You may have a seen a meme recently courtesy of the gents at Aussie LAFO Memes, discussing the hypocrisy of Queensland Police Commissioner Ian Stewart calling for further bans on firearms while at the same time wanting semi-automatic rifles for Queensland Police.
Commissioner Stewart took exception to that subtle prodding:
As you can see, Commissioner Stewart went full authoritarian. Never go full authoritarian.
That aside, the argument I and many firearm owners in this country are sick of hearing is “why do you need a gun?”
From the try-hards at The Project to the Alannah and Madeline Foundation sponsored puppets at the Herald Sun, the catch cry and often default argument of many of the anti-firearm persuasion is “why do you need it?”
Well, the answer is simple: none of your business.
The “why do you need it” argument is purely an authoritarian one. In other words (and in the case of the genuine reason criterion), “prove to me that you ‘need’ this firearm and if I personally believe that you require it, I may grant you permission to have one.”
Put simply, “I know better than you what is best for you.” Well guess what? No, you don’t.
Other than conveying a false sense of omnipotence, it also infers a sense of vapid moral elitism. “Oh I don’t need a firearm, I’m a better person than you.” Well no, that kind of attitude says you aren’t.
Further, you’ll also find that those that trot out the ‘need’ argument are really just pro-firearm by proxy. They scream for firearm control, yet won’t enforce it themselves and want those armed with firearms to go and enforce firearm control on those least likely, as proven by an entire Senate Inquiry, to commit firearm crime. Just like everyone becomes a libertarian at tax time, they’re also incredibly pro-firearm when they are being robbed, home invaded, carjacked, etc and the rest.
A more factually correct perspective for some of these folks would be: you hope you would never need a firearm.
The disconnect on the self-defence angle of this argument by the Australian populace writ large is evident in general discussions, however it is slowly being eroded as people are being red pilled on the realities of self-defence in Australia, particularly in Melbourne.
Many also can’t seem to reconcile the right to self-defence with the impracticality of not having the legal means, and trot out absurd arguments such as “just be compliant” or “learn martial arts.” Yes, what better way to keep yourself “safe” in a self-defence situation by having to put yourself further at risk and go hands on.
This is the case with Ian Stewart, who enjoys the luxury of open carrying a firearm for self-defence while telling the plebs not to indulge in the same rights he has. Do as we say, not as we do.
Firearms have always been a part of Australia’s culture. We don’t have the same firearm culture as the United States, which was founded on a rebellion, but we have always had one and it’s intellectually dishonest to compare us to the USA. Ours mirrors that of New Zealand, which has incredibly more relaxed firearm laws and is not drowning in a sea of blood. According to the ACIC’s latest report, Australians imported a record 122,000 firearms in 2014. Firearms are here to stay.
The “why do you need it” argument is also an attempt to deliberately conflate appreciation and love of firearms with the desire to murder. This, of course, is absolute nonsense and a deliberate tactic to delegitimise firearm ownership as being for the “sole purpose of murder” and the false assumption that anyone who likes firearms must purely want them to kill people. It’s a frankly nonsense argument.
The reality also is there are already people out in the community who have illegal firearms, who don’t care for the law and will use them to commit ill will. Put bluntly, they could care less for permission and you aren’t going to achieve anything by restricting me because of them. And furthermore, it is very easy to acquire illegal firearms in Australia. The fixation which some people have in the firearm debate in Australia, that of punishing the majority because of a tiny irresponsible minority instead of forcing the minority to come up to the standard required or suffer individual consequences, is irrational.
A firearm’s primary purpose is to fire a projectile. It’s end application is entirely user defined. And while Boston Dynamics aren’t far off from bringing Skynet to a reality, firearms do not possess sentience. Ironically in the case of Skynet, I’m sure you’ll find many an anti-firearm proponent suddenly become pro-firearm should that scenario arise. After Facebook’s latest AI incident, it may seem more real than you think.
There’s a degree of responsibility that comes with a firearm, no question. However, it’s no more than the responsibility that we entrust many people with for a variety of potentially dangerous items and machines on a daily basis. Sure, firearms have applications that they are more suitable for than others but overall, they are inanimate tools.
They are a native wildlife and live stock protector, food acquirer, sporting equipment, antique and self-defence tool. And most of all, they are fun.
This, in my view, invalidates the genuine reason and permit to acquire nonsense which does absolutely nothing for “public safety” and is purely immature, authoritarian bureaucracy.
The reality is, firearm owners just want to be left alone to enjoy their lifestyle. We’re not running around emotively busybodying in everyone else’s life, but we will defend our lifestyle from those who busybody in ours. Don’t want a gun? Don’t buy one.
If we take Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as a crude argument, human beings need air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex and sleep. Anything else outside that is a want. You don’t need that car, you’ve got two legs. You don’t need a knife, go to the butcher. You don’t need to drink alcohol, it kills 15 people a day in Australia. And on it goes.
Jim Jefferies is reknown for his anti-gun schtick punctuated with the line “F*** off I like guns.”
Well yeh, I like guns, and for those of us who have agreed to have a background check, that’s reason enough.
The one thing I don’t need is your moral “approval.”