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.
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.
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.
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...
- Gun owners deserve respect as law abiding members of society, and
- 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
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.
I'm just worried about the unicorn plague destroying our wheat crops!
ReplyDeleteLast thing we need is a repeat of 65. The Nation lost some of its finest Winged Demon Monkeys in the trenches, fighting the bastards off I tell ya.
Deletei think you hit the nail on the head, if we dont conduct our selfs as respectable people no one wil ever take us serious.
DeleteA public debate with teams of 2 or even solitary would be great. A debate with strict rules about conduct adressing the speaker etc. A voting worm with people watching being able to vote for the segment of the debate that matters to them. Otherwise, a mailed or online survey with people quizzed on their knowledge of laws in their state then being allowed in to a survey whereby they can complete a multi choice questonaire and being able to add their own ideas to what they think should happen with the laws and why.
ReplyDeleteI just completed a quiz online by https://australia.isidewith.com
To my everlasting displeasure I got labeled a greens supporter with labor tendencies! They obviously didn't get the subtext of my responses......lol!
If nothing else, the approach you suggest would leave the likes of the game show host sitting back after the interview scratching his head and wondering what the hell just happened and why didn't it go as planned?
ReplyDeleteYes I like what you've written. We've been using the same old arguments that really go nowhere.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes I think we need to tackle some of our more extreme friends especially when it comes to social media. Crying how much you hate Muslims, and how you should be able to carry a pistol or defend your home against a 16 year old junkie makes us sound damn crazy.
Our murder rate has fallen from 2 to 1.1 people per 100,000. Guns accounted for %20 of murders so even if they fell by half it would only have a %10 impact. In other words 2 to 1.8 so what caused every other form of murder to fall? Our suicide rate at 12 people per 100,000 is the same as before and whilst there has been a reduction in gun related suicides hangings have more than doubled and now make up almost %50 of all suicides. Never forget that the media only allow you to see, hear and read what they want you to. I still remember a newspaper asking gun control Australia and the SSAA to provide 250 words each on a topic and then removed 75 words, the whole closing argument, from the pro gun side. Ricky's adler video got more UNCENSORED online media coverage than anything else I have seen recently, you can learn something from that.
ReplyDeleteHi Jason, I think I missed your point mate. Are you saying that gun controllers are losing the media fight? Policing, from an outsiders perspective, seems to have become more involved in the community,so may have an impact on the numbers. Suicides are a red herring and using them to explain gun control is like using downs syndrome child births as birth control argument. Suicide is linked more closely with jobs, self worth and relationships than guns. What's next a licence to purchase 6 feet of rope? Working in an emergency department I get to see more suicides and attempts than I'd like and the most frustrating is the use of medication. I use it to control pain and health problems whereas these sad people use it to end their lives. We can't get rid of medication because everyone uses it and it has some positive benefits. You're right about the media though they've disassociated hunting from conservation so effectively people deny there's a link! The latte set believe the problem will sort itself out! Recreational hunting then is seen to be a self gratifying activity with no positive flow on effect at all. Yet the problem of feral animal control grows. Jaala Pulford made a great move in Victoria and I'm hoping it continues to catch on and she follows through.Good day
DeleteThe point I was making is that guns are not a reason or cause of murder or suicide they are a method. The reason there are less murders is because less people are being murdered not because there are more or less guns and knives. If a reduction in one method of suicide simply results in the increased use of others then once again you have achieved nothing. Hangings and guns have a similar lethality rating %80 to %85 respectively.
DeleteI think you are close, but a little off, still a great article! My belief is that maybe that there is something that in 1997 that did affect the nutters in this country from further issues. Maybe, just maybe there is something that has occurred worth being open to as a possibility. Everyone on both sides are so busy being right, no one is listening & that's where the problem lies, we aren't creating dialogue & communicating, we're just arguing over who is right. I agree it's time for change, I even believe in a willingness to create dialogue even GCA might be willing to be potentially reasonable. It's time we stop defending the fort & actually start to run tour guides.
ReplyDeleteI like it.
ReplyDeleteThere is a study somewhere which I managed to read and lose. It contains a number of psychiatric opinions and they all agreed on one thing. For a truly successful community there needed to be training for everyone in the use of firearms. The study is European and made fascinating reading. The findings were. That more of the world needs to be responsible for itself. To do this the peoples need to learn to look after themselves. This means all need to learn the basics of operation of all machinery. It was likened to driving a car or the people in government. The people in power do not have the required life experience so the world is crumbling. We do not people operate machinery or drive cars without training. To the end of this argument was that in communities where people were familiar with all of the tools the accidents or misuse of equipment was very low. The use of weapons in the committing of crimes was very low in these places.
Powerful and insightful, thank you Gary.
ReplyDeleteI've moved my focus away from the antis and instead I now point out the anti-gun bias in the articles and programmes to the non-shooters who read and watch them. My objective is, as you say, to win the hearts and minds of the non-shooting public. I prefer to avoid 'statistics' for the reasons you recommended, prefering instead to look to history for examples of where ideas have been tried and succeeded or failed. I also like to put the onus on the antis to prove their claims or demonstrate how their proposals would work. Their non-responses (or tantrums) do more to weaken their argument than anything I could say.
I think the pro-firearm lobby may actually be winning the debate; Have you noticed how busy your local gun shop and rifle range has become? Firearm licence applications in NSW are at an all-time high and I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same in other states.
Australians aren't as dumb or malleable as the media seems to think they are. No one trusts a politician and by extention, anyone who extolls the virtues of a politician - the media for example. I think a signifigant number of non-shooters can see the blatant anti-gun bias and are checking out the sport for themselves, to "find out what all the fuss is about" A signifigant number of those who do, take up the sport. John Howard, Samantha Lee, David Shoebridge and Philip Alpers may just be the best assets the pro-shooting lobby has.