Ramblings of a guy in Aus

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.

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.

Monday, 12 May 2014

Who do you believe? A collection of Press & Social Media Clippings

What should we make of people who make claims that are at odds with the publicly available evidence?

Like Gun Ban Advocates?

Like This

and this

Or when you have people vote for a law they have publicly opposed

and this

Who do you believe?
Why do you believe them?

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

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders)

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 R-Licenced Hunter
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.

Worth pointing out: Animals killed more people in this 8 years survey than people have been shot in hunting accidents in 12 years.

Again the data is clear, eventually some people will lose their life as a result of an accident on a farm.

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

Yes accident happen, Yes people sometimes die as a result.

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

Here is a quick look at the current running sheet of woe:

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"

We did all this despite the claims we are cowboys, yahoo's, rednecks, drunken louts with guns, city gun slingers and generally totally ignorant of firearm safety & hunting safety

"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.

If you are afraid to go down to the forest, it should not be fear of the hunters!
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

Wednesday, 6 November 2013

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!

Monday, 4 November 2013

The TWO Big Misdirections the Anti Hunting Crowd Run

I have many issues with the anti hunting lobby's characterization of hunters & the argument they use to push their "Ban Hunting" agenda but here I want to focus on two

FIRST:

"the animal welfare issue."

SECOND:

"Recreation shooting is largely ineffective compared with integrated control methods"

ANIMAL WELFARE -

In nearly all discussions the argument will be

"I am OK with professional shooters, but I am not happy with amateurs"

"skilled professionals ensure that most animals are killed swiftly and humanely but the same can not be said for all amateur hunters, my concern is for the welfare of the animals being culled"

This is the a disingenuous misdirection.

I agree that a misplaced shot is horrible & with out quick follow up leaves an animal in agony for hours before it dies.

However the anti hunting line gives a FALSE comparison of Volunteer vs Pro.

I wont get into the problems with the "professionals are better shot" deal.

I want to challenge the false suggestion that the alternative to volunteers is professional shooters.

Professional Shooters are expensive and one pro shooter by themselves will be hard pressed to provide an effective control.
That is why almost all of the Pestsmart material is about the how and why of using 1080 poison.

So when you are comparing the Humanness of Amateur Hunting as a control tool you need to compare it to the REAL alternative that NPWS and STATE FOREST rely upon the most heavily - 1080 Baits.

This is how 1080 works:

http://www.feral.org.au/.../2012/04/pig_baiting_1080.pdf

-->Time to Death 4-6hours & during those 4-6hours
--> prolonged or profuse vomiting,
--> laboured respiration often with a white froth around the mouth and nostrils
--> some pigs also exhibit signs of central nervous system disturbance
--> including hyper-excitability, squealing, manic running paralysis or convulsions

REMEMBER THAT GOES ON FOR 4 - 6 HOURS

So from an Animal Welfare assessment:

- the 1080 BEST Case scenario for an animal that is HOURS of AGONY

can only match Shootings worse case outcome.

We have not look at:
--> what happens if the animal ingests a sub lethal dose.
-->impact on suckling young of poisoned mother.

I note that under the law as a hunter I am obligated to track the young down & put them down.
The boys laying the 1080 Baits have no such obligations.

This is why I say the animal welfare line is completely bogus.You are not presented with the TRUE Comparsion. You are presented with and idealized Professional Shooter vs Demonized Amateur (who is claimed to be incapable & unwilling to exercise discretion and skill!)

While we are on those Professional Marksmen you would do well to remind yourself of the work they did in Guy Fawkes National Park in 2000. http://youtu.be/AL9KlLqL1bI

Which lead to the RSPCA taking legal action against National Parks.

RECREATION SHOOTING IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE CONTROL METHOD

This is the other deliberate misdirection used by the anti hunting groups.

"Ad hoc" Hunting is not being put forward as an "Alternative Control Method

"Ad hoc" is being put forward as SUPPLEMENTARY control method

"Ad hoc" is not really AD HOC - is not as random as they want you to believe.

We go hunting in places that FERALS have been reported. Tells us XYZ is lousy with pigs - we will happily go get some.

This is the other another deliberate misdirection used by the anti hunting groups.

We are not asking for Recreational Shooting to be a replacement of the other methods.

We are asking for it to be ADDED to the controls already in place.

This is an accumulation of control methods, not a replacement.

Our request is consistent with the advise of Bio-security in NSW and Victoria and Queensland who say time and time again to land managers:

-->EVERY method of control should be employed against Feral Animals.

-->We should seek to put as many opportunities for the Feral Pests to encounter a control method each day as possible.

-->That means Coordinated Baiting, Trapping & Shooting Programs plus

--> opportunistic hunting & trapping are part of that continum

Hunting is an additional control method.

Hunting is an alternative in areas that BAITING is not acceptable or viable or for people who think baiting is cruel.

If you have working dogs - First Aid for your Dog

There you have it:

1> animal welfare argument is bogus because they dont compare shooting with 1080 (the method they WILL use)

2> Ineffective Control argument is bogus because we are not replacing other controls, we are suplimenting

Monday, 28 October 2013

An Old story Showing what a Mess Professional Shooters can make of a Cull

Brumby Cull in Guy Fawkes National Park

Keen on letting professionals do the culling:

Have a look at some handy work from New South Wales

Guy Fawkes National Park

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL9KlLqL1bI

Government did publish their own review:

Report on the cull of feral horses in Guy Fawkes River National Park in October 2000. Executive Summary.

This report was commisioned to
1) review the policies and practices used by the National Parks and Wildlife Service to control populations of major feral animal species in national parks in New South Wales.
2) to make recommendations on the future management of fearl horses in national parks in New South Wales.
3) To develop a code of practice for the capture and transport of feral horses.
4) To make recommendations on the development of research programs to investigate the adverse impacts of feral horses in a range of haitats.

Available:
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/pestsweeds/EnglishReportFeralHorseManagement.htm

Report:
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/pestsweeds/englishReport.pdf

Saturday, 26 October 2013

The DPI & NPWS Believe 6 hours of Agony before death is "Conditionally Acceptable" but resist using shooting by volunteer hunters. WTF?

What do you consider a humane death for any animal?

I think most people would want the death to be as quick and painless as possible.

So if I told you that the term "Conditionally Acceptable" when applied to Humaneness Models means:

The animal may take 4-6 hours before they no longer feel any pain from the culling method.
The animal will experience moderate to severe suffering for those 4-6 hours.

For example in Pigs:
http://www.feral.org.au/.../2012/04/pig_baiting_1080.pdf

-->Time to Death 4-6hours & during those 4-6hours
--> prolonged or profuse vomiting,
--> laboured respiration often with a white froth around the mouth and nostrils
--> some pigs also exhibit signs of central nervous system disturbance
--> including hyper-excitability, squealing, manic running paralysis or convulsions

How would you react?

That is exactly what the term "Conditionally Acceptable" means when you see it in any document produced by

DPI (Department of Primary Industries)
LPHA (Livestock Health and Pest Authorities.)
NPWS (National Parks & Wildlife)
Draft Wild Dog Action Plan

This is how the widely utilized "Sharp and Saunders Model for Assessing Humaneness of Pest Animal Control Methods" allows you to assess 1080 poison.

You can read the model here:
http://www.feral.org.au/a-model-for-assessing-the-relative-humaneness-of-pest-animal-control-methods/

Shooting is rated as "Acceptable",

So lets have a look at what makes the difference between "Acceptable" & "Conditionally Acceptable"

This is how the Model Rates Shooting vs 1080 Poison

REF:http://www.feral.org.au/animal-welfare/humaneness-assessment/wild-dog/
(At the end of this post I have some video you can see what that actually looks like)

Have a look a that again, and keep in mind that
--> 1080 Poison is rated as "Conditionally Acceptable"
--> Shooting is rated as "Acceptable"

If you have any experience with hunting or shooting I ask you:

How many animals that you have seen shot, took more than 1-2 min to die?

My Point?

not that 1080 poison does not work.

not that 1080 poison should not be used.

My point is that the Sharp and Saunders Model is strongly biased against shooting,

It chooses to use the term "conditional" to help mask the reality of the alternative to shooting.

If you have to use a word like "Conditionally" in order to get your 1080 poison method to pass the Humane Test I think you are not being honest and direct.

Other models will say outright that the poison is nasty and suffering is terrible, but it is unavoidable if you want large scale culling. (see McLeod 2007 down further)

Especially Biased against Ground Shooting

Sharp & Saunders Model enables you to assess Aerial Shooting as more humane than ground shooting.

Apparently they have concluded that bullets fired through the animals chest kill faster & with less pain if fired from a helicopter [1]

If you have any understanding of how a bullet kills, this is a ludicrous conclusion.

What have other models on Humaneness said about Poison & Shooting:

Compare that to this alternative assessment from 2007

That right, Shooting was on the 2nd highest level of Humaneness.
1080 was on the second lowest rating for humaneness.

Interesting aside - the assessment on Species Specificity for poison is not nearly as high as the Saunders Model . This McLeod Study does gel with 2011 Victorian Study on rate of non target animal victims of baiting.

Finally WARNING _ Following Videos Not for Faint of Heart.

Not sure what "Conditionally Acceptable" Looks Like.
Go to 4min 10sec on this video to see impact. 1080 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcF53Ojc3n4

Not sure what "Acceptable" looks like:
Go to 43sec in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hsP2xORt2Y

[1] https://www.facebook.com/notes/aguy-inaus/bullets-fired-from-helicopters-hurt-less-kill-faster-or-why-sharp-saunders-model/206775252834853?comment_id=413582&offset=0&total_comments=1&ref=notif&notif_t=note_comment