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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)