The biggest threat to public safety in NSW per the March 28 Election Manifestos of ALP, LNP and GREENS is.....

Just so you understand how things are on March 28.

The ALP has lined up behind the Greens on tougher Firearms and Ammunition Laws.

This means that Liberal, Labor and Greens are all agreed that a key threat to public safety in NSW :

-is not the guys who import illegal drugs
-is not the guys who manufacture illegal drugs
-is not the guys who supply the drug trade with illegal guns
-is not the guys who protect the illegal drug trade with violence, intimation bribery and murder
-its not even the guys who break into farms, businesses and homes to steal guns

Similarly
- it is not those people who week in week out preach that young men and women should join in an armed struggle against western values and democracy
-its not those people who support with funds, equipment and man power organizations that behead, burn to death and stone people who they don't like
-its not the people who are in the country on fake passports who are planning to undertake public beheadings
-its not the people who believe so strongly in their ideology that they attempt to kill police in a carpark
-its not people who are out on bail after committing violent crime, say like setting fire to your wife,
-its not people with a history of violence, who have been reported to police 18 times for threats of violence

Also
-its not the police who supply Bikkie Gangs with information
-its not the politicians who defraud the state of millions in say....coal mine licences
-its not the people who rob assault rape or murder people

No Dear friend, the KEY risk to public safety in NSW is YOU.

Yes yes we know you have a job, pay tax, pay your rent/mortgage on time, attend the P&C, Volunteer for the RFS, help out at the local sports club as coach or manager or official. We know your kids attend school, do the best they can, behave themselves (for teenagers) & even have part time jobs.

BUT the ALP, the GREENS & the LIBERAL & NATIONAL Parties also know that you are one dangerous crazy feather plucker, just waiting for the moment to strike...........

AND the ALP, GREEN LNP alliance have joined forces to make sure that they shorten you LEASH again this election.

If you Fish, Hunt, Target Shoot, Drive a 4WD YOU are THE PROBLEM & They have got YOUR NUMBER and are comming for you.

SO if you HUNT, SHOOT or FISH & you DONT VOTE SFP on March 28

I only have one thing to say..........................

Cultivate the cool courage to die without killing (Mohandas Gandhi)

Continuing on from my last post,  I am sharing this piece by Mohandas Gandhi  to stimulate a more thoughtful discussion about self defense & the use of violence.


In my reading, this was the crucial point:

"My creed of nonviolence is an extremely active force. It has no room for cowardice or even weakness. There is hope for a violent man to be some day non-violent, but there is none for a coward."

No Cowardice

 

I want both the Hindus and Mussalmans to cultivate the cool courage to die without killing. But if one has not that courage, I want him to cultivate the art of killing and being killed rather than, in a cowardly manner, flee from danger. For the latter, in spite of his flight, does commit mental himsa. 

 

He flees because he has not the courage to be killed in the act of killing.
 

My method of nonviolence can never lead to loss of strength, but it alone will make it possible, if the nation wills it, to offer disciplined and concerted violence in time of danger.

My creed of nonviolence is an extremely active force. It has no room for cowardice or even weakness. There is hope for a violent man to be some day non-violent, but there is none for a coward. 

 

I have, therefore, said more than once....that, if we do not know how to defend ourselves, our women and our places of worship by the force of suffering, i.e., nonviolence, we must, if we are men, be at least able to defend all these by fighting.
 

No matter how weak a person is in body, if it is a shame to flee, he will stand his ground and die at his post. This would be nonviolence and bravery. No matter how weak he is, he will use what strength he has in inflicting injury on his opponent, and die in the attempt. This is bravery, but not nonviolence. If, when his duty is to face danger, he flees, it is cowardice. In the first case, the man will have love or charity in him. In the second and third cases, there would be a dislike or distrust and fear.

My nonviolence does admit of people, who cannot or will not be nonviolent, holding and making effective use of arms. Let me repeat for the thousandth time that nonviolence is of the strongest, not of the weak.
 

To run away from danger, instead of facing it, is to deny one's faith in man and God, even one's own self. It were better for one to drown oneself than live to declare such bankruptcy of faith.

 

Source:  http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm

 

The strength to kill is not essential for self-defence; one ought to have the strength to die (Mohandas Gandhi)

Welcome to 2015.

The close of 2014 saw some terrible things occur in this country.

Those of us who spoke up for the right to be able to defend ourselves and others against the aggression of violent bullies and criminals where once more shouted down & ridiculed by the main stream media.

I am sharing this piece by Mohandas Gandhi  to stimulate a more thoughtful discussion about self defense & the use of violence.

I think we do all agree on this:

To deliberately give or even risk your life in order to save another is undisputed bravery.






Self-defence by Violence

I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.

The strength to kill is not essential for self-defence; one ought to have the strength to die. When a man is fully ready to die, he will not even desire to offer violence. Indeed, I may put it down as a self-evident proposition that the desire to kill is in inverse proportion to the desire to die. And history is replete with instances of men who, by dying with courage and compassion on their lips, converted the hearts of their violent opponents.
 

Nonviolence cannot be taught to a person who fears to die and has no power of resistance. A helpless mouse is not nonviolent because he is always eaten by pussy. He would gladly eat the murderess if he could, but he ever tries to flee from her. We do not call him a coward, because he is made by nature to behave no better than he does.
 

But a man who, when faced by danger, behaves like a mouse, is rightly called a coward. He harbors violence and hatred in his heart and would kill his enemy if he could without hurting himself. He is a stranger to nonviolence. All sermonizing on it will be lost on him. Bravery is foreign to his nature. 

 

Before he can understand nonviolence, he has to be taught to stand his ground and even suffer death, in the attempt to defend himself against the aggressor who bids fair to overwhelm him. To do otherwise would be to confirm his cowardice and take him further away from nonviolence.
 

Whilst I may not actually help anyone to retaliate, I must not let a coward seek shelter behind nonviolence so-called. Not knowing the stuff of which nonviolence is made, many have honestly believed that running away from danger every time was a virtue compared to offering resistance, especially when it was fraught with danger to one's life. As a teacher of nonviolence I must, so far as it is possible for me, guard against such an unmanly belief.
 

Self-defence....is the only honourable course where there is unreadiness for self-immolation.
 

Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right.

 

Source: http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm

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

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/

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?

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.

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.

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? 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

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?