New South Wales’ Parliament is currently taking community submissions for the upcoming Firearms and Weapons Legislation Amendment (Criminal Use) Bill 2020. You can find details on it here.
Whilst presenting itself as a bill designed to assist law enforcement tackle illegal firearm manufacture by creating new offences, the bill is written in such a broad way that it could criminalize many law-abiding shooters.
You can read our submission in the downloadable PDF above.
It’s obvious to many that the Australian media and politicians have been at the forefront of shaping Australians’ perception on firearms, particularly to those who are indifferent or against firearms in general.
The level of astounding mistruths and misinformation that are promulgated on this topic in Australia is of epic proportions, but like any issue, unless you’re a firearm owner or clued on about guns in some way you aren’t going to know that. Frankly, most Australian journalists and politicians are rubbish when it comes to the issue of firearms.
It’s important to understand how they have been able to achieve this and it’s very simple: through language. In reality, they nearly always employ a barrage of emotive buzzwords in place of any sane debate or discussion on this topic in Australia. It is exactly the same trick as yelling “racist” or “bigot” when you want to shut down a debate on immigration or any other issue.
There many terms used by the Australian media and politicians to stifle debate on firearms and we’ve identified the five worst phrases.
Google just about any article on firearms in Australia and it’s a safe bet that the Port Arthur Massacre is in some way mentioned.
This is, in reality, a form of trauma-based neurolinguistic programming. When Port Arthur is uttered, the average Australians’ thought process goes something like this: “Port Arthur Massacre – man killed lots of people – semi autos are bad – John Howard changed gun laws – no mass shootings since.”
All of these points are demonstrably false when explored with an open, objective mindset and a hint of critical thinking. There’s little to no discussion by the media of where the AR15 used allegedly came from, the Police response time, the active role John Howard and Tim Fischer took in ensuring there was no Coronial Inquiry or Royal Commission or any discussion about how the National Firearms Agreement was formulated as far back as 1991 by Labor. There’s no exploration of the relationship between NFA architect Rebecca Peters and her personal financier, George Soros.
It was infamously said that the reason for no Royal Commission into the events at Port Arthur was because of ‘trauma to the victims’, but it seems that goes out the window whenever there is some issue regarding firearms in this country and it’s ok to keep bringing it up and put the victims’ through it every time.
It is the go-to weapon of the media but fortunately, the knife has really started to become blunt. Continually relying on Port Arthur as your primary argument for gun control is in fact, a weak one.
“American style gun culture!”
Another buzzword deemed fail safe and arguably the 2nd worst used. If in doubt, just bring up some vague comparison to the USA and the debate is, apparently, over.
There’s never any discussion about the complete disparity between the two nations which add validity to any discussion: levels of income disparity, population size, gang activity, health services, demographic crime trends, etc. It’s just a straight up, superficial black and white reference.
Comparing Australia to the United States is an intellectually dishonest, false binary argument. There’s never any mention of the daily examples of firearm self-defence by US citizens which far outweigh the total number of homicides ever year. There’s no discussion about disproportionately higher African-American crime rates or the scourge of Mexican cartel violence spilling onto US soil. Those who cite this argument also almost always don’t know what the laws actually are or the wide variance of laws at the federal, state and county level.
There’s also no comparison to other western countries such as Canada, Switzerland, Czech Republic, etc which have far more liberal gun laws and comparable crime rates to Australia.
The reality is the per capita murder rate in the US has declined 49% over the last 25 years while firearm sales and concealed carry permit holders have nearly trebled. Meanwhile, south of the border, Mexico just posted a record number of homicides for 2017 in a country with gun laws stricter than the UK. Don’t worry though, their lives don’t count.
It’s also amazing that Australians’ are so open to sledging the US on this issue, yet we complain about not being able to defend ourselves in our own homes and are 100% reliant on the ANZUS treaty for military protection against foreign threats.
The amount of lies told about self-loading, semi-automatic rifles in Australia is astounding.
The biggest one being is that they’re banned completely in Australia. Well no, they’re still legal. Semi-auto handguns are also still available. However, the restrictions on both of them are absolutely ridiculous and make very little common or legislative sense that they are virtually banned.
The doublespeak around semi-automatic rifles is even more blatant when Police are praised for having them yet citizens are demonized for the same. When the Police have them they are deemed “proper and necessary tools to protect the public” but when the public have them they are “killing machines designed purely to commit the next Port Arthur”. Seems fair and reasonable.
Semi-autophobia is one of the leading causes of ignorance in Australia in the firearm debate. Meanwhile, over the ditch in New Zealand (and a slew of other countries), one of these can be hand on the lowest category of licence and remains the most popular rifle in NZ. No “mass shootings” there in 21 years either.
First of all, you cannot buy back something you did not own in the first place – this is sleight of hand. The use of this term is deliberate and invokes a sense of mutual agreement. “Don’t worry mate, we’ll be a good government and give you some cash for that gun and she’ll be right”. The reality, as we have seen, was far more sinister than that.
Call it for what it was: compensated confiscation with the threat of imprisonment. Seriously, does this look like a passive buy back to you?
Further, the number of number of firearms that were confiscated by the government seems to inflate year on year and depends on who is doing the reporting. There’s also no mention of several of those firearms re-entering circulation due to negligence and corruption in 1998 either. Or you could ask Michael Keenan about how many were recently handed in.
“No mass shootings since 1996!”
Patently false and one of the more annoying catch cries. If we want to get technical, then the last mass shooting in Australia honour goes to NSW Police, who shot an escaped mental patient with a pair of scissors and three old ladies out for morning tea at Westfield Hornsby in 2016. But that’s ok, because the government did it.
There is no international consensus on what constitutes a mass shooting. The FBI uses mass killing as 4 or more. Interpol use 4 or more, some countries use 3 or more. Should it be people shot or people shot and killed? Who is right?
Australia has changed the definition of mass murder multiple times since 1996 and the latest research by the notoriously anti-firearm University of Sydney used “5 or more killed by one or more perpetrators” to get around the Logan shootings in 2014. They also were forced to concede they couldn’t attribute any decline to the 1996 laws.
They also discount the massive decline in firearm homicide, as shown by the ABS no less, between 1980 and 1995.
Mass shootings are a poor metric of firearm law effectiveness. We now have daily gun crime in our cities, home invasions and car jackings are now a regular occurrence and the public is unable to protect themselves against it with so much as a pepper spray.
Declaring that victims of mass shootings are somehow more dead than those that are killed by other means is also a facile argument. Do victims care how they’re killed or injured? No, they care about why it happened and how it could have been avoided. We have had many sickening mass casualty attacks since Port Arthur, some with and some without firearms, with vehicles now seemingly the latest trend.
There’s absolutely nothing to stop another mass shooting – as Man Monis, Rick Maddison and a slew of other incidents have shown. And the second another major one happens in Australia, the apologists won’t know what to do with themselves.
There’s also been no mass shootings in New Zealand for the last 21 years either despite not changing the laws, but that doesn’t count for some reason.
Obviously, the above is not an exhaustive list. There are several other terms that they employ like “assault rifle”, “high powered”, etc, which are equally as dishonest and have the same objective.
Again, education and experience are key in the firearm debate. The media and political class know this, hence why they invest so much time and energy in emotive linguistics to keep the debate in a juvenile context.
However, you can only cry wolf so many times before the magic wears off and the fake news MSM seem not to have learnt their lesson.
It’s not all bad though, in 2017 during the firearm amnesty Channel 9’s Brett MacLeod interviewed Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MLC Jeff Bourman in a very balanced and noteworthy interview. This is the standard the debate should be at in the media and kudos to Brett MacLeod for providing some much needed balance.
Deputy Premier John Barilaro has been accused by Labor of encouraging vigilantes and seeking to foster “an American-style guns culture” after calling for an inquiry into the issue of self-defence using a firearm. Mr Barilaro, who is Nationals leader, has written to the Legislative Assembly committee on Law and Safety seeking an inquiry into the operation of the Firearms Act “in relation to persons who believe they are reasonably and proportionately responding to a threat imposed on themselves of their family”.
So, it appears that Barilaro is making good on his post-Dunstan pledge to review the state’s self-defence laws. Whether this is just lip service from the crumbling Nationals or genuine remains to be seen.
Then this from NSW Labor’s Luke Foley:
“I don’t want a bar of an American-style guns culture here in Australia,” he said. “The last thing our political leaders should be doing is giving encouragement to vigilantes. Mr Barilaro should not walk away from the current bipartisan support for Australia’s strong gun laws”.
In other words: “I don’t want a bar of people being able to defend themselves.”
Disgraceful. I guess David Dunstan, Ben Batterham and the rest are all just irresponsible and should have been good victims. Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner Steve Fontana seems to agree. Essentially, Luke Foley and his ilk are saying that no-one should be able to prevent assault, robbery, rape or murder with a legally held firearm. It’s this kind of hubris from the armed security loving politicians towards the plebs which have many looking for alternatives.
“US style gun culture” is just another of the usual buzzwords thrown about by idiots like Foley in place of an actual argument. No definition of terms, no exploration of the facts: just cheap throwaway soundbites. Maybe he should go tell Stephen Willeford that he should not have intervened at Sutherland Springs church.
And on that note, Sam Lee then put out a press release:
“There is no other way to describe the call for the use of guns for self-defence other than dumb and dangerous. Mr. Barilaro has been watching too many movies.
Self-defence is the same argument used time and time again by the National Rifle Association (NRA) to justify the blocking of any restriction on the availability of high powered firearms, and look at how well that has panned out for the America”, says MS Lee. “If Mr. Barilaro were to look at the statistics he would discover that guns kept in the home for self–defence is more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt.
Research released this year by the Violence Policy Centre in America shows that in 2014, the most recent year for which data is available, there were only 224 homicides where a person was found to have legally used a gun for self-defence, compared to 7,670 criminal firearm homicides. The study also reveals that in eighteen States there were zero justifiable homicides.”
Criminal firearm homicides? You mean like people with criminal records who aren’t able to access firearms legally killing each other? Ridiculous comparison.
Let’s actually have a look at what the Center for Disease Control themselves found in 2015:
“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.”
So DGU’s are several factors higher than firearm homicides and prevent more crimes.
It goes on:
“A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual Bottom of Form defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.”
So not only are DGU’s higher than homicides, you are less likely to be injured armed than unarmed.
Furthermore, “law enforcement reported 770 justifiable homicides in 2015. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 442 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 328 people during the commission of crimes. (See Expanded Homicide Data Tables 14 and 15.)”
It is worth noting that successful Defensive Gun Uses do not necessarily mean you have to kill someone for it to be considered a successful Defensive Gun Use. If the act of brandishing a firearm prevents or ceases the commission of a crime, a la David Dunstan, then that is a successful Defensive Gun Use.
On the basis of the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, the US has also experienced a nearly 49% decline in the per capita homicide rate since 1991 and in the same time period nearly 200 million firearms have been added to supply:
There is also dramatic variance at the state level in terms of crime and it can be difficult to assign a national homicide rate given the variance in laws, demographics and crime patterns. There are an estimated 2.5 million Americans in gangs.
Thank for playing, Sam.
If you don’t want to waste 5 minutes of your life you aren’t going to get back, Lee then goes on to use US car deaths to bolster her argument (which are far higher than firearms) and then makes a reference about white children being killed at Sandy Hook. What does the colour of the victims’ skin have to do with anything? Does Lee wish to discuss the incredibly high and disproportionate representation of African-Americans in US crime and homicide statistics? Or does she not care about them?
The reality of self-defence with firearms in the United States, and other countries such as the Czech Republic, is almost always never discussed in Australia for obvious reasons. The David Dunstan case has however, red pilled many folks on said reality both here and in Australia.
The only thing “Dumb and Dangerous” is Sam Lee when she’s within 3 metres of a computer or microphone.
And perhaps Luke Foley should have another glass of soy milk and reconsider his position on whether he supports the law abiding or criminals.
Gun Control Australia spokesman Charles Watson gave an interview on the ABC this week on the national firearm amnesty. As usual, GCA were allowed to air their view unopposed, with no pro-firearm guest on to counter the myriad of farcical claims made by Watson.
Who is Charles Watson? Well, he has a career in Medicine and academic research. He’s also one of the infamous University of Sydney alumni which houses Philip Alpers, Rebecca Peters and Simon Chapman. Why he’s decided to diminish his other qualifications by jumping on the GCA gravy train while having no expertise or research in firearms, remains a mystery.
The interview was about as formulaic as it gets in terms of standard GCA talking points, with Watson stammering and stuttering his way through it.
Watson conceded that criminals and terrorists wouldn’t turn their guns in at the amnesty. No kidding? He also claims that storage laws need to be tightened but was completely oblivious to the theft at Barry’s Firearms that occurred in the state of his residence, with the strictest storage laws in the country. Not off to a great start.
The usual fallacious claim of “no massacres since 1996” was made straight off the bat as well, which comes as news to the victims of our latest massacre at Bourke Street; the standard “only counts if you get shot” mantra applies here. David Leyonhjelm wrote a great article last week addressing this continually perpetuated “no massacres” myth and the accompanying goal post shifting and mental gymnastics that goes with it, rendering Watson’s claim inert.
Watson then claimed the 1996 firearm steal-back was “effective in getting pump action shotguns and semi-automatic firearms out of the community.” That comes as a surprise to Man Monis, Rick Maddison and the rest.
Watson also didn’t mention the recently released report by the NSW Department of Primary Industries, which showed the hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs that hunting in NSW tips into the state’s economy.
This is where it gets entertaining. Watson claimed that “6000 firearms a year were stolen” and that “99% of illicit firearms were stolen from the legal market.” A claim so bold that even the normally biased, ABC host’s expression was one of disbelief.
The National Firearm Theft Monitoring Program produced it’s last report in 2011 and stated that “a total of 1,570 firearms were stolen in 620 reported incidents of firearm theft in 2008–09 from all Australian states and territories excluding Western Australia.”
The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s latest report states “Theft accounts for the diversion of 8.5 per cent of firearms traced in 2015–16. While it is likely some of these stolen firearms come into the possession of organised crime groups, the total number is unknown.”
The Senate Inquiry from 2015 is the most damning for Watson’s claims: “Data provided by state and territory police indicated that firearms from a very small percentage of theft incidents (less than 5 per cent) reported in the four year period 2005-06 to 2008-09 were subsequently used to commit a criminal offence or found in the possession of a person charged with a non-firearm related criminal offence.”
Watson also claimed that the AFP were “very good at detecting illegal firearms.” Well that’s not what the Auditor General’s office stated in it’s latest report on the scanning of international mail, where the ANAO’s report indicated that around only 13 per cent of prohibited imports arriving in international mail were seized in 2012-13. The AFP even admitted at the same Senate Inquiry they only knew about what they intercepted. Considering their current struggles with encrypted messages, the plot thickens.
And to top that off, Australian Border Force failed to meet their container inspection targets for 2015-16, which still only accounts for 3% of the 2,300,000 containers on average that arrive in Australia.
Roland Browne then claimed the next day on ABC Radio it was “2000 firearms stolen.” Piers Grove, perhaps the lesser known face of GCA, wrote different numbers in the official GCA press release. It seems that GCA can’t even co-ordinate their propaganda correctly and that the A in GCA might as well stand for amateur.
The entire interview was purely Watson reading off a script and collecting his cheque.
That cheque may be diminishing returns considering that Gun Control Australia’s “fighting fund” has not even met half of their goal at the time of writing (I’m sure GetUp and the rest will ‘anonymously’ donate them the money). According to the same campaign, GCA is “staffed by all volunteers.”
It seems that money can’t buy credibility or popularity for GCA. Charles Watson should stick to medicine because the prognosis for his credibility on firearms is a resounding negative.
Peters had taken time off from her work in Guatemela to accept the award. Considering it is ranked 10th worldwide for per capita homicide, seems like she has “work” cut out for her. Surely a National Firearms Agreement will solve that one.
Peters was only outdone in the farcical award stakes just two days later by Gillian Triggs being given an award for freedom of speech. It just goes to show that these institutions have been cheapened beyond redemption and are no longer about contribution to Australia, but rather just blatant politicisation.
The former head of the Coalition for Gun Control, Peters’ took to the ABC in full force. She first appeared on ABC Radio to call for a “national firearms audit” but completely avoided explaining how that would actually work, how much it would cost, how it would account for illegal firearms and what benefit it would have other than for any government bureaucracy to leak data from.
While wearing her Order of Australia medal to give her apparent credibility, Peters again trotted out the false claim that Australian firearm laws are “being watered down.” Apparently, putting a 7 shot lever action shotgun in the same category as an AR15 is “watering down the agreement.”
Loosely translated, Peters meant to say that her master George Soros and his UN cohort weren’t happy with the National Firearms Agreement Review and want it done again. Further, that aside from one change, spending 18 months on a review that went nowhere, ignored stakeholders and resulted in virtually copying and pasting the previous agreement, is apparently worth doing all over again.
Peters claimed that this alleged watering down was not in the “spirit of the agreement.” What is the “spirit of the agreement?” Was it financially blackmailing Queensland and South Australia into accepting the NFA in 1996 by withholding federal funding until they did? That’s about as “spirited” as The Drum not allowing a pro firearm counter argument on their show to rebut Peters’ claims.
Peters’ claimed that the 28 day wait period on a subsequent firearm purchase for licence holders, should be rigorously enforced and that it was being watered down. The only state to enforce the ‘subsequent 28 day PTA’ law is the epicentre of useless bureaucracy, the ACT (on Cat A/B). Queensland and Tasmania (which currently only has one staff member who works part-time to process Permit to Acquire applications, hence the recent backlog) used to have this policy but then dropped it when it was quickly apparent that it was an impractical mess.
Peters’ suggestions are ludicrous but not surprising. Does she really expect that respective Police forces around Australia have the time, energy and manpower to now conduct audits and investigations of each individual licence holder every time they apply for a new firearm? If we take Victoria as an example, according to the Combined Firearms Council of Victoria we find that as of 2014 there are over 214,000 firearm owners and growing in that state at the rate of 2.4% per annum. If just 10% purchase a new firearm in one year, that’s 21,400 “investigations” that Victoria Police, who are already massively understaffed and dealing with a 10% increase in crime, are expected to perform in addition to their daily duties.
Maths, like her knowledge of gun laws or telling the truth generally, is obviously not Peters’ strong suit. By the way Rebecca, when did we make laws based on feelings? “Spirit” of the agreement, indeed.
The other interesting claim that Peters made was “we still have 170 firearm suicides a year.”
Well digging into our archives, this is what Peters’ said in 1996:
The ABS data shows that a record 3,027 suicides occurred in 2015. The ABS stopped recording the method of suicide in 2009 but going off those statistics as a guide, we see not much has changed and firearm suicides are a small percentage of all suicide:
So, essentially firearm suicide has not changed, remains a small percentage of overall suicides and that the NFA has essentially no bearing on the suicide rate, which has been steadily increasing in recent years:
Many of those firearm suicides are rural suicides. Ironically, some of these are by farmers pushed to the brink by the feral pest epidemic – a by-product of the ridiculous NFA. So, instead of doing something constructive to assist those in rural areas who may be at greater risk of suicide, Peters just wants to take away one tool of many. Right.
The rate of firearm suicide has essentially not changed, while overall suicide is up. So why did we spend $600 million and a ton of other money on pointless restrictions? To prevent mass stabbings too like this morning in Brisbane?
Further, how are heavy restrictions on semi-automatic firearms of any benefit to preventing suicide in the first place?As we all know, it’s those second and third follow up shots that really make the difference in suicide prevention, much like a banker committing suicide by apparently shooting himself seven times with a nail gun.
As we spoke about last week, the upcoming Queensland election has Ms Peters and her ilk well and truly worried. The One Nation factor, the Katter factor and the fact the Queensland Labor are well and truly on the nose, not just for their earlier transgressions against Primary Producers, is what has them spooked. But probably not as spooked as the “one address with over 300 firearms”.
That was a licenced firearm collector by the way, Rebecca. Lay down with David Shoebridge, get up with fleas.
It’s always great seeing individuals come up with pro-shooting sport initiatives. The forefront of our movement will always stem from the grassroots level, and those men and woman who go above and beyond.
One of those women is Marion Barnes. Marion is a member of the SSAA Shepparton Branch, and organises the annual ‘Girls with Guns’ day.
Some words from Marion below: “This is what can be achieved when passion combines with common sense, to achieve a fantastic outcome for our sport. Women in shooting sports is the fastest growing demographic, therefore we need to see more ranges stepping up and following the lead that SSAA Shepparton range is doing.
Range publicity officer and coordinator of the “Girls with Guns” event Marion Barnes, would like to give thanks and acknowledgement to SSAA Shepparton in putting this day together. Marion credits a wise man for telling her that “everything starts with an idea” She had this crazy notion to run a triple discipline event from her range to allow ladies to get a feeling for what discipline they would feel comfortable shooting, she credits her range for having the foresight in supporting her idea.
Marion wishes to thank her forward thinking committee and band of hard working volunteers for their support. We delivered a great experience for the ladies, with many now looking to take up the sport with several signed up for membership on the day and several junior licence applications were taken home. To assist the ladies in taking the next step, we provided packs for the ladies to take home, consisting of information on how to set about getting their license, the firearms safety code handbook, licence application and information from SSAA on safe storage of firearms.
Marion had the day fully sponsored so it was a totally free day for the ladies and acknowledges what an important role sponsors play, as without their support we could not offer this day free to our ladies. The feedback has been simply amazing and proves we are on a winning idea in presenting shooting as a viable sport conducted in a safe heavily controlled environment under instruction. Shooting is the perfect sport that appeals to all ages and abilities. We had 12yr old girls right through to a retired professional lady at 70ys old and all enjoyed the day amongst their peers.”
In true government style when no-one was paying attention on a Friday afternoon, the ‘new’ National Firearms Agreement was released by the Attorney General’s office on Friday. The review took two years, wasted a ton of public money, took no intentional public consultation other than an inadvertent leak of the Attorney General’s email address – all for a ton of authoritarian bureaucrat self-importance.
At first glance, many questions arise. There are a few changes to the handgun part of the NFA which need further clarification. However, two changes stand out the most.
All PTA’s now 28 days? What would this achieve? Nothing. How much time and money would it waste? A lot.
For example, the current turnaround for PTA’s in Victoria is usually as little as a few hours. Why would an efficient processing system then suddenly decide to turn around and arbitrarily extend waiting periods on each subsequent purchase, all for the sake of “public safety”? This would only do one thing – blowout public costs and further add fuel to the fire of abolishing the registry. It would do absolutely nothing to stop criminal misuse of firearms but we didn’t really need to make that point again.
Exactly what Michael Gannon and the rest of the Clown Doctors, sorry, the Australian Medical Association has been calling for the past few weeks. As we and others have repeatedly pointed out, firearm registration is an expensive, unproven joke.
The government’s recent string of IT failures also just shows you how ideology has taken over on the firearms issue. Why give criminals eight databases to target when they can now target one nationally? Yes, Crimtrac is already in place but it’s annual report shows nothing of benefit in terms of crimes stopped or prevented by a registry.
Essentially, the NFA released on Friday was nothing more than a copy and paste of the original NFA – hardly anything has changed. The only real change of note was the ridiculous move of lever action shotguns to their respective categories.
When you call something an ‘agreement’ but have to financially blackmail several states with federal funding to even get it considered, you’ve already cheapened the term ‘agreement’. The NFA holds no legally binding power and it’s essentially an informal ‘agreement’ which in reality shouldn’t exist.
The one concern is that this latest ‘revision’ is part of a broader, long term move to take firearms out of the state’s hands and into the hands of the federal government – a dangerous precedent. This would require a constitutional change, however the esteemed scumbags in Canberra have made subversion of the constitution almost an art form over the years, primarily by pulling the federal funding card, aka the “John Howard special.”
While it seems Western Australia has already decided to sidestep the voters and amend the firearm regulations regarding lever action shotguns, the battle ground of Queensland is where the real action is. If the polls hold to their line then the National Firearms Agreement is in for a rude shock.
Who is Rebecca Peters for the uninitiated? Peters is an American born “academic” and lesser public face mainly credited as the silent architect of the 1996 National Firearms Agreement – which gets even more interesting when you have a read of the document release from the 1991 Keating Cabinet Files that show that the gun laws were drafted well before 1996. They were at work long before Port Arthur.
She’s also a former George Soros Open Society employee (Soros is her personal patron) and the former director of both IANSA and the Coalition for Gun Control. And of course, working for the UN.
Who is George Soros? If you’ve been living under a rock he’s the guy who deviously backed Hillary Clinton, funds ‘revolutions’ a la Ukraine, Black Lives Matter, etc and generally tries to overthrow governments and fund mayhem where it benefits him wherever he can – killing thousands of people and making thousands more lives miserable in the process. Quite bluntly, an unaccountable scumbag of the highest order.
Peters has recently been re-recruited by the University of Sydney alongside the infamous duo of bansturbator Simon Chapman and pseudoscientist extraordinaire Philip Alpers; to produce more false data and justification of authoritarianism.
How does Peters receive such an award when the evidence clearly shows that nothing changed? In fact, the University of Sydney’s own latest“research” was even forced to admit that it was impossible to determine if the laws had any effect on the already declining homicide rate, even after they changed the definition of mass shooting from 4 victims to now 5 victims killed by 1 or more people – the 2nd time this definition has been changed since 1996. Can’t have a certain someone’s legacy unwinding now, can we?
Perhaps Australians’ will now make the connection that the false sense of security known as “gun control” that many of them worship, was nothing to do with “keeping them safe” and everything to do with public disarmament.This is the same public that is increasingly angry with the Australian government continually selling the country out, yet magically trusts the same government to be the only ones allowed to be protected by firearms – ones that were banned or restricted for “our safety”. 2 legs good, 4 legs bad.
This cognitive dissonance was completely evident after the recent Bourke Street attack. The government again failed to protect citizens despite it’s massive security and Police apparatus and the assailant used alternative means to commit a massacre. If the social media comments were any indication it was the same tired old “MOAR POLICE! TOUGHER JUDGES!” crowd, screaming for more of the same failed bureaucratic authoritarianism to protect them. The mind boggles.
Note how Gun Control Australia are yet to issue a statement over Bourke Street and the Alannah and Madeline Foundation only issued a statement 3 days later, after they were called out for lack of statement?
There is absolutely no valid reason or evidence for Peters to receive this honour. If reclassifying a lever action shotgun that was shown repeatedly to not have been used in crime is it – then that is an incredibly low benchmark for a “gun control expert.” This “award” is 100% a political PR move – partly designed to save face in the increasing scepticism of the 1996 NFA and to attempt to make gun control still seem palatable.
It also shows you the agenda laid bare – the authoritarians’ fear of an increasingly sceptical public grows and the expedition of the public disarmament agenda must continue – they’re doubling down.
Remember the mantra people – “no massacres since 1996.” If you’re killed by something other than a gun, you don’t count. Neither does the almost daily gun and violent crime now being seen in our major cities across Australia, virtually all of it being perpetrated by seasoned criminals and imported demographics – also a John Howard policy failure but you’re not allowed to talk about that. Something something “Muh Big Australia.”
Peters is yet another authoritarian masquerading as some kind of public policy “hero.” The truth is – the facts don’t support her and her dark associations and financiers further shred her credibility.
It also shows you what the Order of Australia and Australian of the Year awards have become – a politically correct, taxpayer funded farce.
As the fallout from the Adler disaster continues, one thing Law Abiding Firearm Owners and the public can (hopefully) learn from the entire debacle is the true colours of the major political parties were shown. Yet again.
As the saying goes “Fool me once shame on you, fool me again shame on me.”
Perhaps Queensland Police Minister Mark Ryan can explain why the opinion of Queensland Police changed within the space of a year:
After essentially selling out his fellow shooters who also frequent Murrumba Pistol Club, it amazes me how his membership there has not been terminated.
Further, the Queensland Labor minority government launched this garbage in response to a perceived threat by the LNP to block the changes to the Adler reclassification:
As you can see, it’s Queensland. It’s Labor. It’s the usual fail. It’s also a brave move for a minority government where 15% of the electorate own firearms. Bye bye Anna.
In my opinion, this is nothing but posturing and self preservation from the LNP. The reality is they know they are about to get spanked by Katter’s Australian Party and One Nation in Queensland, in response to this and many other issues the major parties have been selling Queensland and the rest of the country out on, and this is purely survival mode for votes.
As far as firearm owners are concerned, the LNP are the abusive boyfriend/girlfriend that continually treats you like shit but you keep going back to, because they say the right things at the right time. They will knife firearm owners the first chance they get in Queensland, as they have everywhere else. Their long and short term history speaks for itself. They reneged on a national deal and undercut the NSW Police Minister Troy Grant with no shame in the last six months – what makes you think this is any different? It’s the same twenty year old story.
To top it off, I would bet my last dollar that Malcolm Turnbull will most likely pull the same card John Howard did in 1996 and threaten to withhold federal funding, should the reclassification fail to pass in Queensland.
So how do we really change things and make the LNP pay? Wipe out the Nationals, just like in 1998 and in Orange. The Nationals have drifted so far from their roots in the last 25 years that they are essentially a parody of themselves, if you haven’t already considered Tim Fischer a parody of a human.
A brief look at the situation in NSW shows you just how much trouble they are in right now. Figures provided thanks to the AEC and David Shoebridge’s toomanyguns.org page. Who thought he’d ever be useful for something?
Lismore margin is 192 votes with 6,760 licensed firearms owners in that electorate.
(Thomas George MP Member for Lismore)
Upper Hunter margin is 1,732 votes with 18,529 licensed firearms owners in that electorate
(Michael Johnsen – Hunter Nationals)
Goulburn margin is 5,890 votes with 12,829 licensed firearms owners in that electorate
Monaro margin is 2,243 votes with 9,454 licensed firearms owners in that electorate
Bathurst margin is 14,537 votes with 14,538 licensed firearms owners in that electorate
As you can see, the Nationals have just essentially committed suicide.
The same can potentially play out across the country. It’s time for rural firearm owners to ditch the Nationals for good as they clearly do not support firearm owners, or rural Australia writ large – they haven’t for 20 years. And without the Nationals, the Liberal Party are impotent. Of course, Labor are terrible but as we’ve seen in the last 12 months the left are done worldwide and they know it too.
As for One Nation – their policy says one thing but their silence on the issue says another, especially compared with their views in 1996. Would the real One Nation please stand up and tell us exactly what their position is on firearms? 1 million plus votes are at stake.
The way this battle will be fought, as far as firearm owners are concerned, is in the rural seats and the Senate, onward. A huge opportunity exists for KAP (especially in Queensland) and SFFP (NSW, Vic and WA particularly) in rural Australia and for the LDP with the disillusioned urban Liberal Party vote.
It just depends on playing your (voting) cards right.
According to the AMF funded intellectual heavyweights at the Herald Sun there are “hundreds of thousands of these lying around” even though only around 10,000 Adlers have been imported into the country. They also failed to get their basic facts right again in terms of categorisation:
Essentially, it’s a ban by stealth. If you bought one on a Category A licence (and modified the tube) you will need to re-register on a Category B licence or either sell your firearm or have it destroyed. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has already announced there will be no buyback. How did they do this? By enforcing it at the state level and circumventing the Constitution. This is also a reality check to all those apathetic, 5-shot Adler owners who think it doesn’t affect them. Welcome to the party, pals.
As usual, the presstitutes were out in force. Right on cue, professional victim Walter Mikac used his tried and tested 20 year platform of blaming everybody who didn’t kill his family, to influence national public policy. Because being the husband of a victim of the Port Arthur Massacre makes you a firearm expert in the same way Harold Holt’s wife became a Marine Biologist.
As you can see, not only does Walter barely have command of basic spelling and grammar, he’s now deeming lever action shotguns a “de facto semi automatic.” Seriously? Great, now my Toyota Corolla is just a “de facto” Audi A4. Mikac’s letter also appears to be not only cheap emotional blackmail, but also a veiled threat – make of that what you will.
This week’s shenanigans also leads us to suspect that the spurious claims of the “stolen Adler” (leaked just two weeks before COAG, what a coincidence) printed by Samantha Maiden, may have been the work of corrupt Police inside NSW Police hoping to undermine Troy Grant and the NFA. Police now seem to be setting firearms policy, because we all vote for them at the end of the day.
The fight now goes to the state level. This begs the question – how bad will it get for the major parties? Well, the Nationals are finished permanently particularly in NSW with 5 of their seats incredibly marginal and in firearm owner-rich electorates. LDP, One Nation, Katter and SFFP will all win big as a result of this and other disastrous policies from the 2.1 major parties who continue determined to race each other to the bottom. WA, Queensland and, very possibly, Tasmania all have elections in 2017 – strap yourselves in.
One thing is certain arising from this whole debacle: Australia has now cemented a permanent standard for firearm policy based on emotion, lies and deception. But what else is new, right? On the flip side, they have kicked a hornet’s nest of over 1 million Australians that should never have been kicked in the first place.