WHY DO YOU HUNT?

It’s a question I’m asked with monotonous regularity. At least I treat it as a question, genuine and courteous.

All too often it's intended as an accusation – “Oh how could you possibly hunt you heartless thug!”

Occasionally tho’, the question is sincere and it’s on such occasions that it becomes problematic.

The Georges River bushland of an idyllic childhood 

Since acquiring a public profile as a somewhat articulate defender of hunting as a legitimate cultural activity, people who are opposed to hunting assume I’m able to explain why people want to hunt in the modern era. 

The truth is, I cannot.  There is no one reason, nor any checklist of common reasons I’m aware of. 

Hunters seldom ask the question of each-other, but I suspect those for whom hunting is not simply a leisure activity or ‘sport’ have sought answers to the question within themselves, myself among them.

What follows then, constitutes nothing more authoritative than the story of why I hunt. 

I didn’t suddenly become a hunter one morning when the image of Elmer Fudd appeared to me in a piece of burnt toast. Like every other human being on the planet, I was born a hunter-gatherer.

In fact it has often occurred to me that the real question is not why do some people hunt, but rather why do so many men and women completely lose or deny their natural instincts to participate in the eternal struggle that keeps all things in balance.

I grew up in the suburbs of Sydney during the 1960s. At that time, nearby towns such as Camden and Campbelltown, both highly populated urban centres today, were little more than large farming communities. 

It was commonplace for men to head off to such handy locations on weekends, armed with the trusty .22 rifle or a box of ferrets, to get a few bunnies, which were brought home for the pot and often shared among grateful family and neighbours. 

Naturally enough, the kids went along with dad and sundry uncles to be taught basic hunting skills, both for the immediate reward of fresh meat and as a hedge against the poverty of the Great Depression, still looming large in the older generation’s consciousness. 

Many Australians today have no knowledge of the desperate poverty suffered during the ten misery-filled years between 1929 and 1939. Nor are they aware that, were it not for the ubiquitous .22 Lithgow rifle, thousands of Australian’s may have died for want of protein and the small income derived from rabbit skins sold to the felt trade.

But hunting with guns or ferrets were by no means the only food gathering activities practiced by my family and the wider community. 

Fishing expeditions on the Georges River were a regular afternoon activity for many schoolboys and school holiday camping destinations up or down the coast, were almost always determined by the quality and nature of their fishing grounds.

Within the camping areas themselves, small communities of friends from locations thither and yon, would meet annually to socialise, hunt and fish together. 

They would often store the products of these activities at local Fishermen’s Cooperatives or in Service Station cold rooms where they would remain, on ice, ‘til the end of the holidays.

When it was time to head home, the bounty would be shared out equally to be consumed until the next holiday replenished stores, and again much was distributed among family and neighbours, many of whom were elderly and unable to get away from Sydney themselves.

It was a simpler, safer and far more wholesome age, one in which a boy could occupy himself all day long without so much as a cent in the pockets of his cut-down jeans, and with nothing more elaborate in his hand than a broom handle to which a single barbed point had been attached with string.  

The rock-pools of Horse-Head Rock Wallaga Lake

With this spear he would wander estuary shallows looking for flounder, blue-swimmer crabs or even the odd lazy Flathead, or he might push his way through seemingly impenetrable mangroves in search of mud crabs.

Regardless of the quarry, his catch was destined to be consumed at camp by family, friends and pseudo aunts & uncles, all sat ‘round a fire swapping yarns about the day’s fishing adventures or things taken place at home since everyone last gathered.

Nights when the moon was deemed to be in the most propitious phase were particularly exciting, for these were nights for prawning.

Prawns were the equivalent of smoked salmon in the 1960s. There were no aquaculture farms like today, producing prawns for Woollies and Coles at just $10 a kilo. 

Prawns represented the very pinnacle of luxury foods, consumed regularly only by the wealthy, and by ordinary folk only at Christmas and even then, only sparingly. 

However, annual trips to the coast made king of us all on those nights when the moon was dark, the tide favourable, the wind still and grandpa’s old barometer said everything was just right....maybe. 

Such rare and mystical evenings saw our little camping community headed off to the banks of a lake, where the first item of business was the making of a bonfire, which would serve as a beacon for prawners after dark. 

The women folk would sit about the fire chatting happily (mostly about what their men forgot to pack) with an eye on any kids too small to negotiate reed beds and deep water, while the rest of us pushed “nut deep” as they used to say, through freezing water, a net in one hand and a pressure lamp hissing in the other.

The object was to deftly scoop the prawns from the water as they rose to your lamplight, or to convince them to swim voluntarily into your net, and for this everyone had his own foolproof method.  

Cuttagee Lake a kids' prawning and fishing paradise 

Mine involved placing the rim of my net on the sandy bottom, just behind my quarry.  Then, with my left foot, I would provoke the prawn into flight, which saw him flicking backward into my waiting net. 

It didn’t always work, nor were the prawns always plentiful, but when all the magic came together it meant a feast the like of which few today will ever experience. 

More often than not we would cook our catch in seawater boiled in huge pots suspended over the fire, which the womenfolk would have diligently managed ‘til it was nothing more than a pit of seething red hot embers.  

Three minutes in boiling seawater to which a little sugar had been added was all it took, before the prawns were scooped out and sprinkled with rock salt, which penetrated their shells as they cooled. 

Then the feast would begin, along with the consumption and comparison of various home brews, while the kids ran up and down the beach in the dark, exploring piles of rotting seaweed and looking for signs that sea monsters or mermaids came to shore in the night.

Of course none of this stuff happened without effort. There were campsites to be set-up, rods, reels and rifles to be maintained and spears to be straightened. 

There were ferret and prawning nets to be woven and repaired and new mantles to be fitted to lamps. All of it done by firelight and often to the sounds of guitar or accordion, or perhaps the latest Slim Dusty album as rendered a-cappella by Aunty Shirley after a few too many ‘sherbets’. 

There were observations to be made and debates to be had about the environment the winds and tides.  Bait needed to be collected, during which process much was learned about what dwelt beneath rocks or deep down in the muddy sand exposed by nipper pumps. 

There were lessons to be learned too, about community and working together toward a common goal, about sharing the proceeds of the hunt, whether it was fish, prawns and crabs, bunnies shot on nearby pasture or even the odd goat spit-roasted and consumed by all in an atmosphere of conviviality and achievement.

But perhaps the most important lessons we learned were those relating to confidence, cooperation, self-sufficiency, respect for the environment and humanity’s place in the eternal struggle that is life. 

Remove the rifles, the pressure lamps and the tents from the 1960s tableau I’ve described and it is almost indistinguishable from Aboriginal camp life. 

For many Australian families this remains the case today. However, in 2016 one can expect the public to admire and even venerate one group, while vehemently condemning and even hating the other, simply by virtue of race and skin colour. 

In fact many of the hunting and gathering skills so precocious to me, were taught to me by the Aboriginal kids I’d renew friendships with each school holiday trip to Bermagui. 

Where to find the best crabs and which ones to leave to ensure plentiful stocks. How to find bimblers (cockles) hidden in reed banks, with my feet. 

How to build fish traps and where to find abalone during ultra low summer tides. Which baits to use for various fish and how to treat the wounds many could inflict with their spines. 

The list, it seems, is endless!  

All this knowledge, all the skills I now preserve for future generations, were bequeathed to me, not as ‘sport’ or a hobby, but as a way of life practiced by countless generations, both Aboriginal and European, that went before. 

In my early life as an suburbanite, at school, in the workplace and in community activities, I would come to employ lessons in patience, cooperation, observation, tolerance, lateral thinking, self-sufficiency, resource conservation and respect, all learned from hunter gatherers of a variety of cultural origins.

I can’t help thinking the world would be a better place if we’d all searched for bimblers with our toes, or shared a spit-roasted meal with friends after a successful hunt.  Knowing how a meal came to be on one’s plate and at what cost to both the quarry and the hunter, somehow makes one appreciate it all the more.

I must say that the responsible, ethical hunters I associate with today are every bit as tolerant, welcoming and willing to share skills and resources as those I learned from a half century ago. 

Their critics, on the other-hand, are typically among the most hateful, intolerant, ignorant and sadistically violent people one could possibly imagine. 

The language they use in condemnation of hunters (white hunters that is) and the torture scenarios they concoct by way of punishment for anyone who shoots a rabbit, make the insane ravings of radical Islamists seem like heartfelt Christmas greetings by comparison.

But back to the question - why do I hunt?

I am a hunter – or perhaps more accurately, a hunter gatherer – because I know no other, better, life. 

I was raised by hunters, who were raised by hunters, who responsibly and skilfully exploited nature’s resources as men and women have done for countless eons.

Even if I never again raise a bow, cast a bait or wander rock pools at low tide, I will remain a hunter. 

It is the European Australian culture and law I was born to and I can no more relinquish it than Aboriginal Australians can relinquish their culture, except under the weight of bigotry, ignorance, intolerance and threats.

If you came by your hunting culture and traditions in ways other than I have described above, I would enjoy reading about them in the comments section below. 

Of particular interest to me are descriptions of hunting cultures and traditions brought to Australia from a non-Anglo Saxon backgrounds.

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...

©gmallard2016 all rights reserved

Follow the Hunters' Stand on Twitter @Hunters_Stand

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/why-do-you-hunt.html

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.


If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com This service will not include notification of new comments. 

All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.

WHAT REALLY HALTED THE MASSACRES?

Since writing the article A New Approach to Media Engagement I have received a considerable number of mostly inarticulate and non-sequitur emails demanding I justify various claims.

Despite inviting skeptics to post their challenges on the Blog in the space for comments provided, all have so far declined, claiming (in so many words) they "do not wish to expose themselves to crazy gun nuts."

Clearly these are open-minded types who don't understand the function of the 'Anonymous' option.

The comparatively large number of email challenges combined with their common thread, would tend to suggest I’m the subject of a coordinated campaign to discredit my opinions.

I guess this means I’ve hit a nerve.

I’ve also received a number of messages of a sincere and sane tenor, requesting I elaborate a little on what I believe to be some of the generally unacknowledged influences behind the past two decades free from substantial mass shootings.

While I have done so in past articles, most recently in The Man Who Ended Australian Gun Massacres, it perhaps doesn't hurt to have a slightly more focused crack at it.

In doing so I want to state at the outset, I do not claim to have identified all contributing factors.

Had I done so, I’d hardly be sitting on the information given its potential to undermine many of the anti-gunners’ traditional arguments.

I hope by sharing my thoughts/suspicions, law-abiding firearms owners with far better analytical minds than mine, might also put their heads to the business of researching and identifying other driving factors.

As we know, the downward trend in the frequency of spree shootings or ‘massacres’, had begun well before Bryant’s escapade. This is a generally accepted fact, even in the Antis' camp.

Following 1996 gun control there was an initial plunge in the rate of firearms related deaths, primarily attributable to a fall in the rate of firearms related suicides.

This is hardly surprising. 

Many people at the time had firearms hanging around the house they couldn't quite explain. They weren’t used, maintained or event wanted. They’d simply fallen into ownership when dad or grandpa passed away.

Howard’s buyback and associated amnesties provided an opportunity for people to get rid of grandad’s old .22 laying on top of the wardrobe, hanging on a wall in the shed or  even leaning against the wall behind a door.

As a result, people intent upon taking their own lives were forced to rely on other means and this had a dramatic impact on the death by firearm statistics.

It did not, however, significantly lower the suicide rate over all; a fact the media and gun abolitionists habitually refuse to acknowledge.

The most influential innovation we must thank for ending the public shooting spree ‘phenomenon’ is something that was relatively uncommon 20 years ago, but over the ensuing two decades would come to pervade every aspect of daily life.

It is the humble computer.

In the years prior to Port Arthur, police services had begun to computerise systems. However, these systems were very limited. 

They were more glorified file storage and retrieval systems than anything else and they were prone to constant breakdown and software compatibility issues.

Over the years and thanks to the intra/internet they developed into systems capable of cross-referencing data held within various internal departments and indeed police services across Australia.

Computers also made possible the tagging and automatic flagging of certain information that prior to the computer age simply did not happen. For instance, when entering the name of a person before the courts on domestic violence matters, police systems would automatically advise if s/he was a firearms owner.

In turn, this allowed police not only to confiscate guns, but to know exactly how many guns the subject owned, along with their exact nature, making their confiscation more efficient and effective.

As the years passed, government agencies began to standardise systems and develop inter-agency accords of co-operation with non-government agencies and health professionals and this further aided in the flagging and identification of high risk subjects.

In 2001, just 5 years after Port Arthur, the 9/11 terrorist attacks unfolded on US soil. This also contributed to far more complex computer systems being introduced in Australia, including those facilitating the public reporting of a wide variety of suspicious activities.

These systems introduced the capacity to report concerns anonymously too, via web based single use email accounts and anonymous 1800 numbers.

Ergo, the public was more inclined to report a variety of concerns because there was little chance of identification and retaliation.

Mandatory Reporting of people suffering mental illness or making threats of violence also had a huge impact on the spree phenomenon, but only because computers made it possible to ascertain if a subject had a firearms licence and how many guns she/he owned.

While Mandatory Reporting was a formal initiative, there was likely another, less formal reporting motivation in train too - that of conscience. 

The nation's obsession with Port Arthur was all pervading. Media reports of the carnage, both physical and emotional, would be our constant companion for some years to follow.

I know from my own discussions with friends who are doctors, psychologists, lawyers, counselors and even ministers of religion, that following Port Arthur many professionals would come to place limits on privilege and confidentiality that was previously absolute.

Having seen the carnage of events like Hoddle Street and Port Arthur unfolding live on television, preserving client privilege at any cost was simply a burden too great for many to bear.    

Prior to all this computer based reporting, information sharing and risk flagging, which was of course facilitated by the internet, Australia was a very different place.

A person subject to a domestic violence order was unlikely to have his firearms privileges revoked and not just because the laws empowering the State to do so hadn’t yet come into play.

The systems making it possible, dependable and even totally automatic, simply didn’t exist, or hadn’t been implemented.

This would change gradually over the next two decades, affording the Australian public levels of protection never before experienced.

I could fill a book with scenarios outlining the many and often obscure ways in which computers,  the internet and even more obscure factors contributed to the end of spree shootings in Australia, every one of which having had a far greater impact than Howard ‘s 96 ban on semi-automatic firearms.

Every one of Howard’s gun reform strategies depends upon computer systems, without which they simply would not have been possible. 

The vast majority of those systems did not exist prior to 1996 and every one of them has steadily improved, becoming ever more efficient to the present day. 

Even if semi-automatic firearms had not been banned we would still be experiencing the level of improved safety today, that people insist on attributing to their abolition.    

Of course the one thing computer systems cannot manage efficiently is the control of illegally owned firearms, which remain the preferred tool of the criminal.

However, even in this case computers store information compiled on suspicious characters, gangs and so-forth, enabling authorities to monitor, update and share information on potential threats in an instant, and in the remotest locations.

Improved community responses to domestic violence, the advent of more equitable Family Law and associated court outcomes, high-profile mental health/depression campaigns particularly those focused on men’s health, zero tolerance bullying policies in schools, more tolerant views towards issues of gender and sexuality, and of course mandatory criminal background checking for firearms applicants all contributed to ending the shooting sprees.

All these things and many more I have not listed, were initiated in the past 20 years.

Anyone who believes forcing maniacs to contend with a .5 of a second slower rate of fire, ended massacres completely and instantaneously, simply does not possess the intellectual acuity required for responsible participation in the gun debate.

It's simple common sense. If one finds the head of a nail sticking out of the floorboards, one does not leave it in that state forever, simply because one doesn't own the perfect hammer for the job. 

One simply takes to the task with the next best option and in the case of firearms, there are literally hundreds of thousands of alternatives to choose from, their inferiority to semi-automatic firearms measured in fractions of a second. 

If Australian’s owe a debt of gratitude to any one man for bringing the spree-shooting phenomenon to a halt – so far – that man is Bill Gates, not John Howard and the organisation responsible is Microsoft, not the Liberal Party.

If you can think of any other drivers of change I have not outlined above, I encourage you to share them in the comments section below, regardless of how "out there" they may seem.

The more comprehensive the list we compile, the more compelling our advocates will be when they engage with the media carrying the message “banning semi-automatics did not end massacres in Australia. John Howard is no savior.”

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now....
©gmallard2016 all rights reserved



Follow the Hunters' Stand on Twitter @Hunters_Stand

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/what-really-halted-massacres.html

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.


If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com This service will not include notification of new comments. 

All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.

A NEW APPROACH TO MEDIA ENGAGEMENT

When I first thought to write about the April 24th, 2016 Weekend Sunrise Show interview with Shooters, Fishers & Farmers MP Robert Borsak, Liberal Democrats MP David Leyonhjelm and Gun Control Australia’s Samantha Lee, I was absolutely livid.

Perhaps as muscle, or to block a nasty draft, former Labor thug Mark Latham was also included, but as his presence defied all reason he'll not be mentioned further.

Leyonhjelm and Borsak, both invited ‘guests’ of the Sunrise Show, were treated deplorably by off peak ‘hosts’ Angela Cox and Andrew O’Keefe.

O’Keefe’s determination to propound erroneous facts, despite being corrected several times, was a typical example of the media’s continued commitment to the manipulation of the narrative. 

Cox’s perpetual eye-narrowing scowl of disapproval and constant squirming in her seat like a fretting broody bantam hen struggling to hatch a prickly-pear, betrayed her contempt for the two firearms advocates.

Upon reflection, tho’, I was forced to acknowledge the circus was performing not to the whip of journalists, but a pair of “Infotainers”. Their objective therefore was never to probe the facts or inform the public. 

No, being popular is their game, in order to boost the sales of the latest anti-aging face cream derived from the ground gonads of immortal jellyfish found only in the darkest depths of the Mariana Trench, where they’re harvested by free diving transgender amputees fleeing persecution in Syria.

In short, it was a hypefest aimed at appealing to the sorts of people who’re to be found glued to the tele at 9am. As such, it unfolded exactly as Borsak and Leyonhjelm should have expected. 

Why then, I ask myself, do our advocates insist on walking into this kind of ambush armed with the same tired old approach and arguments?

I have enormous respect for the likes of Borsak and Leyonhjelm. They’ve spent years fronting the public on our behalf.  It’s a hard and largely thankless job, one they can never quite do to everyone’s satisfaction. 

When they’re not being persecuted by simpletons intent on forming opinions based on who cries the most on SBS Insight, they’re copping a pizzling from the shooters and hunters they represent for failing to advocate lost causes.

I often hear their critics complaining, “Why did they say that, for ##ck sake?  They should be looking at the big picture!” and that’s a fair point. 

But what exactly is the big picture?

Whose big picture is the right one? 

How much should Group A be expected to sacrifice so Group B can do or have something Groups C, D, E and F think is holding us back and damaging the shooters’ image?

What are we willing to sacrifice in the moment, for long term gains, and how do we reach consensus on that? 

The answer of course, is simple.

No-one is willing to sacrifice or give ground on anything, even temporarily, now or ever. We would rather fragment into factions and splinter groups, all of which are going to achieve miracles because each is the new one true faith.

It seems likely it was one such faction that colluded with Sen. Ricky Muir (of the Motor Enthusiasts’ Party for crying out stupid) in order to produce yet another totally unconvincing video about the Adler shotgun.

This served only to get Samantha Lee and the media all fired up to pick at the scab that had begun to form over public concern about the Adler.

As I have indicated in past articles, there is an aspect of the Adler that, should the media and Gun Control Australia ever stop obsessing about its action long enough to  twig, will spell disaster for a great many gun owners. 

It is something so basic yet with so much potential to wreak havoc, I’ve told no one what it is, save a few trusted friends.

I don’t want to be responsible for giving the media any hints. However, we cannot bank on the gun grabber’s myopia being eternal.

The corollary of all the above is this.

As an advocate of 20 years who took up the challenge of a cause every bit as unpalatable in the public arena as firearms advocacy, I think the Shooters and Fishers guys deserve medals for sticking it up the Greens and sundry as long as they have.

However, as a stakeholder in the shooters’/hunters’ cause myself, I firmly believe future success is dependent upon our advocates exploring fresh approaches to media engagement and public debate.

The objective of the exercise should be to open the public’s mind to the possibility that 1996 gun reform is not all it’s cracked up to be. 

We know this. The public doesn’t. 

What is most important for us to realise is that the public doesn’t care to know either, and people who don’t care to know stuff, simply do not listen.

The public doesn’t care to listen because it appears they’ve got what they want. There have been no major massacres since 1996 and it really doesn’t matter to them if gun control is responsible or not. 

Nor do they give a damn that we might feel persecuted. 

What follows amounts to my thoughts on a way forward. It is more catharsis than anything and should be read, not as a threat to the game as it’s currently played, but rather as a diary entry laid bare to the public. This is, after all, what blogging is really about. 

I acknowledge that I represent nobody in particular but myself, nor do I strive to create division or cause offence, tho’ much is likely to be taken by those wedded to the 'no compromises' approach to representation and advocacy.

With that declaration duly conferred, I invite the reader to follow me on a journey of exploration. Mind the step....

The premise

The vast bulk of the public don’t need or want guns, so they see no reason why anyone else should feel disadvantaged by their illusion of enhanced safety post 1996.

This is the single most important factor to keep in mind when forming arguments and strategies to get our message across.

All arguments, therefore, should be devised with the objective of giving the public cause to care and in so doing, prepare and nourish a landscape in which to sew our crop of alternative explanations and ideas.

This will not be possible for as long as we sally forth with the 'charge all fronts at once' approach.  For every step forward we take in moderation, we’re pushed two steps back due to our support for proposals that are too radical for the public to accept.

Example 

To claim we feel wounded because the media portrays all firearms owners as “gun nuts” when the evidence clearly demonstrates we are not, is perfectly valid.

To advise with the very next breath that everyone would be much safer if they carried guns for self-defence, is exactly what the public and the media associates with the paranoid gun nut persona. 

Of the two propositions...

1. Gun owners deserve respect as law abiding members of society, and
   
2. It should be lawful to carry guns for self-defence,

only the first is achievable in the short term, while the second is completely contingent on the achievement of the first.

The public will not agree that guns should be carried legally for self-defence until they believe gun owners deserve trust and respect. Ergo, it seems logical to remove 2 from the equation until 1 is accomplished.

This narrows the focus of limited resources to a single goal with benefits all firearms owners will appreciate.

Dependence on graphs and statistics demonstrating the decline in massacres was already in train prior to 1996, should stop completely.  At best such facts are best kept in reserve as interesting factoids to back up stronger arguments.

For every report we cite proving conclusively that gun reform had no significant impact on gun crime etc., the opposition can and will cite another stating the opposite, with the result that the public switches off to all but the facts that make them feel safe.

Instead of accepting the challenge to defend our arguments, we should get into the habit of forcing our opponents to defend theirs.  This is a far simpler process than it sounds and potentially far more productive.

When gun control advocates, journalists and Infotainers state that banning semi-automatic rifles brought an end to massacres, we should not strive to deny it, we should simply ask “how?”

It is likely the opponent will respond with something uninspired like, “Well, the statistics speak for themselves don’t they. We had a number of massacres prior to 96 and there hasn’t been one since. There’s your proof!”

Our response to this claim should be something akin to the following:

“Well no, actually. All your statistics demonstrate is that something (or things) happened around 1996 that ended massacres, and the statistics also demonstrate that process was in train prior to 96.

“However, the statistics do not demonstrate what that process (or processes) may have been. You simply assume it was gun control because that also took effect at around the same time. So did many other things no one seems willing to investigate.

"As any competent scientist will tell you, correlation is not necessarily causation and what we are asking is that government and other agencies investigate what those causes may have been.

"Until we have done that, we cannot ensure the contributors to less gun violence are appropriately recognised, resourced and replicated in order that they might reap their full potential.

"Law abiding gun owners simply believe it is short sighted, irresponsible and potentially deadly to leave that research undone in favour of relying on what amounts to a strong suspicion that makes some people feel vindicated for their hatred of guns.”

If the interrogator is still obsessed with his simplistic interpretation of statistical evidence, it will be necessary to cause him to undermine their reliability for you, by admitting gun control may not be the sole contributing factor...

“So your statistics speak for themselves you say. Well what do you say of the following?

“Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are massively over-represented in the criminal justice system. The statistics demonstrate that while they represent only 3% of the total population, Aboriginal people account for more than 28% of Australia’s prison population.

“Would you say the statistics clearly prove Aboriginal people are more inclined to criminal activity than anyone else, or would you agree there are various complex factors that contribute to their over-representation in prisons?

“I tend to believe the latter and because I would like to see the various contributing factors identified and addressed, I support comprehensive research into the problem, rather than simply locking people away because a simplistic interpretation of statistics clearly demonstrates Aborigines can’t be trusted.”

In a nutshell, if it is our position that we should not be treated as criminals and indeed that we have done nothing wrong in wanting to own firearms, why do we habitually adopt the position of people desperately trying to prove their innocence?

It strikes me as far more productive to force our accusers to demonstrate the integrity of their ‘proof’ against us.

If they’re still waving their statistics in paroxysms of desperation, it may be time to drop the ultimate clanger. To wit:

“As you say, there has not been even a single substantial public shooting since 1996 and we believe this is evidence to support the assertion that banning semi-automatic rifles had little if any impact on gun violence.”

Such a statement, which on the surface seems bizarre and outrageous in the extreme, is bound to get everyone’s attention. For those interested in knowing why, in detail, I cover it in the article Semi-Automatic Placebo Policy, but in brief the argument goes like this:

“There has not been a single massacre in 20 years and that is attributed to Howard’s ban on semi-automatic firearms, yes? With me so far? Good!

Then what you believe, along with everyone else who hates guns, is that slowing the psychopath’s rate of fire from one shot per second, to one shot every 1.5 seconds, was sufficient inconvenience to discourage the mentally unstable from their course, completely!

“It follows that you must believe the budding psychopathic slayer prepares for his blaze of glory by running through the math with a calculator to determine exactly how many people he can kill within a specific time-frame that is absolutely non-negotiable.

"Do you really think the crazed gunman says to himself, “I want to outdo Martin Bryant, so I need to kill more than 35 people in a crowded location, in not more than 300 seconds (5 minutes).  Oh shit, now I can’t get my hands on a semi-automatic it’s likely to take me as much as 450 seconds.

"Fuck-it, foiled again! Think I'll go fishing instead!

“That is in fact what you must believe if you think a half-second inconvenience per round, resulted in absolutely no massacres whatsoever. Not simply fewer massacres, but rather not a single event, or even a failed attempt.  Zip!

“I think it’s important we all understand how this magic works, don’t you? So please, in your own time.....”

Of course all this becomes hugely problematic in anything but the live interview environment, but if our more compelling and pertinent arguments are destined for the cutting-room floor anyway, it’s all the more reason to ensure everything we say is pertinent and compelling. After all, they will want something for their story.

I confess these may not be perfect arguments and lord knows the offensives launched against us are not always statistical in nature, but there are effective responses to those attack formations too. Alas, to cover those in detail here would mean making a very long article into a small book.

I will take a moment to touch on one more important skills our advocates must hone. The ability to claim time in an interview is crucial.

While our guys are often asked questions they’re quite capable of responding to convincingly, journalists are apt to give them little or no opportunity to do so, treating each rhetorical question as an accusation, followed by yet another rhetorical 'questusation'.

It is essential that we practice the art of gentle reprimand and I do mean practice, perhaps in front of a mirror. The object is to be able to say, very politely and calmly, with a friendly smile on one’s face that doesn’t look in the least bit patronising...

“I would be happy to answer your question/s both frankly and convincingly, if you will only allow me the opportunity to do so, as promised in your invitation to participate.”

This may not always result in a back-down providing the time you need, but it does send a very clear message to the public i.e. that you are reasonable and willing to be upfront, but the media is manipulating circumstances to stop the public hearing the responses they'd dearly like to hear.

There is capital to be realised from that message too.

I hope the scenarios above at least demonstrate the potential of a more productive methodology for media engagement, but even these strategies will fail if we persist in activities that diminish our standing in the community.

Crying out for Royal Commissions into Port Arthur serve only to make us look like conspiracy theorists or desperate people looking for a scapegoat at the expense of survivors.

Unless of course the reason we cite for wanting the inquiry is to holistically research and identify all the factors – before the event and since – that led to its unfolding and the current state of relative peace too.

What we learn may help us promote contributing factors even more efficiently, thus potentially saving more lives.

This message should come from us!

That is something the public can get behind and it makes our capacity for rational thought and responsible endeavour in the public interest, more evident to everyone.

Likewise, angling for the right to carry side arms and own all manner of weaponry with no practical target or hunting application, simply gives credence to the opinion “gun nuts will never be happy until they can own bazookas for personal protection and maybe the odd recreational ICBM too, just in case (wink)”.

This is not America, where heavy tackle was acquired by civilians almost incidentally over many decades, and in the absence of any laws to prevent it.

It is near impossible to withdraw a ‘right’, even an informal one. It is equally difficult to have a right bestowed, especially if it requires laws to be overturned and others introduced in their place.

While not totally impossible, in Australia it would require the support of the overwhelming majority of voters.  In my view, that is about as likely as a national grain shortage brought about by a unicorn plague.

We should put such objectives on the backburner for some future date when more fundamental objectives have been realised.

So there you have it. Agree or disagree, it’s all the same to me. If there’s an opinion you’d like to share or anything else you’d like to say, please feel free to contribute to the conversation via the comments section below.


Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now....
©gmallard2016 all rights reserved



Follow the Hunters' Stand on Twitter @Hunters_Stand

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/a-new-approach-to-media-engagement.html

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.


If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com This service will not include notification of new comments. 

All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.