In this format, we will put up each letter written to the various authors or articles, and anti-firearm hit pieces on TV, such as sunrise. We shall also publish the letters we send to politicians. Like so:
We have responded to the Sydney Morning Herald’s James Robertson’s recent article: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/gun-control-lobby-raises-alarm-over-silencer-regulation-changes-20160309-gneld3.html
We refer to your article “Gun control lobby raises alarm over silencers”
Sound Suppressors are available for firearms (not “weapons” as you refer to them) in the following countries: New Zealand, France, Norway, USA, Denmark, Finland, Czech Republic, Germany, Sweden and the UK. The fact suppressors for some reason remain illegal in Australia and are perfectly legal for licensed shooters in New Zealand is a case in point.
Suppressors are designed for the safety of the shooter, not to achieve James Bond style assassinations such as inferred by Samantha Lee. An average .308 round, one of the most common hunting rounds in Australia, is an ear crushing 150db. The best suppressors on the market will generally wipe off about 40db on the shot, still allowing a generous noise but not loud enough to cause consistent permanent damage.
Suppressors are an Occupational Health and Safety issue for the shooting community, especially the agricultural and pest control industries. Miss Lee’s claim that “Silencer[s] are banned in 11 states in US because they are considered too dangerous” is an outright fabrication. They make shooting safer and present no danger. Did she provide any evidence to support this?
David Shoebridge claimed “Sometimes the only thing that can alert a bush walker [to hunters] in state forests is the sound of gun shots”. Did he also provide any evidence to support this? Did he fail to mention to you the bans on recreational hunting in many national parks?
Australia’s firearms laws are based on a feel good perception and none of the research actually shows it had any effect. Ironically, it was Fairfax in 2006 who ran the story about John Howard’s laws having no effect on the already declining homicide rate which I have provided here.
And in fact, recent FOI documents obtained show that Howard’s laws were indeed written as early as 1991, but for some reason were not enacted until after the tragedy of 1996. Why has Fairfax not commented on this obvious anomaly?
Further, we would have to question the motive of Fairfax publishing the details of which suburbs in Sydney and beyond have the most legally owned firearms. Not only was this just a blatant scaremongering attempt, Fairfax has essentially jeopardized community safety and the safety of firearm owners as it’s given opportunistic criminals a map to where the best chances of potentially scoring a firearm and trading it for drugs, the most common transaction. What was the actual intention and motivation of Fairfax publishing this information, other than clickbait?
Citing sources such as Gun Control Australia and the Greens (ask them about the Senate Inquiry last year), who have proven track records as consistently dishonest, is a sure fire way to end any credibility Fairfax has left with the Australian shooting community.
We are aware that there is a very deliberate and planned media campaign to attempt to sway public opinion toward tightening the National Firearms Agreement in April this year. The release of which was intentionally timed to coincide with the 20th anniversary of Port Arthur. Articles such as this, do nothing but add to that campaign.
We have invited journalists to the range in the past to dispel their fear, misconceptions and biases over firearms. We extend that same courtesy to you in the interest of fair and balanced journalism.
However, we will continue to correct you publicly should you continue to make false or sensationalist claims regarding firearms in Australia.
We can be contacted for further comment.
Leave a Reply