My Lee-Enfield and Why you should get non shooters out for range day.

I have very recently acquired a Lee Enfield Rifle  like the one below, and it has proved to be of interest to a much wider circle of friends than just my fellow firearms enthusiasts.


If you are desperate enough to follow my twitter account ramblings you will have seen that I tweeted about a couple of folks who wanted to have a look at a real Lee Enfield. Well Sunday afternoon we did a bit of show an tell.

The folks came round for a cuppa and a look at this historic rifle. Their interest was purely historical, grandfathers and fathers had carried one during WWI and WWII and this was a chance to make a physical connection with that personal family history.

The rifle I have was built in 1908 and from the markings had the stock replaced in 1942.
So it is not much of a stretch to suggest that it might have been held by two generations of soldiers.

Anyway, after a everyone had a good look at the rifle I asked if they would like to see how you load the magazine.  I removed the bolt and made it clear that the rifle was now unable to fire and so the loading of the magazine would not present any danger and then grabbed a couple of 5 round charging clips.

The first clip loaded easily, but I admit the second required a little more practice on my part.

"So there you go, your 10 rounds are loaded which gave you 2 more rounds than the guys shooting at you"

Then came the q&a  I was not expecting:

Q: 10 rounds?  is that legal?

A: yes I have 10 round mags for all my rifles.

Q: So how many did that adler thing hold

A: 7

Q: So what is all the fuss about a 7 rounds if 10 round magazines are legal?

 A; that is what hunters have been saying....

This was a great example of how the general public with no other information than the press can be so confused about why we (sporting shooters and hunters) have been making such a fuss about 5 or  7 rounds.

In the course of a quick look at a historical artifact over a cuppa I was able to demonstrate safe handling, safe storage and answer a few questions which delivered a small antidote to media hype and misinformation.

Activists who want to ban something, seem to very capable of getting the press to publish a one sided view. I wonder if it is because the media writers are as clueless as my non shooting friends?

It is important to remind myself that I know as little about my friends wood turning and fly fishing pastimes as they know about my target shooting and hunting.

I think that the Greens and Gun Control Zealots (that want more restrictions and more bans) who push to prevent Shot Show, Hunt Fest and any sort of access to "try shooting" know that a little first had experience is deadly to the agenda.

As much as I want to yell and scream about the injustice of media ignorance and the stupidity of the laws as they stand and the lies that are being pumped out by opponents of hunting and shooting it seems that the quiet conversations over a coffee actually achieves more.

Well that's how things seem to have worked for me......

20 Years on the Road Toll is where it would have been if we did nothing.......

An unlicensed driver in unregistered car causes of large number of fatalities in a road rage incident.

Some how, despite regular and frequent police efforts to stop this sort of thing, this time it is on a scale never seen in Australia before.

The Government responds almost instantly, as if they had the solution pre packed ready to go:

To prevent future events like this they pass laws that mean licenced insured drivers of registered motor vehicles :

• are now subject to additional speed restrictions.
• vehicles will be subject to restriction on engine, fuel and passenger capacity that are even tighter than current requirements
• purchase of first and subsequent cars will require an appropriate approval from the licensing branch.
• Driving record, current number and type of vehicles, insurance claim history etc will be considered prior to approval
• owners will now be subject to regular police inspection of their homes and business to ensure that vehicles are stored securely in accordance with regulations (as interpreted by the inspecting officer regardless of that officers familiarity with the regulations or motor vehicles in general)
• New penalties & immediate suspension of license will be in place for drivers who have their vehicles stolen or commit some other breach of any number of laws and regulations that may or may not be relevant to driving history.

The Driving Public are up in Arms:

"Now see here that seems the wrong end of the stick!" they decry
"I ve done nothing wrong."
"Why  why am I being forced to submit to more laws, when the actions of the reckless driver already broke the existing?"

The NRMA come out in favor of the new rules as it required compulsory membership of a motoring association as a condition of being issued a licence.

You as the motorist speak out about this outrageous situation.

The response:

 DO YOU Know anyone who as been injured in a motor vehicle accident?
Well you do now so suck it up.

But wait

NOW 20yrs on - we find that Accidents caused by unlicensed drivers with unregistered cars have not diminished.

The news every second day has stories of some drug gang or other defy the laws about illegal drugs and unlicensed driving. We read of caches of cars being found, of cars illegally imported  through Australia Post, the price of unregistered cars apparently at historic lows due to a glut in supply.

We find that 20 years latter the laws did not save anyone.

We find that 20 years on our neighbor across the ditch & cousins on the other side of the  Pacific did panic and implement the same level of "driver safety laws" we swallowed.
We learn that they have seen the same trend in accidents as we did.
We learn that vastly different solutions, that did not require us to let the government steal our property have had the same results as our draconian  solutions.


So we ask if it might be possible to move toward the laws in NZ or Canada that have proven successful,

We are met with vitriol and loathing as if we had tried to take the "precious" from gollum,  the gnashing of teeth and the wailing and screeching begins as they seek to silence us and distract the public transport crowd from the facts.......


Asking a #GunControl #Australia serf to debate the facts around Howard Gun Laws:

SBS:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/article/2016/03/30/port-arthur-survivor-confronts-pro-gun-fishers-and-shooters-politician

Why do Vegans seem so unrealistic in their understanding about how Cereal Crops are cultivated....

South West Queensland in Early 2016 After 40+ mm of Rain - Showing either side of Roo Proof Fence (source Twitter)

Before we go to the start of my collection of articles,  lets just put this out there.

If you farm cereal crops, if you know people who farm cereal crops, you will know that the soy bean and wheat and rice crops are very tasty and that roos pigs, deer, rabbits, mice, ducks, etc. will happily munch their way through a paddock or two if you let them. You also know that farmers generally don’t let that happen.

 

Researcher: Vegetarian Diet Kills Animals Too

Steven Davis says he didn't set out to start a fight, but found one when he began attacking one of the most sacred beliefs of the vegetarian community.

One of the reasons most commonly cited by vegetarians for giving up meat is the conviction that other animals have a right to life as well as humans. But when Davis began setting up a course on animal ethics for the animal science department at Oregon State University four years ago, he reached a rather surprising conclusion.

Nobody's hands are free from the blood of other animals, not even vegetarians, he concluded. Millions of animals are killed every year, Davis says, to prepare land for growing crops, "like corn, soybean, wheat and barley, the staples of a vegan diet."

Smaller Victims ...... read the full article

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97836&page=1

 

Ordering the vegetarian meal? There’s more animal blood on your hands

 

The ethics of eating red meat have been grilled recently by critics who question its consequences for environmental health and animal welfare. But if you want to minimise animal suffering and promote more sustainable agriculture, adopting a vegetarian diet might be the worst possible thing you could do.

Renowned ethicist Peter Singer says if there is a range of ways of feeding ourselves, we should choose the way that causes the least unnecessary harm to animals. Most animal rights advocates say this means we should eat plants rather than animals.

It takes somewhere between two to ten kilos of plants, depending on the type of plants involved, to produce one kilo of animal. Given the limited amount of productive land in the world, it would seem to some to make more sense to focus our culinary attentions on plants, because we would arguably get more energy per hectare for human consumption. Theoretically this should also mean fewer sentient animals would be killed to feed the ravenous appetites of ever more humans.

But before scratching rangelands-produced red meat off the “good to eat” list for ethical or environmental reasons, let’s test these presumptions.

read on....

https://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659

 

I will add further links in the comments section (maybe)

Photo: South West Queens Land after 40mm of Rain Showing effect of Kangaroo Proof Fence. (16/01/2016 Source Twitter)

Do not cloak your cowardice with “non-violence” there is no honor in cowardice

A great article on Ghandi's position on violence

1920

When there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advice violence,"

"Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used physical force, which he could and wanted to use, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence...Hence I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence...But I believe nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence... forgiveness may be more manly than punish.

1924

 "My non-violence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice," he added that "non-violence is the summit of bravery."

1935,

 "Non-violence cannot be taught to a person who fears to dice and has no power of resistance."

1939, 

as the struggle for independence was peaking:

"For I cannot in any case tolerate cowardice. Let no one say when I am gone that I taught the people to be cowards...I would far rather that you died bravely dealing a blow and receiving a blow than died in abject terror...fleeing from battle is cowardice and unworthy of a warrior...

cowardice is worse than violence because cowards can never be non-violent."

 http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/gandhi-jayanti-non-violent-mahatma-gandhi-preferred-violence-over-cowardice/1/312776.html

Firearms in the right hand for the right reasons (Sounds OK till you get into the detail of GreenPolitics)

From an article by one of the Greens Party of NSW
http://thebigsmoke.com.au/2014/10/16/firearms-right-hands-right-reasons/

"While public safety must be the priority, the fact is guns can be a necessary tool of the trade for people in regional and rural NSW. Farmers who see their stock attacked by wild dogs or foxes, or who have their fences and crops destroyed by wild pigs or goats, often have a demonstrable need for firearms in order to control these animals. Equally, those farmers who raise livestock will, from time to time, need access to firearms to euthanise seriously injured or distressed stock."

I am not sure how many Farms NSW Greens Members have been on or how long they may have spent on the farms. However my experience is that the Farmer has quite a lot to do apart from roam around his property shooting feral pests.

Assuming the farmer is undertaking the regular baiting programs, which can of course be scheduled into the work cycle.

As a side note: Recent CSIRO published study said as many as 69% of all foxes will survive a baiting program. Given that to control foxes you need to cull about 65% of the population each year, baiting will, still leave a farmer significantly short of effective control number.


Pest control is not a matter of just putting "shoot all the feral goat/pigs/foxes/dogs today" in your diary and going and getting it done.

The best advice available is that you need to run multiple coordinated and the opportunistic controls regularly & frequently.

With most of the farmers I know working from sun up to after dark most days, the idea that they have time to be running fox drives, driving around paddocks to find and shoot mobs of pigs or goats on a high frequency is ridiculous.

This is where utilizing recreation hunter/shooter plays a role on many farms.

Every recreational hunter on a property/in a forest increases the chance of pest animal encountering a control method (ie shooting). Not only that but they represent extra eye and ears on the property to report back on feral animal movements and sighting.  I do not see anything in the anti hunting propaganda and publications that recognises or acknowledges this reality.

All I see is that the Anti Hunting Activists seeking to dumb down the debate so that the only element allowed to be discussed is "Are YOU FOR or AGAINST "killing as a past time". 

If the same approach was applied to the professional pest controller is "killing for profit" or even "Killing for fun & profit"

So  back to #GREENS premise that it is "only reasonable that property owners should have access to the tools required to control these  (pest)  populations". 

Recreational Hunters are one of the control methods that should be available to farmers. 

In a co-ordinated and planned control program Baiting, Traping & Shooting should all be employed to ensure maximum chance of success.

To require that the entire "Shooting" component must be done by Farmer or Paid Worker when there are thousands of volunteers ready to do the work (& already doing the work) is an unnecessary and unproductive burden to place on the Agricultural Sector, let alone the Public Purse (in the case of State Forest and National Parks)

As I have written else where, I do not see a lot of evidence based policy being set out in the above article. I certainly don't see a lot of evidence of a working knowledge of farming in Australia.

What I do see is a determined attempt to stop people from hunting.
 What I do see is a deliberate and deceiptful attempt to dumb down discussion so that Greens can WIN and ideological point irrespective of the costs of the fight.




 
REF:
 (1) Effects of coordinated poison-baiting programs on survival and abundance in two red fox populations http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WR13202.htm 

(2) Required Annual Population reduction to achieve halt in growth

Source: http://invasives.org.au/files/2014/02/fs_rechunt_NSWvfacts.pdf

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/