For as long as there has been an anti-gun agenda there has been an accompanying endless parade of “experts” and doomsayers pushing for the increasing regulation and eventual ban of firearms. Their message has mostly been facilitated by media outlets happy to deliver any sort of message that detracts from any meaningful and evidence-based conversation, for the purpose of hooking more consumers. After all, the only thing that sells nearly as well as sex is fear.
Rarely, if ever, is there an opportunity offered by the media to people who have actual working knowledge of firearms and firearm laws, and who might offer an actual insight into how to craft effective and functional laws that would actually achieve the goal of improving public safety. This would be counterproductive in advancing the narrative that guns are bad and that gun laws are the only way to save lives.
Most recently, two of the most prominent anti-gun “experts” Samantha Lee and Phillip Alpers have been pontificating their rhetoric at any and all available opportunities. However, they rarely fail to demonstrate just how little they actually know about firearms, or about the laws that govern them. Something that you would expect any kind of actual expert to be competent at in their given field, rather than wildly unqualified. That such obvious failings in their arguments are then used in decisions regarding legislation surrounding firearms is truly appalling and their obvious incompetence is not only ignored but applauded, is a direct risk to the future of all Australians.
“Samantha Lee, a lawyer, has been the Chair of Gun Control Australia (GCA) for over ten years. She has participated in the United Nations Small Arms and Light Weapons conference in New York as part of an Australian delegation. She was awarded a Churchill Travelling Fellowship to travel to study ways to prevent handgun violence in Australia by looking at models in America, Canada and the United Kingdom.”
This is the same woman who came out with such classics as “2 Ammunitions” and “Rapid Style” during the Adler debacle, or who despite being a lawyer can not wrap her head around the fact that the National Firearms Agreement is not a legally binding document.
It is no surprise then that Samantha Lee asserts that there has been an erosion of firearm laws in Australia because of the lack of adherence to the NFA. Which is interesting because the people who are governed by those laws, that’s lawful firearm owners in case you didn’t guess, seem to be finding new restrictions being imposed on them quite frequently. As an example, New South Wales had the genius idea of having Gun Shops record the details of all ammunition purchases in a ledger. Not that anyone from the Firearms Registry ever checks it, but it would make a great shopping list for any criminal who gets a hold of one.
Samantha Lee also claims that by limiting the number of firearms in the legal market, illegally obtained firearms will also be reduced. However, if David Shoebridge didn’t insist on advertising firearm ownership densities by suburb in New South Wales, that number would probably drop anyway. But what Samantha fails to mention is the possibility of illegal firearms making their way into Australia, firearms which have been heavily restricted or unavailable for lawful purchase here for decades. She also fails to mention any plans on how to tackle illegally manufactured firearms, some of which are not only sophisticated, but capable of very high rates of fire and easily concealed.
In fact, Lee does not appear to have laid the blame for criminal use of firearms at the feet of anyone other than lawful firearm owners, which is strange considering that if she were genuine in addressing gun crime she might consider the people who are actually committing it. But that would make sense, unlike most of what comes out of her mouth.
And then we have Philip Alpers: Staunch anti-gun advocate, former TV Journalist, Associate Professor (not a real professor), and confused hypocrite. A man who proudly admits that he has no qualifications, yet believes he is qualified to advise on how to reduce gun crime. I wonder if he has ever researched how to make criminals obey those laws then? This same man who has travelled under the protection of armed men, yet blames those same men for the rise of illegal firearms in the pacific region through firearms being “leaked from lawfully imported police, military, and civilian holdings…almost all of them originally provided by Australia and the United States to equip PNG’s military and police.”
This is coming from someone who has essentially called for the removal of firearms from lawful firearm owners, leaving only the government with guns – until they sell them to criminals? Yep, seems like an expert to me.
Oh, but his corkers don’t end there.
After the Christchurch terrorist attack, Alpers proudly stated that such an attack couldn’t happen in Australia because of our “benchmark” gun laws and no access to those types of firearms. Maybe tell that to the family of Senior Constable Brett Forte who was shot and killed in 2017 with what was suspected to be an SKS or SKK rifle, and could have been used to also commit such an atrocity. Truth be told, that heinous crime in Christchurch could have been perpetuated in any number of ways, but the parasite involved wanted to force the NZ government to perpetuate an act of demonization and vilification against her lawful firearm owners. A wish which was eagerly granted by the NZ Government.
But of course, he believes what he says. He also believes that Australia banned all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Sorry to burst your bubble Mr Alpers, but we still have plenty here. Category C and D firearms are still available to Primary Producers and Vertebrate Pest Controllers, as well as criminals with the right contacts. In fact, criminals are able to obtain these firearms easier than the rest of us who just want to live our lives in peace, but don’t let that get in the way of an agenda. Speaking of which, it’s interesting that in a country that had not had a mass shooting since 1997, the first thing that was blamed for this crime were the gun laws. Not that there were several indicators that the shooter was not fit for a firearm license, or that had existing laws been followed properly and had he been vetted appropriately, the shooter would not have been able to legally source those firearms. That would be an inconvenient truth.
More recently the tragic events in Darwin have highlighted the fact that when it comes to gun control, these self-proclaimed experts are utterly clueless. Alpers is quoted as saying that the shooter in Darwin should not have been entitled to any access to firearms at all.
But then he goes on to state that even though the firearm used was already highly restricted (well, he says illegal) and illegally modified, not to mention obtained illegally by a person on parole and wearing a tracking bracelet and was already disqualified from owning a firearm due to their criminal actions, the laws did not fail.
Uhh yeah, they did.
The only people prevented from owning and carrying firearms that day were the victims and other lawful citizens who could just as easily have been killed also. How it can be argued that the laws did not fail is beyond comprehension, but it is without doubt that failure to defend them would possibly cast doubt on their effectiveness, and years of brainwashing a fearful public would be undone just a little.
It is clear that neither Lee or Alpers have really given any actual effort or thought into how to genuinely reduce gun crime or make Australians safe. Their sole focus is on banning firearms from lawful firearm owners, and to hell with anyone who argues. It is the opinion of these two anti-gun campaigners that gun violence is the fault of lawful firearm owners, despite there being overwhelming evidence that shows that the vast majority of gun crime is committed by people who have no lawful reason to obtain a firearm. They are wilful in their victim blaming of firearm owners who are robbed of their possessions, despite the actions of anti-gun supporters being complicit in such thefts (we’re looking at you, David).
They are open and forceful in the demonization of lawful firearm owners by imposing new regulations and laws that they know full well will have no impact on criminal behaviour. And they will use any and every trick in the book, from blatant lies to outright emotional blackmail, to ensure that any efforts to address gun crime without targeting lawful firearm owners are shunned. These fake experts are in the way of sensible and rational discussion and progress in the battle for our future and our safety. Until we address the cause of crime in general and improve our society, all the insane laws in the world will not save us.