Tuesday, 28 October 2014
THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENCE does not = "US STYLE GUN LAW"
We need to be careful when we get into a discussion about the right to selfdefense that our listerner/conversation partner does not hear "right to selfdefense" & then argue against "US Style Gun Laws".
People often conflate the two.
I realise now that this confusion is exactly what people like Gun Control Australia want to happen.
They want to play the fear card and have self defense = US Gun Culture.
However it a call to better "selfdefense rights" does not ipso fact require the adoption of the US Second Amendment or US Style guns laws.
As many Gun Groups and Firearms training organizations (including the USA) make very clear, a one day Concealed Carry Class is not "training to use a gun" it is merely teaching you basic legal obligations and safe handling. The recommendation is for longer training and monthly practice.
As I say, lets not slip into a discussion on false premise.
The right to carry equipment that is for use in defending yourself if you are attacked does not ipso facto demand the right to carry a firearm.
The right to defend yourself with guns you legally own, does not ipso facto equal a call to allow unlicenced and untrained people to purchase guns at Coles and Woolworths.
The right to defend yourself with guns you legally own, does not ipso facto equal a call to allow you to carry that firearm in public.
The right to defend yourself by carrying a concealed handgun for self defense is not ipso fact a call to adopt the US Laws on concealed carry.
The right to self defense IS about ending the nonsenses that sees a pregnant woman who was subject to a stalker being punished for choosing to carry pepper spray that she bought legally over the counter.
The right to self defense IS about ending the nonsenses that sees a man who uses his legally owned firearm to shoot & kill a knife wielding attacker that was trying to cut womans throat spend months in prison on remand until he is finally acquitted.
Rambling ends
Wednesday, 22 October 2014
Evidenced Based Policy no Firearms will not lead where the Gun Control Advocates would like.
In Response to:
http://thebigsmoke.com.au/2014/10/16/firearms-right-hands-right-reasons/#comment-1640541385
The NSW Greens support evidence based legislation when it come to firearms legislation?
You have got to be pulling my leg.
NO Evidence that NSW Ammo Bill could or would curtail criminal use of firearms.
NO Evidence that there had been a steady rise in non fatal shootings.
Never the less LEGISLATION went ahead supported by the Greens
BOCSAR study released in 2013 showing
"Between 1995 and 2012 there have been frequent fluctuation in the recorded number of non fatal shootings but no sustatined increase over the period."
BUT the government in acted legislation anyway
http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/bocsar/documents/pdf/bb85.pdf]
No Evidence that Australian Gun Buy Back or 1996/1997 Gun Law reforms had any impact on the rate of decline in homicide by firearm.
The favourite "Pro Gunbuy Back Study" Leigh & Neill from 2010 - The paper "has proven confusing in that its abstract suggests that the Australian gun buyback reduced firearm homicide rates by 80%, but the body of the report finds no effect" (Greg Ridgeway PHD Deputy Director of the National Instituted of Justice in the US)
Note that the Greens avoid mention of Reuter & Mouzas 2003, Chapman et al 2006 Wang-Sheing Lee & Sandy Suardi or even the view of Don Weatherburn of NSW BOCSAR all of which agree that the 1996 NFA did not have an effect on firearm Homicide.
NO Evidence that growth in the number of legally owned firearms has lead to increase in use of firearms for criminal activity
We have seen a growth in the number of legally owned firearms in NSW at the same time as a steadily declining criminal use of firemarms.
No Evidence that firearm registration has reduced criminal use of firearms
The RCMP in Canada were unable to convince legislator that the Firearms Registry had produced any public safety dividend for the billions spent on it. No Crimes Solved, No Lives Saved.
The UK saw a dramatic increase in the use of handguns after they banned the private ownership of handguns. They are still trying to get back to PRE BAN levels.
As an interesting aside the Australian experience was that post 1996 the use of hand guns in crime also rose dramatically - All unregistered of course and so not subject to any of the 1996 laws.
If the NSW Greens where keen on evidenced based policy, they would support moves to repeal the NFA, the NSW Ammo bill and much of the 1997 legislation, since the evidence at home and abroad says that the legislation failed to achieve Greens claimed goal of making Australia a safer place to live.
- Licenceing & Background Checks work
- Nearly all the rest is a waste of time.
And that is just for starters.
For Reference:
2003 CDC Study from the US (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm)
Follow up CDC Study; http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=6
Some Commentary on it:
SLATE http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html
Why it was right to shut down the Registry:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/peter-worthington/long-gun-registry_b_1520666.html
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/11/gary-mauser-why-the-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did/
http://thebigsmoke.com.au/2014/10/16/firearms-right-hands-right-reasons/#comment-1640541385
The NSW Greens support evidence based legislation when it come to firearms legislation?
You have got to be pulling my leg.
NO Evidence that NSW Ammo Bill could or would curtail criminal use of firearms.
NO Evidence that there had been a steady rise in non fatal shootings.
Never the less LEGISLATION went ahead supported by the Greens
"Between 1995 and 2012 there have been frequent fluctuation in the recorded number of non fatal shootings but no sustatined increase over the period."
BUT the government in acted legislation anyway
http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/bocsar/documents/pdf/bb85.pdf]
No Evidence that Australian Gun Buy Back or 1996/1997 Gun Law reforms had any impact on the rate of decline in homicide by firearm.
The favourite "Pro Gunbuy Back Study" Leigh & Neill from 2010 - The paper "has proven confusing in that its abstract suggests that the Australian gun buyback reduced firearm homicide rates by 80%, but the body of the report finds no effect" (Greg Ridgeway PHD Deputy Director of the National Instituted of Justice in the US)
Note that the Greens avoid mention of Reuter & Mouzas 2003, Chapman et al 2006 Wang-Sheing Lee & Sandy Suardi or even the view of Don Weatherburn of NSW BOCSAR all of which agree that the 1996 NFA did not have an effect on firearm Homicide.
NO Evidence that growth in the number of legally owned firearms has lead to increase in use of firearms for criminal activity
We have seen a growth in the number of legally owned firearms in NSW at the same time as a steadily declining criminal use of firemarms.
No Evidence that firearm registration has reduced criminal use of firearms
The RCMP in Canada were unable to convince legislator that the Firearms Registry had produced any public safety dividend for the billions spent on it. No Crimes Solved, No Lives Saved.
The UK saw a dramatic increase in the use of handguns after they banned the private ownership of handguns. They are still trying to get back to PRE BAN levels.
As an interesting aside the Australian experience was that post 1996 the use of hand guns in crime also rose dramatically - All unregistered of course and so not subject to any of the 1996 laws.
If the NSW Greens where keen on evidenced based policy, they would support moves to repeal the NFA, the NSW Ammo bill and much of the 1997 legislation, since the evidence at home and abroad says that the legislation failed to achieve Greens claimed goal of making Australia a safer place to live.
- Licenceing & Background Checks work
- Nearly all the rest is a waste of time.
And that is just for starters.
For Reference:
2003 CDC Study from the US (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm)
Some Commentary on it:
SLATE http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html
Why it was right to shut down the Registry:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/peter-worthington/long-gun-registry_b_1520666.html
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/11/gary-mauser-why-the-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did/
Monday, 20 October 2014
How well does the Media report on subjects you are knowledgable about? So why believe them on other stuff?
Watch how the media report on a subject you are familiar with.
Let's say - Firearms or Hunting
How accurate is their reporting?
How closely does their portrait of gun owners or hunters match your experience?
How often does the write up display bias?
How often do they perpetuate lies & half truths?
How often do they fail to do any genuine research?
How often do they fail to provide all the data?
What makes you think that these same journalists & media outlets apply a different standard of skill when they report on anything else?
Why believe anything they say about - crime, immigration, politics, Islam in Australia, the war on Terror, the war on Drugs, Government Policy?
If you won't believe the media when they consistently gets it wrong on
stuff you know a bit about, why would you believe ANYTHING the say
about ANYTHING?
Let's say - Firearms or Hunting
How accurate is their reporting?
How closely does their portrait of gun owners or hunters match your experience?
How often does the write up display bias?
How often do they perpetuate lies & half truths?
How often do they fail to do any genuine research?
How often do they fail to provide all the data?
What makes you think that these same journalists & media outlets apply a different standard of skill when they report on anything else?
Why believe anything they say about - crime, immigration, politics, Islam in Australia, the war on Terror, the war on Drugs, Government Policy?
Sunday, 19 October 2014
I hear the term "Socialist" thrown at "Gun Control" groups, but I think it something different.
In Response to:
http://thebigsmoke.com.au/2014/10/16/firearms-right-hands-right-reasons/#comment-1640541385
Its interesting to see that the Greens Party is in effect showing its hand in this way.
On one hand the #GREENS party actively promotes community action and conducts training for grass roots activism & rails against the excessive powers of the state when it sees that state used against causes that the #GREENS party supports.
On the other hand, they are very keen to entrench and protect the states monopoly of power over the voters :
To borrow a paragraph or two from Socialist Appeal:
When capitalist politicians call for “gun control,” they are really saying that the working class majority should give more power to the bourgeois state in determining who should have access to arms. The capitalist class would breathe a sigh of relief at the complete disarmament of the working class. The capitalist state would then have a complete monopoly of arms, on top of its monopoly of the courts, prisons, police, spy agencies, military, etc.
I think you can change capitalist class to "ruling classes" and you are on the money.
In calling for gun control the GREENS party show their hand.
They do not see themselves as "first amongst equals" they see themselves are "rightful rulers".
Or at least they long for the power of the state to be delivered into their hands. They have no desire to enable the working classes or indeed any members of the "voter" classes to be in a position to effectively resist the exercise of power by the state.
The desire gun control for the same reason the police desire it.
They don't want to have to engage with voters/non police as equals, but as masters & commanders.
On one hand the #GREENS party actively promotes community action and conducts training for grass roots activism & rails against the excessive powers of the state when it sees that state used against causes that the #GREENS party supports.
On the other hand, they are very keen to entrench and protect the states monopoly of power over the voters :
To borrow a paragraph or two from Socialist Appeal:
When capitalist politicians call for “gun control,” they are really saying that the working class majority should give more power to the bourgeois state in determining who should have access to arms. The capitalist class would breathe a sigh of relief at the complete disarmament of the working class. The capitalist state would then have a complete monopoly of arms, on top of its monopoly of the courts, prisons, police, spy agencies, military, etc.
I think you can change capitalist class to "ruling classes" and you are on the money.
In calling for gun control the GREENS party show their hand.
They do not see themselves as "first amongst equals" they see themselves are "rightful rulers".
Or at least they long for the power of the state to be delivered into their hands. They have no desire to enable the working classes or indeed any members of the "voter" classes to be in a position to effectively resist the exercise of power by the state.
The desire gun control for the same reason the police desire it.
They don't want to have to engage with voters/non police as equals, but as masters & commanders.
Monday, 29 September 2014
Hand Gun ownership linked to Rocket attacks on US homes & business
Conversation yesterday about the use of firearms for self defense.
I pointed to the three recent incidents.
1--> 11 year old girl who shot a man who was stabbing her mother (ending the attack by the man)
2--> The business owner who shot a man who had beheaded one person and was in the process of attempting a second beheading.
3--> Victorian Police who shot an killed the guy who attacked them in the car park of the police station.
My observation was that being armed in all those situation clearly saved the lives of innocent people.
In two cases non police acted to save other civilians.
Everyone agreed that the outcomes where good ones and where glad that the person who initiated the violence was stopped before they did all the damage that they had set out to do (ie kill one or more innocent people)
HERE is where things got SILLY:
I said, if you can see the value of having a firearm for self defense in these situations, what is your reason for objecting to allowing people to have firearms at home or in the work place for just this sort of event?
Two people then proceeded to say the following:
well if the bad guys bring knives and you have a hand gun,
the next time the bad guys will bring hand guns
so you will need a rifle,
and the next time the bad guys will bring rifles
so you will need a machine gun,
and the next time the bad guys will bring machine guns
so you will need a rocket launcher.........
Being armed will just result in an "arms race" between civilians and criminals
I politely asked what if any evidence they might have for this interesting "escalation" theory.
ANSWER: AMERICA
In their day to day lives these guys are not Sub 70 IQ people.
We are talking lawyer, engineer & school teacher, so we can safely say they are at or above average IQ.
RESPONSE: Is that why we have seen heavy machine gun fire and rocket attacks on businesses and homes in the USA? I was wondering how it had got to that..........
JUST another reminder of the lack of evidence based thought that is holding up the "guns are bad you should not have them" position.
I pointed to the three recent incidents.
1--> 11 year old girl who shot a man who was stabbing her mother (ending the attack by the man)
2--> The business owner who shot a man who had beheaded one person and was in the process of attempting a second beheading.
3--> Victorian Police who shot an killed the guy who attacked them in the car park of the police station.
My observation was that being armed in all those situation clearly saved the lives of innocent people.
In two cases non police acted to save other civilians.
Everyone agreed that the outcomes where good ones and where glad that the person who initiated the violence was stopped before they did all the damage that they had set out to do (ie kill one or more innocent people)
HERE is where things got SILLY:
I said, if you can see the value of having a firearm for self defense in these situations, what is your reason for objecting to allowing people to have firearms at home or in the work place for just this sort of event?
Two people then proceeded to say the following:
well if the bad guys bring knives and you have a hand gun,
the next time the bad guys will bring hand guns
so you will need a rifle,
and the next time the bad guys will bring rifles
so you will need a machine gun,
and the next time the bad guys will bring machine guns
so you will need a rocket launcher.........
Being armed will just result in an "arms race" between civilians and criminals
I politely asked what if any evidence they might have for this interesting "escalation" theory.
ANSWER: AMERICA
In their day to day lives these guys are not Sub 70 IQ people.
We are talking lawyer, engineer & school teacher, so we can safely say they are at or above average IQ.
RESPONSE: Is that why we have seen heavy machine gun fire and rocket attacks on businesses and homes in the USA? I was wondering how it had got to that..........
JUST another reminder of the lack of evidence based thought that is holding up the "guns are bad you should not have them" position.
Tuesday, 9 September 2014
Don't let this be a "Gun Law" Issue. Life in Australian Agriculture can both delight and destroy people.
I posted this comment a in response to a discussion prompted by this tragic event:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/four-dead-man-missing-at-nsw-property/story-fn3dxiwe-1227053294735?nk=51833b2fc0ffeab4b3023e4f08d22244
The situation that has occurred is a domestic murder & suicide of a farmer and his family. It is a tragic event that requires a full thorough investigation by police to understand exactly what has lead to this event.
Despite the press reports suggesting that this has come out of the blue and as a total shock to the local community, the sort of action does not just spontaneously occur with out cause.
The investigation, will no doubt uncover a series of events and circumstances which has lead a man to determine that he should take the lives of his kids and wife along with his own.
There will no doubt, in hindsight been a number of points along that course where the intervention of authorities or friends or others might (I say might) have prevented some or all of these deaths.
As an aside I say might have prevented some of these deaths, because it is beyond knowing if any one person or group of people would have been able to prevent this. Murder and Suicide are not easy things to understand or prevent, so please don't hear me saying "if only the community had done more it would have stopped this".
What I wanted to sound a warning about was the immediate focus on the fact that a firearm was used.
We need to be very wary of any solution that has its focus the firearms regulations.
I say this for many reasons, amongst them are:
1. Domestic Murder/Suicides are committed with unacceptable frequency using a variety of methods.(we have seen stabbings, drownings, fire & firearms)
2. That frequency is still very low as a proportion of all murders (which is itself quite a small number already and in decline) and suicides.
3. The mental state of the person at the time of committing this type of crime will be very unlikely to be the the mental state they have been in during the whole of their life. In particular it is unlikely in the extreme that they will have had murderous intent when they applied for their Motor Vehicle, Boat, Firearms, explosives or 1080 permit or other license.
4. It already a legal requirement for a number of professions to communicate with the Police about the mental condition /deterioration of that condition of patients if they believe that the person owns or has access to firearms.
5. It is already quite straight forward to have action taken to have a persons firearms removed from them. Police and Family Members can both.
6. We have seen in the case so recently promoted by "Gun Control Australia" that the very strict waiting period and training requirements and probationary period around NSW Pistol License where not a sufficient hindrance to an already mentally ill person with a determination and plan to kill her father. In hindsight we see that murder was planned well before she joined the pistol club.
7. We have strong evidence that people intent on using a firearm to commit murder have no qualms about obtaining the weapon illegally, through theft or black market purchase. (see SA case of Christopher Robert Mieglich)
8. It is a classic "Gun Control Australia/Gunsense" tactic to take situation like that above and make it about the firearms ownership and licensing laws.
This is a gross & disingenuous misdirect the public & policy makers seeking to prevent them evaluating what is a complex problem. The GCA type want to push a "simple view/fix" on problem that is often a complex long running interplay of financial/family dynamics/family law/alcohol/drugs/mental health & other factors.
That is were I finished my original post, so here is a post script
There is no law or regulation that can be written that will put an end to murder or suicide.
There is no law or regulation that can be written that will prevent people finding themselves in situation which to them are so hopeless that they come to believe that murder or suicide is the only viable answer.
This story I believe will be revealed as a tragedy of the land, borne of years of drought, of the stress of working a farm and caring for wife injured in a serious car accident and more that we have little knowledge of.
We must not let the fools in "Gun Control Australia" turn Australia's mind away from the real issues facing Aussie Farmers in GCA & coys pushing of their own agenda.
Tighter regulations on LAFO's wont fix or prevent this situation.
Neither will LAFO's letting GCA types turn it into a "Gun Law" issue.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/four-dead-man-missing-at-nsw-property/story-fn3dxiwe-1227053294735?nk=51833b2fc0ffeab4b3023e4f08d22244
The situation that has occurred is a domestic murder & suicide of a farmer and his family. It is a tragic event that requires a full thorough investigation by police to understand exactly what has lead to this event.
Despite the press reports suggesting that this has come out of the blue and as a total shock to the local community, the sort of action does not just spontaneously occur with out cause.
The investigation, will no doubt uncover a series of events and circumstances which has lead a man to determine that he should take the lives of his kids and wife along with his own.
There will no doubt, in hindsight been a number of points along that course where the intervention of authorities or friends or others might (I say might) have prevented some or all of these deaths.
As an aside I say might have prevented some of these deaths, because it is beyond knowing if any one person or group of people would have been able to prevent this. Murder and Suicide are not easy things to understand or prevent, so please don't hear me saying "if only the community had done more it would have stopped this".
What I wanted to sound a warning about was the immediate focus on the fact that a firearm was used.
We need to be very wary of any solution that has its focus the firearms regulations.
I say this for many reasons, amongst them are:
1. Domestic Murder/Suicides are committed with unacceptable frequency using a variety of methods.(we have seen stabbings, drownings, fire & firearms)
2. That frequency is still very low as a proportion of all murders (which is itself quite a small number already and in decline) and suicides.
3. The mental state of the person at the time of committing this type of crime will be very unlikely to be the the mental state they have been in during the whole of their life. In particular it is unlikely in the extreme that they will have had murderous intent when they applied for their Motor Vehicle, Boat, Firearms, explosives or 1080 permit or other license.
4. It already a legal requirement for a number of professions to communicate with the Police about the mental condition /deterioration of that condition of patients if they believe that the person owns or has access to firearms.
5. It is already quite straight forward to have action taken to have a persons firearms removed from them. Police and Family Members can both.
6. We have seen in the case so recently promoted by "Gun Control Australia" that the very strict waiting period and training requirements and probationary period around NSW Pistol License where not a sufficient hindrance to an already mentally ill person with a determination and plan to kill her father. In hindsight we see that murder was planned well before she joined the pistol club.
7. We have strong evidence that people intent on using a firearm to commit murder have no qualms about obtaining the weapon illegally, through theft or black market purchase. (see SA case of Christopher Robert Mieglich)
8. It is a classic "Gun Control Australia/Gunsense" tactic to take situation like that above and make it about the firearms ownership and licensing laws.
This is a gross & disingenuous misdirect the public & policy makers seeking to prevent them evaluating what is a complex problem. The GCA type want to push a "simple view/fix" on problem that is often a complex long running interplay of financial/family dynamics/family law/alcohol/drugs/mental health & other factors.
That is were I finished my original post, so here is a post script
There is no law or regulation that can be written that will put an end to murder or suicide.
There is no law or regulation that can be written that will prevent people finding themselves in situation which to them are so hopeless that they come to believe that murder or suicide is the only viable answer.
This story I believe will be revealed as a tragedy of the land, borne of years of drought, of the stress of working a farm and caring for wife injured in a serious car accident and more that we have little knowledge of.
We must not let the fools in "Gun Control Australia" turn Australia's mind away from the real issues facing Aussie Farmers in GCA & coys pushing of their own agenda.
Tighter regulations on LAFO's wont fix or prevent this situation.
Neither will LAFO's letting GCA types turn it into a "Gun Law" issue.
Monday, 12 May 2014
Who do you believe? A collection of Press & Social Media Clippings
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
Friday, 9 May 2014
Who do you believe? Did the National Firearms Agreement really put an end to mass shootings?
Who do you believe? Why do you believe them?
National Firearms Agreement 1996
Claim: NFA caused end to mass shootings in Australia
 |
| WHAT'S THAT YOU SAY? |
It would appear that the presence of guns is not the driving force in the cause of mass shootings.
Indeed a European Criminologist suggested that the type of culture and social structure in which you are brought up is much more significant.
So Last time I posted I made the point that NFA did not change the trend in murder rates.
Didn't stop mass murder either. (not even mass shootings)
- Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.
- Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.
- Churchill Fire - 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire. The fire was lit on 7th of February 2009.[6]
- Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire - 10 confirmed and as many as 21 people may have died as a result of a deliberately lit fire in a Quakers Hill nursing home. The fire was lit early on 18th of November 2011
Till Next Time
Wednesday, 7 May 2014
Who do you believe? Why do you believe them? (The National Firearms Agreement)
Its a good question to ask yourself in any debate.
Who do you believe?
Equally important is to ask
Why do you believe them?
I would hope that you would believe the people you believe because they have proven themselves accurate, reliable and truthful in the past.
For your consideration I share the following:
National Firearms Agreement 1996
Claim: NFA caused dramatic decline in homicide
Till Next Time.
Wednesday, 22 January 2014
Eventually someone will DIE & then we will be RIGHT & that is the most important thing
What has not Changed after 7 years of State Forest Hunting?
The Anti Hunting Prophecies of Death, Death & More Death!
For the last 7 Years they have run this campaign.
Before State Forest Hunting began they wailed and gnashed their teeth
The major problem with this Campaign
7 YEARS of ACTUAL HUNTING
in NSW State Forests
NO ONE DIED
I know they are really disappointed, they would love to point to the dead body of some hiker or mountain biker or camper, but alas it just has not happened
The other Problem is 12 Years of Nation Wide Data shows how rare hunting deaths are.
- 17 deaths related to firearms while hunting in the whole of Australia over 12 years.
- 2 deaths related to firearms while hunting in NSW over 12 years
NOT ONE, NOT A SINGLE ONE involving Hunting on Foot.
Lets get some Perspective on the "eventually there will be a tragedy" line
Sport
In the same 12 year period 1,993 people died from a sport related accident.
The table below provide the break down of sports.
The water and motor sports are at the top of the list.
You have to get down past Horse Riding and Adventure Sports before you get to the target/precision sports in which shooting is listed.
The data is very clear, eventually some one will die as a result of participating in a sporting or recreational activity of some sort. The nearer that activity is to water, the more likely a death is.
Farms
ON FARMS in period of 8 years 2003-2011 a total of 397 people died
- 18 Farm Workers were killed by an animal (cows kill most people)
- 35 children died on a farms
- 6 visitors to a farm where killed.
Not surprisingly, Motor Vehicles & Machinery figure pretty heavily.
Accidental Deaths they do happen
In the 10 years 2001-2010 there were 34,440 accidental deaths
- 17,398 accident related motor vehicle deaths
- 7,633 accidental poisonings
- 2,052 accidental drownings
However, the fear mongering, & efforts to stir up public hysteria that the full time, professionally trained Anti Hunting lobbyists & their vote chasing friends/supporters in parliament have be promulgating that has been going on since 2006 is totally out of proportion to reality.
Yet the Band Plays on
The Song has been the same since 2006 despite ZERO deaths in 7 Years & still they sing on. Ever more loudly they wail hoping to drown out reason and prevent you hearing the truth.
Quietly, deep down, in the dark places of their hearts, they are secretly hoping that some one, some stranger, is killed, or maimed, so they can redouble their chorus of nightmares & woe & add "I told you so" to the chorus.
They have prophesied death of hikers, bikers, campers, neighbours, & natives since 2006.
They have painted scenes of bloody bodies slumped over picnic tables & worse.
They have wrapped their heads in bandaged soaked in tomato sauce while attending rallies.
They have paraded their children with signs says "Don't Shoot"
Even though such incidents have NEVER HAPPENED in NSW.
Even though such incidents have NEVER HAPPENED in Australia.
Still they sing their songs of fear!!
They cry...NO it has not happened yet....BUT IT WILL HAPPEN
& then we shall be vindicated!
Here is a little sample of the 2006 Campaign
- http://thebegavalley.org.au/5190.html
- http://archive.lee.greens.org.au/index.php/content/view/1598/99/
- http://sgp1.paddington.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_1996.asp?s=1
- http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/id46.html
- http://www.coolrunning.com.au/forums/?showtopic=3232
- http://www.colongwilderness.org.au/media-releases/2006/06/allowing-shooters-newnes-and-ben-bullen-forests-would-be-destructive-and
- http://www.centralwesterndaily.com.au/story/767195/mullion-creek-residents-fear-forest-hunting-will-end-in-tragedy/
- http://www.bluemountains.org.au/documents/hutnews/archive/0705news.pdf
Here is a quick look at the current running sheet of woe:
- http://davidshoebridge.org.au/2014/01/17/risks-ignored-by-pro-hunting-premier/
- http://nohunting.wildwalks.com/
- http://nohunting.wildwalks.com/node/520
- http://www.npansw.org.au/index.php/campaigns/hunting-in-national-parks
It 2014, we have seven (7) years of actual experience.
We have seven (7) years of R-Licence Hunters in the field almost daily.
We have seven (7) years of Forests NSW Staff being in contact with R-Licence Hunters in the field almost daily across a multitude of forests.
3 times Forest NSW Staff & their union have had the opportunity to massively restrict or put an end to R-Licence Hunters in State Forests. They HAVE NOT.
We have the s the NO HUNTING crowd scouring the world and the archives l looking for terrible events overseas with which to terrorise you with.
They must of course do this because they must:
Prevent you seeing the clear evidence that R-Licence Hunters in NSW have an impeccable safety record.
Prevent you seeing the clear evidence that R-Licence Hunters in NSW have the confidence of Forest NSW field staff.
Prevent you seeing the clear evidence that Australian Hunters in every state have a fantastic safety record.
They must make sure you do not hear that the Forests NSW Workers are not afraid.
They are not afraid because they know the facts, they have seen us in the field:
- 86,000 days of hunting (that is 236 years)
- ZERO fatalities
- ZERO Injuries to other Forest Users
- 2 injuries to hunters right at the start of the program none since.
- 3 Times the Forest NSW Staff have been given the opportunity to say NO MORE, 3 Times they have said "OK"
"EVENTUALLY SOME ONE WILL DIE"
YES Eventually someone will die, the statistics tell the tale. Alas they will die
- Fishing
- Swimming
- Driving a car
- Riding a Horse
- Riding a mountain bike
- Sitting on the couch
- From a dodgy meal made from left overs
- climbin a ladder
- on the list goes.
You would be wiser to be afraid of the drive there...
TABLES/REFERENCE
REFERENCE:
NCIS Report: http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/docs/Report-NCIS-2012.pdf
Farm Injuries:http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publications/Documents/759/Work-related-injuries-fatalities-farms.pdf
ABS Data :http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3303.02011?OpenDocument
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)