely useful functions. If a conglomerate has just taken over a marginally profitable firm and has to clear out a lot of deadwood, they'll send in a personnel executive who can be ruthless about firing people who don't produce. He hasn't spent fifteen years at work and at play with the people he's firing, and if it occurs to him that this loss of their jobs will be the most shattering act in their lives short of the death of a child or parent or spouse, he sloughs it off. He is doing it impersonally, for the greater good of the corporation.
In wartime, every soldier on the battlefield has been taught that the enemy is subhuman or nonhuman, a target to be destroyed in return for recognition (medals, favoured assignments, and promotions for those producing the highest body count). The tragedy of the foreigner's death, of the widowhood of his wife, and the orphaning of his children, is ignored. The soldier kills wholesale for the greater good of his unit, and is rewarded by his own survival and that of his nation. That soldier's own generals will send him to die, because they know that there is a certain “acceptable casualty rate” when the death of one's own compatriots is accompanied by strategic victory. The general sends his men to die for the greater good of the service, and the head of state who commands the general endorses this act for the greater good and survival of his government and his society. The dead soldiers on their own side are ciphers. The dead soldiers on the other side are bodycount and victory, with tangible rewards in terms of national riches and security and of forestalling the advances of Communism/Capitalist Imperialism (pick one).
In corporate head-rollings, the suffering jobless disappear from sight, and all that remains is the relief and good feelings of those who still have their jobs and are still occupationally alive. The sociopathic outlaw who commits crime against another person feels those same justifications. He does it for the greater good of himself; the suffering of his victims doesn't concern him. He is isolated from it. He feels he has his own problems that drove him to this life-style; the agony he causes for others is simply their problem. The average person could not identify with murdering for profit. The sociopathic criminal will do so with no more compunction than the manager of your local MacDonald's makes his order for the week's hamburger. Each is doing what he perceives his job to be, and if some living thing dies for it, that is a problem for the thing that dies, not for him.
Consider another one of the “model prisoners” a young man who we will call “Ronnie”. Ronnie is around twenty-nine, a congenial person with a raffish air about him. Everybody who chats with him likes him. Ronnie is in a maximum security prison where he's going to be for quite some time, because Ronnie has done a lot of sociopathic things in his life. Ronnie tells me about how he makes his living as a professional burglar, home invader and car thief when he's “outside the walls”. I asked Ronnie what he would do if he faced an ARMED homeowner. “If neither of us had drawn yet, I'd draw and shoot him. If I had my gun out and he went for his, I'd kill him. If he had the drop on me, I'd wait till he turned away, and then I'd pull my gun and shoot him”. “What if, I asked, the homeowner didn't give him an opening”? “I'd let the coppers come and take me back to prison”, he said. “I’m not stupid enough to get myself killed”.
If Ronnie comes into my house when I'm there, he'll either threaten me with death or actually kill me, since Im sure won't be inviting him over for a drink. And if I ever come home and find Ronnie there, I will violate every one of societies rules and, if I could, shoot him down on sight. He is the wolf, and I am the shepherd. It is one thing to grieve for the loss of natural ecology for arctic and timber wolves, and quite another to be responsible for the sheep that they kill. Timber wolves are wild and free and they love their families, and if you could get to know them you'd like them. All that is true of Ronnie, too. I feel sorry for the wolves in the zoo and for Ronnie in prison. But I know that their instinct is to kill my sheep, and if they try to, I'll destroy them, just as they would me if they got the drop on me first. Pogo said, “We have seen the enemy, and they is us”. That's something that crosses every citizen's mind when he gets bitten by someone like Ronnie and decides that it isn't going to happen anymore. But we don't wont to be like them.
Those who want to ban guns make the point that burglars and home invaders kill more homeowners than vice versa. That's only because the criminals come in ready to kill anyone who messes with them, like Ronnie, and some of them have a bit of rogue leopard in them and kill just for fun Homeowners, by contrast, don't kill unless they have absolutely no choice. When a Ronnie runs, they don't shoot him in the back, the way Ronnie might do to them. Ronnie isn't afraid of silver bullets or garlic or anything else except either two Dobermans at once, or a gun held on him that doesn't waver and that he knows is going to go off if he turns mean.
These predatory people don't think like you. They aren't people like you. They are a different breed. Talk to doctors and psychiatrists and lawyers and parole officers. These are all people who understand the criminal mind. They'll be reluctant to talk about the full depths of what they know until they know you a lot better, because they think you'll say, “Come on, there really aren't beings like you're describing except on TV and in the movies”.
But if you could look into the list of registered holders of pistol-carrying permits for a city like New York you'll find that their doctors and psychiatrists, probation officers, judges and lawyers, are among the highest occupational categories of people who carry guns for self-defence where it is permitted by law. This is because they work every day with the sort of people we are talking about. They have seen the face of the enemy and they are indeed frightened. They arm themselves with guns/guards/dogs/alarms because they also know what fends off the sociopathic werewolves from their city's streets.
Call a guard dog breeder, in any city, any state and any country and ask him how many of his clients are doctors and lawyers and judges. It's not just because they can afford the money.
Those of us who have dealt with hardened criminals know them better than anyone else. We also, even more than the bleeding heart pseudo penologists, understand just what a rotten hand they were dealt even before they got to prison, let alone after they got out again, too. I've spent a lot of time researching them. I can empathise with the wolves and the werewolves, however. They follow their nature, the dark animal side the resides in us all, the way they were bred, then into an environment and a shape they didn't choose for themselves. They are predatory and carnivorous and protective of their own. They are in effect a slave to their genes. But if one of them gets out of his cage and comes after me or mine, I know that the only effective way to stop him is to shoot him. I know that, and the wolf knows that, and if the wolf senses that it's going to go down that way, it's probably not going to come after me or mine at all.
Is Society Becoming More Violent?
Because of extremely violent mass murders, and because media and some politicians often paint a bleak picture of violence in society, I decided to find out whether society is becoming more violent. Any reader of history knows that people have always been extraordinarily adept at murder, rape, and torture as individuals and en masse. Even the Old Testament paints a hard, vengeful world. Yet more recently, statistics from the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research tell us we live in a relatively peaceful society, and that there was a far higher incidence of homicide in Australia from 1850 until the 1930`s than at any time since. Some people will immediately counter this statement by saying statistics can be juggled, and this is surely true, but when you consider that, say in New South Wales one hundred and fifty years ago, murders on the gold fields and of Aboriginals were simply not recorded, and that the annual rates of homicide for between 1850 and 1900 greatly exceed those of today when taking into account the increase in population, one has to start questioning common perceptions.
Modern statistics define homicide as any unlawful killing known to police outside motor vehicle accidents. The homicide statistic has remained at 1.5 to 2.0 homicides per 100000 head of population per year for the last twenty five years. This rate also applies to all other states except the Northern Territory (which varies from six to fourteen times the national rate). Unfortunately these trends are not reflected throughout the world.
In the last twenty five years the homicide rates of the USA, West Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom have increased, with the rate in the USA having almost doubled to 9.4 homicides per 100 000 per year in 1994. However, this does not mean that American society is more violent than it was one to two hundred years ago. Looking at statistics concerning the nature of homicide one has to conclude that Port Arthur, Strathfield and Hoddle Street are extremely unusual, and therefore all the more horrifying, at least to the unattached observer, because the killers were strangers to the victims, and there was no logical motive for the murders.
According to Australian statistics, in eight out of ten cases of homicide the suspect and victim know each other, often intimately, and sexual assault or robbery is not associated with the homicide. Again this differs to statistics in the USA where nearly one-third of all homicides involve robbery and/or sexual assault. Statistics that are reflected in this essay are that 85 per cent of all murderers are male, aged between fifteen and thirty-four, the majority of these males being either single or divorced. These statistics challenge the idea of an increasingly violent society where premeditated, ruthless murders are common. Rather, the majority of homicides are finales to a history of interpersonal disputes.
To put things further into perspective, in an Australian study of violent death, Wallace (1986) discovered that “eleven times as many people are killed on the roads as became victims of homicide; five times as many people kill themselves; and more than twice the number are killed in accidents while at work”. If you look at crime in Australia other than homicide, again the statistics support the notion that generally the incidences of different types of crime are either remaining stable or decreasing per head of population.
[pic]
This is the case even though statics have been affected by the growth in the reporting of crimes to police, changes to policing policies including the recording of crimes, and the broadening of definitions as to what constitutes a crime. For instance, since 1983 domestic violence is defined within a range of existing offences such as murder, assault etc.
Australian statistics collected from 1989 to 1994 show sexual assault, and robbery have remained stable, while breaking and entering, and motor vehicle theft have significantly decreased. The only crime category that has increased over those six years is assault, it having increased by a factor of 15 per cent. This increase could be explained partially by the increased incidence of reporting domestic violence, although a recent study comparing 1994 and 1995 statistics showed a higher frequency of assault in the street where a knife was used. Of course statistics are of no comfort to the people left behind after murder, rape, robbery, and assault, but nevertheless it is very important that we do not let our view of people and society be coloured by an abnormally violent few, because this is oppressive both personally and politically.
[pic]
Why Guns?
I discussed the fundamental issue of owning guns as resting in man's right to self-defence (as a corollary of his right to life) and the right to hunt/collect (right of choice). The classic question heard at this stage by almost everyone especially those who have wasted there time reading the version in the media of the gun lobbies alleged radical argument, that is typically phrased in the following syllogism: “I have a right to own weapons (in accordance with my right to defend my life), howitzers are weapons, therefore, I have a right to own a howitzer?”.
It is important to note that all the so called “assualt” rifles available to the public are only semi-automatic versions of the military, select fire, (automatic or machine gun) model.
The error in this argument is two-fold. The first error involves an equivocation over the nature of the right to self-defence, and the second error involves an equivocation about the nature of the weapon in question, that of the howitzer. In explicating the former, the latter shall become apparent.
The action that is sanctioned by the right to self-defence is quite delimited. It pertains only to the action that you may take at the actual time that your life or property is being violated. If you take the punishment of the criminal into your own hands after the fact of the crime, then you become a vigilante. The law's position on defence which is correct is that your action must be commensurate with the action being taken that violates your rights.
For instance, you cannot pull out your shotgun and blow a person away simply for grabbing an orange out of your open backpack. You do have the right, however, to chase him down and hold him until the authorities arrive, or to enlist others in your attempt to stop him.
The “purpose” of self-defence is to stop the crime, not wipe out all delinquents that exist in our world. Guns are available for those times that the context of the crime is life threatening or violent. Guns are necessary because in these contexts they best fulfill the purpose of stopping the crime. This brings me to an issue of metaphysics. Guns are man-made objects, thus they are designed with a purpose in mind. With regards to weapons in general, you can distinguish between those that are best suited for the purpose of self-defence, and those that are specifically designed for the purpose of mass destruction.
Weapons of mass destruction, as a general rule, are not allowed to be owned by private citizens. These weapons are designed for situations in which countries fight and armies clash on battlefields. They have a single purpose for their existence: destroy as many people and as much property as is physically possible. Such weapons, .50 caliber machine guns, grenade launchers, tanks, warplanes, missiles, etc., etc. Do not fulfill the criteria for the purpose of self-defence. When, for example, is a homeowner ever threatened at 2am by a regiment of Soviet tanks, thus feeling the necessity of owning a variety of rocket launchers? In what alley would a citizen require a machine gun that fires 3000 rounds per minute to stop a thug?
I do not believe that it is possible to argue that guns are designed specifically for the initiation of force, or for defence. The simple fact that the “same” guns are used by both aggressor and defender in any conflict demonstrates that this is a fallacious argument. What can be distinguished, however, is the purposes for which weapons are designed and used. Nuclear missiles are designed for wiping out entire countries, warplanes are designed for destroying other planes or bombing targets, rocket launchers are designed to stop tanks and to destroy entire platoons of enemy soldiers... and I think you see the point. Handguns, rifles, including semi-automatics, albeit used on the battlefield as well, fulfill the purpose of self-defence in a way that larger more destructive weapons do not. It is for these reasons the requirement of the “purpose” of the action of self-defence and the nature of the weapon in question that handguns and rifles are legitimately owned by private citizens.
This provides the fuller detail that handguns and rifles should be legitimately owned, while larger weapons should not. The answer is found in the purpose of self-defence and in the nature of the weapons in question. Anybody who feels the need to survive has to be given at least an even chance when they come up against a dangerous law breaker. If the weapon of choice for a mass murder is a semi-auto, then I want one too!
But All Guns Start Out as Legal Possessions?
The only reason that any crime gun starts out legally is because that happens to be the easiest place to get them. The behaviour of criminals is not defined by laws; remove the current source of guns and they'll go to the next easiest source. Remove that source and they'll go to the next one, etc. Ban guns throughout the country and they'll go overseas or make them illegally.
The first buyer is often a government or government agency, either domestic. or foreign. So denying the civilian access still leaves these others, and they account for enough that diversions from these sources would supply plenty of guns. One would have to ban them for not only the civilians but the police and other government agencies, AND DO IT WORLDWIDE. All those automatic weapons used by terrorists or drug dealers were made legally “initially”, yes. But they were “smuggled” to their end users, whether it's terrorists (as in Ireland or other European countries) or drug dealers.
Then if the worldwide ban were possible, you would find the creation of illegal sources of quite good arms (albeit not as nicely finished or fitted as some of the better commercial models). Many modern designs are characterized by their ability to be fabricated using third-world technology.
The AK comes to mind, as well as a number of other communist block weapons. Western weapons (especially U.S. designs, and lately German or Austrian designs) need very high-tech processes (high tech plastics and alloys, and injection or other moulding processes). But guns like the Scorpion, and earlier WWII or pre-WWII designs are very simple to fabricate using nothing more than a pipe with a barrel fitted at the end, with a spring-loaded weight with a tit on the face, such as a Sten, or Schmeisser. Illicit manufacture in quantity would be impossible to stop or control.
But this talk is all based on the assumption that the “victim” of a crime is responsible for it (and any repercussions thereafter). To say that a gun owner is responsible for the theft of his gun (and any crimes committed with it) makes as much sense as saying that a vagina-owner is responsible for her being selected as a target of rape (and the spread of any STDs to other women raped by her attacker after she has infected him). In reality, the gun owner who has a gun stolen from his home is as much a victim as someone who has any other valuable item stolen, such as jewellery, an expensive computer, or a car. The car is useful for crime, too, as a getaway or as a weapon to cause hit-and-runs. So what is the point of the banning exercise, really?
Conclusion.
The bad news is there is no quick fix. Guns do NOT cause crime. There is NO relationship between gun ownership and an intent to kill. I think it should be obvious that the people who are best qualified to address the technical merits of the gun-control debate are those who own and use guns on a regular basis.
Non-gun-owners speak totally from emotion, not facts (their passionate assertion about the non-sporting capabilities of semi-automatic “assault” rifles is a perfect example). It seems natural to fear that which we don't understand. I believe that is why non-gun-owners react the way they do when the subject of gun control comes up. The facts concerning gun-related crime are on the side of the SSAA/Shooters Party and law-abiding gun-owners.
[pic]
When all is said and done, it is the news media in this country which bears primary responsibility for the misinformation and misrepresentation which leads people to erroneous conclusions. The claims of the anti-gun crowd are the only claims the news media uncritically reports. Both sides of most issues get some news coverage. That is decidedly not the case when it comes to gun issues and the so called “gun lobby”. The news media generally portrays the SSAA/Shooters Party in a negative light. Is it possible that is an accurate representation of organizations which represents the interests of well over three (3) million people?
Many members of the general public know nothing about firearms, have no interest in guns and maybe even fearful of them. A “Mini 14®” sporting rifle looks like a “machine gun”, to many. They only see negative images in the media and unreal firearms violence on videos. When confronted with a choice the person not interested in firearms will choose to ban them, the safe bet, that does not infringe on their lifestyle. The very same persons would also vote for capital punishment! It`s democracy in action you say, it`s what the people want (gun bans). What is the difference from haveing the guns in the control of the citizens or in the control of the Government, IF the citizens control the Parliament?
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands”?
-- Patrick Henry
It is so convenient to blame guns for societies’ ills. The emotional clichés presented by the anti-gunners, initially, sound so much like common sense, an easy answer. However the dangerous outcome is that Politicians look to a quick legislation resolution to get the media off their back.
Legislation that is ineffective and unenforceable, legislation on top of legislation, responding to each individual incident, each with its own unique set of dynamics, well after it occurs.
Suicide reduction if often quoted as a reason for “gun control”. Would the poor, ill-fated unfortunate persons have been “cured” by the mere fact a gun was not available? Would all their problems be solved? Of course not! Then can anybody guarantee that the suicide rate by other means would not rise? Do otherwise sane persons have the right over their own destiny? I have seen suicide “in action”, both inmates and fellow officers. It is not as simple as removing the guns or any other means, nor is it possible. Another well known fact is that in wartime the suicide rate drops. During WW2 the “Blitz” in London produced a near zero suicide rate. Despite many firearms out and about in the community Would somebody like to suggest that the government now bomb the “trouble spots”? To cut suicide rates!
I mean, substantially, grown up adults have to accept some of the responsibility for their actions. Society cannot and should not take on all that responsibility. It is my submission that the real reason for the decline in the suicide rate during the “blitz” was not the bombs but the high level of national pride, a sense of being part of something important (the war effort), discipline/laws for a clear reason (cut backs and black out regulations, etc).
Good old fashioned values (where everybody helped and looked out for their neighbour), no un-employment or that everybody had something constructive to do (rescue/fight/survive/rebuild) and everybody had a clear goal to achieve (victory). And dare I say racial pride with a dash of discrimination plus low immigration and a heap of other now, “politically incorrect” attitudes. All this achieved zero suicides with nearly every citizen armed or able to be.
Sound areas to look to for policies to improve our society. The most effective approach to suicide prevention is to look at WHY persons want to attempt suicide. You would “save” more lives also reduce suffering of those who attempt but would never succeed. Than you would by just trying to remove one method used, well after the persons state of mind has been unbalanced by stress.
The answers do not exist in legislation. The answers to the causes of crime, I am afraid are complex and way out of the range of this submission. For example; Drugs, unemployment, the breakdown of the family unit, the growing gap between the rich and the poor, community values, lack of discipline in schools, alcohol abuse, the welfare state, loss of faith in the justice system and the poor response of Government to long term planning. But more so the primitive forces of mother nature that resides in us all that surfaces because of any or all of the above reasons. The cause of CRIME is simply CRIMINALS[10]! I can but offer a few suggestions that may start the process off. We need to work side by side as a community. The vast majority of firearm owners are honest citizens with solid values. To alienate them with legislation that brands them as criminals and potential lunatics is both insulting and counterproductive that leaves the rest of community with a false sense of security.
Repealing parts of, and streamlining the Firearms Acts will NOT increase the crime rate. Many thousands of SKS/SKK rifles, M1 carbines and other ex-military semi-automatics are out there already. Hidden in garage roofs and under floor boards. We all are still safe in our beds. Making them legal again will not put any more firearms into the hand of the real criminals.
We need to get back the confidence of the people of “the system”. By working with the shooting organisations. Developing methods to educate and train. If part of the license fee was put back for the shooters. Like fees paid for membership of The Sporting Shooters Association or the Field and Game Association. These organisations do provide a place for the firearms owner to practice, mix with experienced shooters and through their sort after journals, information and safety tips. The idiots and lunatics would soon be noticed. Formal supervision by the peer group will weed out the few undesirables. Assisted by the Government removing unenforceable legislation that discourages otherwise law abiding firearm owners and providing a means to join.
The shooting organisations will be able to provide an expanded service. The Government will have a direct link with the firearm owner and have an input of the information provided to them. Maybe even assisting shooters in feral pest reduction within State Forests and National Parks will help bring many back into the “fold”. As stated previously hunting and shooting ARE legitimate recreational pastimes standing out on moral and historical grounds.
No licensed target pistol shooter has ever committed a violent crime. There is no reason why they to cannot be encouraged and treated more like the responsible citizens they clearly are. If I can remove feral pests from the environment with a high powered rifle, why can’t licensed pistol owners sharpen their skills and improve safety the same way?
A brave stance for a sensible foward thinking Government would be to develop policies and legislation in the area of self defence. I propose they would find this to be more popular with the ordinary citizen than they think. There are a lot of frightened people “out there”. There is a perception that crime is out of control and that the Government is not tough on criminals. Many people rightly believe that the Police will not be able to protect them in their time of need. The public confidence in the Police is at an all time low. Police corruption is at an all time high.
The Police should not have the monopoly on self defence. It is not a case of black and white, good and bad, with all the honest and trustworthy citizens as members of the Police service and all the rest dangerous and dishonest criminals whose lives are deemed not worth defending by the legislation. Just WHO is the enemy? Them or us? This task will not be easy and any scheme will cost more to administer than one relating to the sporting use of firearms only.
The cost of suitable and on going training may be a problem. As will the issue of clearly defining “minimum force necessary” in the legislation. But I suspect those willing to take up the option will be well motivated. It is a subject that needs addressing. Criminals rarely strike whilst the Police are around. The Police are not my personal body guards, that is reserved for the politicians. The Police will not guarantee my personal safety, now or after the “gun bans” are passed.
Firearms have been around for hundreds of years. Semi-autos for at least the last 60 or 70 years. Yet the horrific mass murders by strangers are only a recent manifestation in our society. One theory is that the emergence of mindless crimes, like the Port Arthur tragedy, committed by mentally disturbed persons coincides with the invention and popular prescription of mind altering drugs by the medial profession?. Just a thought.
I am not advocating guns in every bed side drawer or the legalising of “machine guns”. Common sense needs to be applied. Reality needs to be faced. Government needs to listen to the real experts. Use and assist the Shooting organisations they are not gangs of killers and lunatics. Talk to people such as myself, whilst I have put the time effort into this submission there are many other persons who will echo these comments both from my coworkers and members of the public.
Lets get the Government, Police and the law-abiding firearm owner on the same side. We owe it to the future of our children to come up with strategies that WORK, really WORK, not “bandaid” laws that have no real effect on crime.“Bandaid” laws that cause responsible firearm owners, who can see the nonsense of them, to be disaffected and hostile towards the government that they feel has sacrificed them.
We can turn it around, it should be the criminal who is scared to walk the streets. Let us not have the collectivist idea that the good of the individual is superseded by the “good of the whole”. There is a (mistaken) impression that more lives would be saved if the individuals who would use firearms to successfully defend their lives were sacrificed “for the greater good” by taking those firearms away. There are a couple of serious flaws with this thinking.
Saving innocent lives is a higher priority with most of us than saving criminal lives (the criminals are the only ones who will benefit substantially from pointless “gun control” laws). Lets say for, the sake of argument only, that we can (and have) take away the right of self-defence of the “few” on moral grounds that it may? save some lives. We have arbitrarily condemned these few KNOWN innocents to death (those who would defend themselves from criminal attackers), to preserve the lives of others who are KNOWN criminals (the attackers). Any other “benefits” of gun control legislation should be analysed with this undeniable side-effect in mind.
By this logic, “society” can also decide to sacrifice a “few” individuals who are able to contribute much needed vital organs for transplantation into “many” individuals. By sacrificing just one person, we can certainly save the lives of a dozen others.
“Indeed, I am now of the opinion that a compelling case for “stricter gun control” cannot be made, at least not on empirical grounds. I have nothing but respect for the various pro-gun control advocates with whom I have come in contact over the past years. They are, for the most part, sensitive, humane and intelligent people, and their ultimate aim, to reduce death and violence in our society, is one that every civilized person must share. I have, however, come to be convinced that they are barking up the wrong tree.” -- James Wright (scholarly research).
In the long term crime can be prevented with social strategies that do not allow persons to get to the stage where they want, or have to turn to crime and violence. The same applies to suicide reduction. An enormous task a task for us all and one that cannot be achieved with “laws” alone[11].
“The right of self defence is an ancient, natural right, basic to every living creature which has not become extinct, and to every civilization which has survived against its enemies[12]”.
[pic]
The moral element of the gun control debate rests in an individual's right to self-defence. This right itself is not a primary, but rather it is a corollary of man's right to life. In essence, each man has the right to live his life for his own happiness in the liberty of a rational society. The number of people willing to murder, steal, and destroy will be far less frequent in a rational society than today, but even a relative few can be expected to exist in any society. Thus individuals will find their life and property threatened at times by those who choose to ignore reality, reason, and other people's rights. If a man has a right to his life, then he must have the necessary right to defend that life in times of need, ie., against those who act to violate his rights.
Without having to delve into statistics, or even discuss the nature of the right to property, it is easy to show the illogic of the argument that citizens should be disarmed. Given the prior acceptance of an individual's right to his life and his corollary right to self-defence, the conclusion that weapons should be privately owned naturally follows.
To argue otherwise is to drive a wedge between our moral rights and the existential means be which these rights are invoked. If you accept that an individual has a right to defend his life, then you must also accept the fact that this right means nothing without the physical means by which it can be invoked and acted upon.
Thus, an individual who possesses the right to defend his life when threatened must have the right to possess weapons for defending that life. The moral sanction for why individuals have a right to privately own weapons is: the right to self-defence. The average person will have no need to use his gun in self-defence during his entire lifetime. Surprisingly enough, the same is true for the police, too; the average Australian policeman will never even have occasion to draw his gun from its holster during his entire career. However, the infrequency of the need does not mean that the item is useless. The average driver will never “use” the airbag or seat belt on his car. However, both the gun and the airbag/seat belt are important, for if you “do” need one, you need it very badly and you need it RIGHT THEN.
If a man chooses to argue for a right, but denies its reality, then he has stepped into an explicit dichotomy between morality and reality, ie., mind and body, and the ultimate result is that man ends up having no rights whatsoever. The argument is the fascist claim that businessmen have a right to their property, but that the state must control the use and disposal of that property. A right without the means for invoking it is no right at all.
This is why businessmen in Nazi Germany, despite their possession of pieces of paper that had the words “Title to Property” on them, did not have any right to their property at all. And it is the same reason why a citizen of a country, despite having the words “right to life, liberty and property” in his constitution (if he is so lucky), does not have the right to his life or to the defence of it if he is denied the physical means by which to invoke and protect these rights.
Anyone who argues that a man has a right to a particular action, eg., ownership of property, but denies the means for possessing that right in actuality, eg., using and disposing of property, denies the very existence of the right wholesale. Persons with criminal intent NOW, can be deterred ONLY by making the risk very expensive. Severe mandatory prison terms. Make the choice of a victim, for a criminal, a game of “russian roulette”, Just who are the ones armed, trained and ready? Its all about SURVIVAL. Survival of the innocent individuals and survival of our communities in an imperfect world . I hope it never comes to a choice but, if necessary any Australian worthy of the name would prefer to live in a lawless ANARCHY rather than a TYRANNICAL POLICE STATE.
Laws don't limit what anyone can do; they set limits on what the State can exact punishment for, and limits on that punishment. If the resulting effect is that people choose to not do certain things, it's a side benefit. Whether or not an act is committed is still up to the person's choice, the law “cannot” force someone to not do something; otherwise, there would be no crime. Since it is already illegal (punishable) to commit a crime with a gun, what purpose is served by making guns illegal (since it will only create more criminals and make committing other crimes easier for the existing criminals)?
Violence and evil lurks within us all. The question is; How can we minimise the incidence of mass murder? And why does it appear it happening more often? So, the tendency toward slaughter that manifests itself is not the product of guns, it is merely trigged by things like isolation, over population, technology, television, materialism, drugs and alcohol. It is not an invention of modern civilization. It is not a uniquely human proclivity at all. lt comes from something both sub- and superhuman, something we share with apes, fish, even the ants, a brutality that speaks to us through the animals in our brain.
If man has contributed anything of his own to the equation, it is this: He has learned to dream of peace. But to achieve that dream, he will have to overcome what nature has built into him[13]. Dehumanising large sections of the community with selective legislation is not the answer.
Therefore those in the seats of power, no matter how virtuous their intentions, as potential lunatics and killers themselves, have no right to enforce their will on the rest of us just because of what we MIGHT do. It is the leaders of countries that have committed some of the worlds worst atrocities. Not those on the lower rungs of the social ladder. It is the leaders who should be looking at policies that reduce the influences and environmental factors that triggers the rage. It is clear now that some members of our society are more “fragile” than the rest of us.
At one time in the history of our technology, miners used to carry cages with canaries in them, deep into the mines, as a precaution against anoxia or poison gases. When the canaries, with their faster metabolisms, passed out, the miners knew it was time to get back topside in a hurry. Individuals like the Port Arthur killer are a civilization's canaries, indicating to everyone with half an eye to see (except, of course, for politicians, bureaucrats and media stars society's chief generators of metaphorical gases), that something has gone dreadfully wrong.
Unlike politicians and bureaucrats, most Australians have a fair idea of what it is. Despite the most strenuous efforts at truth suppression on the part of the mass media (who have sold out contemptibly to a government they were intended to continuously oppose) we've reached a kind of saturation level where almost everybody knows personally of some blatant violation of individual rights that somehow didn't make the evening news. Or of some hard working farmer run of his land, of some struggling business snowed under by piles of bureaucratise paper work.
It's time for all of us “miners” to get topside in a hurry. “Topside” means a return to the basic operating principles. Turn the tide against the “pollical correct” vocal minorities. Ignore the self opinionated over rated media “stars”. And make this the most peaceful, prosperous, and progressive nation a sorry, bloodsoaked world had ever seen.
The alternative? Well, that would be going on the way we have, wouldn't it? With the politicians and bureaucrats doing whatever the hell they want to us -- hiding behind body armour and an ever increasing mountain of laws and regulations and more and more of the canaries among us popping off their perch-- until all of our freedoms have vanished and our streets are turned in to no-go zones. When the next mass killing occurs with an already banned, unregistered, unlicensed, stolen or a home made weapon /bomb don’t blame me. I have tried.
[pic]
Please contact me for any further information.
[pic]
ADDENDUM
“If the price I must pay for my freedom is to acknowledge that the government was granted the power to infringe on them, then I am not free”.
-- Pol Anderson
“And I cannot see, why arms should be denied to any man who is not a slave, since they are the only true badges of liberty”..
Andrew Fletcher \\A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias\\ USA. 1698.
Let the danger be never so great, there is a possibility of safety while men have life, hands, arms, and courage to use them; but that people must certainly perish, who tamely suffer themselves to be oppressed”.
Algernon Sidney.
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant”. -- John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty” 1859.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” -- Frederic Bastiat
“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits. ... and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction”. --St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in, I Blackstone
COMMENTARIES St. George Tucker,Editor, 1803, pg. 300 (App.)
[pic]
PORT ARTHUR WITHOUT GUNS
-----------------------
[1]Unless otherwise noted all figures from “Myths about Gun Control”
[2]Law and Order, January 1995 pg 301 [National US Police Journal]
[3]Kleck, Point Blank pg 116.
[4]National Rifle Association USA.
[5]From The History of the Han Dynasty, 124 B.C.
[6] The same legal/self-defence situation as found in Australia.
[7]Rates are per 100,000 population.
[8]Homicide rate does not include “political” murders.
[9]Interesting to note is that the IRA have claimed more victims with home made bombs than with firearms!
[10]See article SSAA ILA “Crime Control” By Ted Drane
[11]Figures for 1988 suggest that 34½% of all persons feel unsafe out at night, The Size of the Crime Problem in Australia, Mukherjee & Dagger. Latest figures would be higher!
[12]Myths about Guns, James E Edwards pg 74.
[13] Recommended reading “The Lucifer Principle”; Howard BLOOM
-----------------------
[pic]
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- counter argument for police brutality
- average pension for police officer
- retirement benefits for police officers
- retirement for police officers
- counterclaim for police brutality
- another word for due to the fact
- german minister for foreign affairs
- pension for police officer
- minister for health ghana
- ticket books for police officers
- counter claims for police brutality
- title for police brutality essay