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.

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.

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.

I say, you there having FUN, cut that out!! We wont be having that my fellow!

Dear Mr

At first I thought you really cared about public safety.

I thought that providing information & data it might be possible to help correct your faulty assessment of total risk and comparative risk.

-->Increasing legal gun ownership in Australia has not corresponded with an increase in accidental or intentional deaths by firearm (10yrs ABS Data)

-->increasing participation in hunting on private & public land has not corresponded with an increase in accidental deaths related to hunting.

-->Reality of the great safety record from NSW program you described as a farce. (even that incompetent system did not kill anyone?)

-->NCIS data on sports related deaths covering 2000-2012 providing comparative and specific data.

-->NSW Crime Statistics showing what is really hurting people.

-->the motivations to keep to the rules when hunting are the same as when driving,
choosing not to steal, choosing not to break other laws and rules.

But Then I read a couple of your comments and your true motivation becomes clear.

"What if he's drunk? You don't like beer? I think you do! "
"They're sober and safe, minimizing risk. "
"They're enthusiasts. They probably consume a fair amount of beer (c'mon, tell me I'm wrong!)."
"Some of us at least pretend to stand upright, use language & reason, breathe through our noses and not drag our knuckles on the ground. You should try it and give up the caveman thing."

Your not motivated by Public Welfare or Animal Welfare or Protecting Native Flora or Fauna.

Your just a regular garden variety wowser, you don't want the other people having fun doing something you personally don't like.

Professional Shooters Killing for profit - that's business totally wholesome.
Just try to keep the smile of your face boys, don't want people to know you like your work.
Professional Poisoners Killing for profit - never mind the  4-6 hours of fits & convulsions & foaming at the mouth, don't mention the fact trials show 9%-40% of baits get eaten by native animals. We wont look.

But you there, having fun, cut that out!

Is the Legal Gun Market Fueling the illegal gun market? Samatha Lee says Yes, but Research is not really that conclusive.

''Both the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Australian Crime Commission have stated that there is very little evidence to prove that guns are coming in illegally across the border,'' Ms Lee said. ''The legal gun market is fuelling the illegal gun market.''

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/suburban-shootings-tied-to-rise-in-handgun-thefts-20130727-2qr8k.html


REALLY? is that what the Australian Institute of Criminology said?:

As usual dig a little and the Absolute Statements of some are based on nuanced conclusions and statements by the actually researchers.

First - Australian Crime Commission rely heavily on the Instituted of Criminology's research and reading the ACC papers they all point back to AIC so its not two independent sources agreeing on a fact, its one report being commented on by two people.


Here is what I can FIND from the Australian Institute of Criminology:

Sources and conduits

Illegal importation, theft, illicit manufacture (albeit small), the activities of some corrupt dealers, and legacy legislative and procedural loopholes all represent recognised methods by which firearms, firearm parts and ammunition have been or currently are trafficked into or within Australia (ACC 2011, 2009, 2008; Kerlatec 2007; Mouzos 1999; Qld CMC 2004).

Illegal Importation

"In the same period (2010-2011), ACBPS recorded the detection of 5,922 undeclared firearms/airguns, parts and accessories,"

"The servicing of the current illicit market through illegal imports is not an unproven channel but may not be as important a trafficking route as some commentators expect or assert (eg see ABC 2011) and despite more recent high-profile cases (eg see AAP & Davies 2012). This may be because the process of illegal importation is possibly perceived as a less reliable option for firearm acquisition due to increased surveillance from the ACBPS, in combination with police agencies, and thus a greater chance of detection (Project stakeholders personal communication 28 November 2011; 7 December 2011)."

THEFT

Firearms from just 12–14 percent of reported theft incidents between 2004–05 and 2008–09 were recovered by police in the 12 months following the report of the theft (Borzycki & Mouzos 2007; Bricknell 2011, 2009, 2008a; Bricknell & Mouzos 2007), indicating a sizeable, annual contribution of stolen firearms to the illicit market.

I have commented on that in another note that adding 0.5% to the Stock of existing Grey/Illegal Firearms is hardly fueling a stock pile.

SO the RESEARCH says

 - Illegal Imports are a source, but might not be as large as some assert.
 - Police failure to recover stolen guns is suggests that stolen guns are a "sizable" contribution.

We know 1,000 guns a year stolen and not recovered.
We know that the Police/Customs have uncovered criminals engaged in illegal importation of hand guns
We know that the Police have uncovered illicit firearms manufactures supplying criminal gangs.

We don't know how many guns are imported illegally (as parts/in full)
We don't know what the stock pile of illegal guns is (but the only published guess is 260,000+)

The researchers think stolen guns represent a sizable contribution to the stock pile of illegal guns.
The researchers don't quantify what the they mean by "sizable". (Sizable means Fairly Large)
The researchers did chose "sizable" when terms like  'most', 'majority', 'predominant','principal' might have been used if they thought them appropriate.
The researchers did NOT say that their was "very little evidence" that guns were coming in illegally.
In fact the researchers list all the reports of  illegal imports that appeared in the media.
They did not say "little evidence" they said, they thought the role of illegal imports might not be as great as people believed base on media reports.




REF: AIC Report
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/100-120/rpp116/07_characteristics.html