INSULTS FOR UNITY ON ELECTION EVE

My name is Garry Mallard and I am a complete dickhead with no idea what I’m talking about, whatsoever!

This is the judgement of those who support and promulgate the FUDD campaign and since their analysis of an individual’s worth is both accurate and binding I see no point in hiding my true nature.

Apparently I can now look forward to an epiphany, whereby I will realise and acknowledge the manifold errors of my wrong thinking, and return to the fold a reformed and useful member of the national shooting fraternity.

Oh happy day!

At least I must have faith that’s the outcome I can expect. I can do no other, since despite much searching I am unable to identify so much as a single outcast who claims to have seen the light and returned to the fold as a consequence of being declared a FUDD.

If that is not the outcome of being ostracised for wrong thinking, one can only conclude the FUDD campaign is simply a way for angry and disappointed people to express as much by marginalising the unpopular viewpoint.

We all have some experience of that; mobs of kids roaming the quadrangle pointing fingers at the odd kid out, calling him names, refusing to sit next to him and encouraging everyone else to do likewise.

In the long-run it had the effect of making us stronger individuals and often facilitated the forging of bonds in the most unlikely places, as those who were not the focal point of name-callers’ attentions today, nonetheless tapped us on the shoulder, perhaps in the dunnies or on the bus, to quietly express their concern and sympathy.

This has again been the case since my article “The Year of the Fudd” was shared on the Australian Hunting Podcast’s Facebook page, in the mistaken belief it was an endorsement of the FUDD campaign.

This error in judgment was soon rectified and the post given a suitably disproving intro, at which point the business of defending the indefensible commenced in earnest.

Of course smart people are not going to make themselves targets by popping their heads up above the trenches to express their own concerns, but confident I will not divulge their names, they have been eager to communicate with me by personal message and email.

With their assistance and with the help of defences mounted by key people at FUDD campaign HQ, I have been able to assemble some useful information about the FUDD movement’s raison d’etre.

1) The campaign’s aim is to address perceived disunity.

This disunity is defined as the failure of any individual to support the demands of all the stakeholder groups that constitute the shooting fraternity, equally and without exception or reservation.

This includes the rollback of Howard’s post-Port Arthur gun reforms in toto, along with supporting the right to carry concealed handguns, the right to own a firearm for the purpose of personal defence and any other dot-point on the individual’s wish-list.

The result being that failure to agree with any single item on said list is reason enough for FUDD candidacy.

2) The objective of the FUDD campaign is not to persuade but to silence.

I am reliably informed that while it may be permissible to harbour personal reservations about various objectives, it is in no way permissible to express them anywhere or to anyone. 

A non-party view must be a silent non-party view!

3) Those who express reservations about any aspect of any item on the list, is a press or Anti collaborator.

They are to be silenced, ostracised and vilified for their delinquency in much the same manner one might expect of a religious institution dealing with apostasy.

Not killed you understand, but simply left with no doubt this was a concession to legality rather than mercy.

4) Any firearms advocate who believes the FUDD campaign has been divisive, counterproductive and inequitable is advised he is obliged to “Toughen up, toughen up.” 

This is in fact considered an argument for the affirmative and given the teams performance to date in this regard, I can see why it would be. 

5) The FUDD campaign’s education component is best described as “an eye for an eye”.

Positions and statements attributable to ignorance and naivety are cause for insult and humiliation in place of patient debate and persuasive argument. 

And finally...

6) FUDD campaign organisers claim they have been given a mandate to FUDD by a majority of law abiding firearms owners (LAFOs).

In all fairness I believe it is reasonable to suggest this claim should be accorded at least as much gravitas as any similar stupefyingly deluded claim.

Despite the hullabaloo that has ensued since challenging the productivity and ethical legitimacy of the FUDD campaign, the number of LAFOs found leaping to its defence is miniscule, that being a charitable assessment.

The campaign’s “without reservation” support base is diminishing, as LAFOs realise it is not focused solely on those obligated to account for their statements or performance by some formal representative status.

So human nature being what it is almost universally, what is the likely outcome of the FUDD campaign? 

Well, I’m afraid no matter how objectively one looks at it, nothing good can come of it.

Never since the dawn of creation has anyone ever thanked someone for bullying and marginalising them, save perhaps those few sad souls suitably medicated for their malady.

In the long-term I suspect this will result in little more than some altered seating arrangements around the firearms advocacy table.

The hardcore and unapologetic who hold the concepts of patient education and strategic planning in contempt, will hunker down together, while everyone else works the room so to speak.

Alas, this will have its own consequences for the sector, with the media and the Antis in general bound to discover there are places where they can be assured of finding exactly the sort of immoderate activity they rely on for their anti-firearms stories and propaganda.

In the short-term the consequences for the pro-gun parties in the looming Federal election could be significant, though largely immeasurable, which might be seen as a get out of jail free card for the FUDD campaign.

Those watching the immature FUDDery unfolding may be inclined to reconsider giving a pro-shooter party a place on their ballot. 

It’s equally possible people who have actually been branded FUDDs, the injustice of their persecution still smarting and fresh in the memory, may be inclined to slight back at the polling booth.

Whatever the political realities of a campaign that could only ever alienate comprehensively on the eve of an important election, one thing is absolutely certain.

A percentage of law abiding firearms owners who could once be relied upon for their in-principle support of general firearms advocacy, now vehemently hate a percentage of law abiding firearms owners who just as vehemently hate them back.

The inevitably intemperate exchanges that will ensue will stand as beacons of anger and intolerance all over unsecured social media platforms, to be harvested at the leisure of journalists and anti-firearms campaigners eager to put a question to the general public.

“Are these really the sorts of people we want to give guns to....really?”

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/2016/06/insults-for-unity-on-election-eve.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.

THE YEAR OF THE FUDD

Considerable discontent has arisen within the social media savvy contingent of the shooting and hunting fraternities over recent months. 

It has the potential to do substantial damage to our public image, while creating and nourishing petty rifts within, thus threatening whatever unity the sector may have once enjoyed, albeit tenuously.

Before examining this rift further, it behooves me to acknowledge that no-one is in a position to accurately determine exactly how widely spread this discontent really is, simply because our only reference is the relative few shooters and hunters who actively engage in debate and advocacy via various social media platforms.

That said, I believe it would be a mistake to adopt a "It's just a bit of fun" or an “It’ll blow over” attitude to the issue. 

Unlike the schoolyard spats it resembles, which are soon forgotten once all the name-calling and spitting is done, social media bullying campaigns leave indelible evidence of individuals’ intemperate foolishness that continues to generate angst for years after the original grievance is settled.

Worse still, these squabbles have a habit of being self-perpetuating, with new squabbles breaking out over emerging issues once the habit of retaliatory name-calling and vilification is acquired.   

I am speaking about the “FUDD campaign”, the aim of which it appears is to label and publically shame hunters and shooters found guilty of expressing ‘wrong’ opinions.

The vehicle and methodology by which this media campaign is prosecuted is not new; in fact it will be very familiar to many if not most. 

What makes it unique is the fact it is being pushed by our own people and their media, rather than by the mainstream agencies from which we’ve all come to expect nothing better.

It strikes me shooters and hunters have long had a perfectly serviceable epithet which they apply to those who criticise and condemn them on philosophical grounds. 

We call them “Antis.”

I can see little difference between the grounds upon which the ‘FUDD’ mantle is bestowed, and those epithets applied by Antis when labelling shooters and hunters with such terms as cowboy, redneck, psychopath and so on.

The term ‘cowboy’ for instance, has no application in the Australian landscape in terms of its literal definition; nor does redneck or psychopath. They are simply terms intended to belittle, express disapproval and undermine the legitimacy of one’s opinions and activities. 

This appears to be the ‘FUDD’ raison d’etre too.

Those engaged in FUDDing are no more accountable to the broader shooting and hunting communities than the likes of Sunrise program hosts David Koch and Andrew O’Keefe, who likewise use the vehicle of their respective shows and their fan base to belittle advocates who do not hold the prescribed views or perform acceptably.

There appears to be no tribunal of appeal that might allow the ‘FUDD’ to refute claims made against him, nor redeem his name and standing by explaining his actions or statements, perhaps by putting them in some context.

There also appear to be no hard and fast guidelines for the charge of FUDDery; the FUDDworthiness of the individual being determined at the sole discretion of a shadowy and some have suggested, politically motivated, FUDDocracy.

But all levity aside, turning on our fellows due to perceived philosophical heresies is unlikely to achieve unity by making an example of the ‘disloyal’, which is surely what the FUDD movement is all about.

It is in fact more likely to backfire on FUDDers, as the critical microscope is turned on their statements and activities, which, as it happens, I took it upon myself to do this past weekend.

During one (1) broadcast alone, high-profile FUDDers made no less than three (3) statements, which, if brought to the attention of our adversaries, could be used against us to catastrophic effect. 

And I didn’t even get through the entire show, let alone do it with a view to finding error in minutiae and pedantry.

I will not repeat or attempt to analyse their 'transgressions' here. My intention is not to humiliate or score cheap points for slighted comrades.

We are none of us perfect, nor are we all the same in our ideals and approaches to advocacy and representation. I believe this diversity is one of our greatest assets. But whether this is true or not, we certainly do absolutely nothing to further the cause by doing the Antis’ work for them.

And as I have said in previous articles, what message this campaign is sending to those on the outside who may be considering joining our ranks, is anybody's guess. 

Yes, our elected and formally appointed representatives owe their constituencies a measure of accountability, as do those with audiences who tune in with the expectation of hearing the news of the sector. 

However, we are not all members of that elite and sometimes handsomely remunerated group.

Many are simply individuals expressing opinions they are completely entitled to express in a free society, which is something many of us claim to prize at least as much as our current shooting and hunting privileges.

Australians have never believed running folk down for having a go is an acceptable alternative to stepping up to the line and having a shot yourself. I’d like to think that’s part of the Australian spirit we’ve been able to preserve, along with our much cherished shooting and hunting cultures.

However, if some do think it’s time to try a different approach, they’d better be confident they can do more than simply talk about how it shouldn't be done, and be prepared to put their theories into practice and deliver for us too.

I believe if we are ever to be taken seriously and respected by the wider community as once we were, we must learn to put aside childish campaigns, keeping in mind that while we refuse to do so we are leaving evidence of our anger and intolerance all over the interweb.

It’s only an matter of time before a clever adversary will draw to the public’s attention, all the sniping and hostility within our ranks, asking the question, “Do you really want people like this to have guns?”  

I know I would!

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now....I’m late for my FUDD support group, which is poor form, as I suspect I’ve just been elected President.

©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/2016/06/the-year-of-fudd.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.

DEMOCRACY PERVERTED BY LIARS AND FOOLS

Watching the US gun ‘debate’ opportunistically re-energised on the coattails of unparalleled tragedy is a study in hypocrisy, manipulation and left-wing emotive tyranny of equally unparalleled proportions.

I have no objection whatsoever to the exploration of the question “should guns be banned”.  In fact I would cheerfully engage in such a debate and subject my future to laws based on its outcome, provided the debate was an honest and objective one.

Yes, seriously! I do not ‘love guns’ so much that I would wilfully subject the community to unreasonable levels of risk just so I could hunt on weekends.

  

Conversely, nor am I willing to forgo my shooting activities simply because doing so might make some members of the public feel safer for a brief period, with zero measurable benefit in the long term.

I say a ‘brief period’ because laws developed on a flawed premise are invariably found to be ineffective.  

The result is more laws being introduced to stump up the ineffective laws by addressing other factors that an emotive public is convinced also contribute to the situation, whether they do or not.

I suspect I am not alone in my willingness to relinquish property and forgo activities I enjoy for the greater good, if it can be demonstrated that my sacrifices will not be in vain.

Those who claim to hold democracy dear often overlook the fact that democracy is not a Latin word meaning “I can do anything I want!” Nor does its implementation mean every law passed democratically will be innately fair, especially in the view of those who opposed the laws. 

Democracy is simply the fair process by which decisions are made in a democratic society.

Example of the media's refusal to correct when deception is challenged

But I digress...

Australian is home to a great many shooters involved in a variety of shooting disciplines. State and Territory governments are a bit cagey about releasing the exact number of licence shooters in their various jurisdictions, but it is generally accepted that Australia-wide shooters number in excess of 1-million.

If the media had its way – and it often does – Australia’s 1-million shooters would be portrayed as crazed, toothless rednecks obsessed with ‘false-flag’ conspiracy theories, busily digging shelters in which to prep for invasion or celestial Armageddon.

The fact is the shooting fraternity occupies the same professional and social niches in everyday life that any other interest group might occupy e.g. labourers, doctors, teachers, barristers, butchers, bakers, candlestick makers etc, all of whom are just as responsible and just as concerned for public welfare as anyone who doesn’t own a gun.

This is not an image the media chooses to portray. 

To the contrary, the media actively engages in and exploits the sort of cultural profiling the public wouldn’t stand for if, for instance, all Muslims were portrayed as bombers or all Aborigines as drunken dole-bludgers.

Nowhere is media’s commitment to the bias manipulation of the gun control narrative more evident than in their wilful promulgation of patently misleading information, which they will gleefully continue to promulgate even after correction.

I am not referring to information that may be open to interpretation. I mean demonstrable facts, an example of which is the media’s obsessing and erroneous application of the term "assault rifle".

Time and again the media has been advised that assault rifles are not commonly held by the public and are not commonly used in spree shootings, yet that is the term they consistently apply. 

The media hates guns of all kinds and so it suits their purpose to misinform, thus perverting the course of the debate and with it, the equity of laws that result.

An assault rifle is a very specific thing. It has attributes above and beyond those basic attributes it shares in common with civilian arms. 

Claiming these differences are irrelevant is like reserving the right to call a Volkswagen Beetle a Maserati because both vehicles share 4 wheels, a motor and doors in common.

  

In no other public debate would such a gross generalisation be acceptable, yet in the gun debate such generalisations are the norm.

The fact that some shooters may be drawn to firearms modelled on military arms does not make the gun as deadly as its military counterpart, anymore than buying a light-sabre for your kids will enable them to scythe through steel columns. 

If the gun does not function as an assault rifle, it is not an assault rifle, it’s as simple as that!

Even in the case of the military assault rifle, its pistol grip does not make it more deadly, nor does its scary black finish or the cutaway construction of its butt make it a more efficient killer.

The military assault rifle's pistol grip is intended to facilitate carrying in the hand for long hours on patrol, as opposed to slinging it over the shoulder as one might with civilian rifles. 

This is also a handy inclusion for the hunter who spends long hours tracking game up hill and down dale.

The military assault rifle’s scary matte black finish is intended to prevent reflections that might otherwise giveaway a soldier’s position to an enemy. 

This attribute is equally convenient for the deer hunter who relies on stealth to stalk a quarry.

The military assault rifle’s hollow butt construction is intended to cut down on the overall weight burden (including backpacks, radios etc) that must be carried for long periods on patrol. This weight management may also include the use of more plastic than one might usually find in the construction of traditional hunting rifles. 

This attention to weight minimisation is equally valued by the hunter who may also be burdened with a backpack full of camping gear, a radio and so on.

In general, a military assault rifle will fire a bullet identical in size, shape and power to that of any common hunting rifle. They are not bigger bullets, or faster or more deadly in any way. 

The reason is simple. The bullet that will stop a deer or a pig will likewise stop an enemy. Therefore military calibre bullets offer no specific advantage to the budding spree shooter.

It is all these concessions to weight, comfort, non-reflective surfaces and durability that account for the popularity of a gun of this appearance among some hunters.

There is one more attribute of a military assault rifle that is not available in its hunting facsimile counterpart and it is this feature alone which transforms a hunting rifle into a “military style assault rifle”. 

It is also the one feature the media both here and in the US, refuses point blank to acknowledge, despite the fact its pivotal relevance deserves detailed explanation.

I refer of course to the military assault rifle’s capacity to function as a semi-automatic or fully automatic weapon.

Let me begin by saying neither function is readily available in Australia, except in rare and stringently regulated instances where the ownership of a semi-automatic rifle can be justified. For instance military personnel, professional shooters and competitive sportsperson, so their presence in the community is infinitesimally small. 

Fully-automatic arms on the other hand, have never been freely available for purchase in Australia and are present in the community only in the form of illegal smuggled weapons. 

One wonders then why the Australian media is so obsessed with demanding the abolition of something that simply doesn't exist?

It is important to understand what “semi-automatic” and “automatic” mean.  Both terms describe how a rifle, or indeed a handgun, cycles (often erroneously called “loading”) and fires a bullet.

In the case of the military style assault rifle such as those available in Australia, a magazine containing bullets is first inserted into the gun. At this point the gun is not prepared to fire.

The next process is called ‘cycling’, whereby a mechanism known as a ‘bolt’ or perhaps a 'lever' is worked manually to move one (1) bullet from the magazine and position it at the entrance to the gun’s barrel. There it remains in a holding area known as the ‘breach’, where it awaits detonation by one further action i.e. the pulling of the trigger.

Only when these processes have been completed, by hand, can a bullet be sent whizzing through the air to its target. 

The entire cycling process must then be repeated for every subsequent shot.

In the case of the true military assault rifle, a magazine full of bullets must also be loaded into the gun. An action must be cycled too, but only once!

Having been cycled, the military assault rifle is ready to fire with a pull of the trigger, but it will continue to fire one bullet with every pull of the trigger thereafter, until the magazine is empty. 

Again, this form of firearm is not legally available in Australia, which would seem to negate the need to ban it.

A military assault rifle has one more unique feature. It can operate as an automatic weapon. 

In this case and as with the two examples above, a magazine is inserted into the firearm, the action is then cycled to position a single bullet in the firing position at the back of the barrel (the breach) and with an adjustment of the gun’s cycling mechanism (usually at the push of a small button located near the trigger) the cycling of the action will be managed automatically for as long as the trigger is held back.

To clarify further, by pulling the trigger just once and holding the trigger down, the gun will shoot bullet after bullet after bullet until either the shooter releases the trigger or the magazine is empty.  

This is what most people perceive to be the “machine gun” effect and as with the semi-automatic this form of firearm is not legally available in Australia and for the record, not because John Howard banned them after Port Arthur. 

Fully automatic firearms have never been legally available to the Australia public and none has ever been used in an Australian spree shooting.

  

In fact fully automatic firearms are not readily available in the US either. Purchase and ownership of automatic weapons is subject to strict controls even in the home of the 2nd Amendment.

It therefore remains a mystery why the Australian media is absolutely obsessed with incorrectly and intentionally referring to a need to ban “military style assault rifles". Or for that matter why the likes of Greens Senator David Shoebridge and Samantha Lee of Gun Control Australia likewise persist in falsely claiming Australia has a problem with military style assault rifles.

Given the facts, the logical mind can draw only two conclusions. Either:

1. The likes of David Koch, Andrew O’Keefe, Samantha Lee and Sen. David Shoebridge are so profoundly intellectually impaired they believe the colour and shape of a gun make it more dangerous, not unlike the youth who believes painting a GT stripe on his car will make it go faster, or
   
   
2. The media, gun control advocates and Greens senators are intentionally lying to the public to induce fear of a threat that doesn’t exist, as part of an agenda to have all guns banned.

Regardless of which of these is true, what Australian firearms owners object to is not the debate, but that a debate resourced with lies and misinformation is a perversion and abuse of the democracy we all hold so dear.

Note: I am acutely aware that shooters may consider this article a prime example of "selling coals to Newcastle", however, it was not written with shooters in mind.

My hope is that some may consider sharing the link with open minded people who may have been exposed, but not yet succumbed to, the epidemic of pernicious lies currently informing public opinion. 

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/2016/06/democracy-perverted-by-liars-and-fools.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.

STILL FOOLING MOST OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME

That look when you realise the Australian people
really are dumb enough to buy it

Once again I am reminded just how gullible; perhaps even pathologically dim the Australian public is to venerate John Howard for his ban on semi-automatic rifles. 

It’s no wonder he wears a smug grin in perpetuity. It’s not every ex-Prime Minister that can draw a crowd of worshipers a decade after being ousted, let-alone for something he didn’t actually achieve.

While I strive to be a little tolerant of the general public’s equally general gullibility, the belief that he saved us all from being shot at random on the streets requires a level of intellectual mediocrity that deserves no forbearance whatsoever.

John Howard’s ban on semi-autos is NOT responsible for the past 20 years without a major public spree shooting a la Port Arthur. 

Don’t get me wrong. Clearly something (or things) came into play over the past 2 decades or so, which has so far kept major spree shootings at bay. But to attribute that happy outcome to a ban on semi-automatic firearms is not so much simplistic as it is just plain stupid. 

This is immediately evident to anyone possessed of an IQ greater than their age, once they’ve considered the facts.

Facts, I might add, that both the Australian media and firearms advocates alike are absolutely committed to omitting from the public discourse.  

FACT: Howard’s semi-auto ban did not disarm any measurable percentage of Australian firearms owners.  

Semi-automatic firearms were rarely a shooter’s first and only choice. They were more often a second or even a third acquisition for the shooter who wanted something a little faster and sportier than his trusty bolt action rifle. 

Ergo, the removal of semi-autos from the equation still left the shooter with a gun or guns in his/her possession....or as the media would have it, in their "arsenals".

FACT: Semi-automatic rifles shoot each bullet at a rate that is one half of one second (1/2 a second) faster than all bolt action firearms still in service then and today.

In simple terms, a semi-automatic will empty a 5 shot magazine in 5 seconds with one trigger pull necessary for each shot.  The bolt action rifles that were not banned by Howard will empty a 5 shot magazine in 7.5 seconds with one trigger pull per shot, or a 10 shot magazine in 15 seconds with one trigger pull per shot and so on.

FACT: No calibre of rifle was banned and no restrictions were placed on bullet type, power or penetration capacity.  

All bullet types used at Port Arthur, Hoddle Street, Queen Street and every other spree shooting for the past 100 years, are still in service today. So you were not 'saved' by any ban on those nasty semi-automatic bullets. No such thing exists!  

FACT: No Australian spree shooter has ever claimed victims at a rate commensurate with the economies of speed  and total numbers theoretically possible with a semi-automatic rifle. 

Put simply, Martin Bryant’s spree in the Broad Arrow Cafe and neighbouring gift shop, killed or wounded 32 people with 29 shots in an estimated 120 seconds, not 32 seconds as was theoretically possible.  

The discrepancy between shots fired and victims claimed is also noteworthy.  At least three (3) of Bryant’s victims were hit by bullet ricochet fragments and not targeted shots at all, further diminishing his targeted victim 'tally' in the 120 second time-frame.   

This tally is readily achievable with any gun (rifle or pistol) in the hands of a shooter who is even vaguely familiar with its operation.  

Semi-automatics use the same ammunition (bullets) used by any and all rifles and they are no more or less subject to ricochet or fragmentation whether used in a semi-automatic or bolt action firearm.

FACT: There is zero evidence to suggest psychopaths perpetrate their enterprises in pursuit of a specific tally of victims. 

Their intention is to kill and while they may hope to kill a lot, there is no magic number below which they decide the whole enterprise in not worth the effort and they may as well go fishing instead.

Nor is there so much as a single shred of evidence that they will give the game away if they're not confident of killing a magic number of people in a set time-frame e.g. 32 people in 120 seconds. 

FACT: No spree shooter in history has ever confessed he was conscious of the time because he had a train to catch. 

They select crowded locations they can control to some extent and they shoot people.  Because they seldom choose a hall during a police sharpshooter convention, they are confident they will be able to shoot lots of people before either running out of bullets or being stopped by authorities.

Ergo, there is no pressing need to use the fastest possible means in order to accomplish a specific objective in a restricted period of time. 

So, what may one deduce from this fundamentally remedial, yet seldom pondered information?

Howard’s ban on semi-automatics was an opportunistic public relations stunt, aimed at giving the appearance of decisive action in response to public outcry, and nothing more.

As a strategy it is commendable only by virtue of the sheer audacity required by Howard in order to milking it as a success story for 20 years.  

The successful completion of a spree shooting of the Port Arthur variety is not contingent upon the possession of a semi-automatic rifle, nor longarms of any kind for that matter.  

To the contrary, an ordinary run-o-the-mill handgun would have been far superior in the circumstances. 

Anyone who believes spree shooters sit in their dungeons, face painted and camouflage clad, crunching numbers with benchmark achievements foremost in their minds, against which they critically assess the strategic merit of their crimes, is, quite frankly, dumber than a house-brick! 

They sally forth to kill unarmed, vulnerable people and they do it in places where the objective can be accomplished at leisure, with no expectation of living to tell the tale. 

With this simple logic under one’s belt, a question must be asked. 

Why, given that guns which are more than fit for purpose have been readily available for the entire period since Howard’s 1996 ban on semi-automatics, has their not been so much as a single substantial public spree shooting? 

What has stopped 20 years worth of psychopaths and otherwise deranged people chalking up the measly 4 victims required to qualify for 'massacre' status?

On the day we begin to explore that question with open-minded sincerity, we will have begun the journey towards practical, efficient and non-punitive gun control and not a day before.

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/2016/06/still-fooling-most-of-people-all-of-time.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. 

OPEN SEASON ON SPLITTERS

As an advocate/activist with more than 20 years experience negotiating bureaucracies and tackling Ministers on a number of politically unpopular issues, I know only too well just how tricky the business of representation and advocacy can be.

Plan as one might, there will always be unexpected hurdles to negotiate, often without warning and more often than not, specifically contrived to be unexpected.

No one knows this better, nor learns the hard lessons faster, than those relative few souls brave, foolish or naive enough to accept the post of public spokesperson for their cause. 

Such people are destined to be judged and loathed, not only by the opponents of their cause, but also by an ever shifting percentage of the very stakeholders whose concerns the spokesperson strives, in good faith, to represent.

The more controversial the issue and diverse the stakeholder group, the more fraught the spokespersons’ job becomes, as he quickly learns he is obligated to be all things to all armchair critics, all of the time.

If the issue is apple production, for instance, there will always be those who are dissatisfied by the spokesperson’s failure to draw an orange analogy, and still others who are miffed because he failed to equate it all to the price of eggs. 

The business of firearms advocacy is no different. 

Whether one is the spokesperson for a representative organisation, or simply someone endeavouring to counter the ridiculous sensationalist claims of the media, to displease shooters on any single point, no matter how minor, is to risk a backlash of public vilification. 

This is a fact that Nick Harvey, Technical Editor for Sporting Shooter Magazine, and Robert Brown of the Shooters, Fishers & Farmers Party, both know only too well I'm sure.

Each man has recently come under fire for perceived failures in advocacy and representation, and both has been disrespectfully and childishly lambasted publically by those either arrogant or naive enough to believe they could have done better. 

What were their crimes?  

In the case of Nick Harvey, it was daring to pen an opinion piece in which he challenges the stereotypes of shooters promulgated by the media, which also included a personal opinion on one aspect of the National Firearms Agreement some considered to be traitorous. 

It was enough to see him viciously attacked by the shooting fraternity’s equivalent of Sharia police, who waved away the man’s inestimably valuable 60 year contribution to the shooting and hunting sectors with, “But really, what has he done recently?”

After which, Harvey was dubbed with a puerile pejorative based on a 1940s comic cartoon figure, designed to humiliate, belittle and punish the wrong thinker. 

All of it because in an article that addressed a number of issues very adequately, Harvey’s position on one aspect of the post 1996 NFA did not comply with prescribed and authorised doctrine.

A similar jihad was recently launched against SFF Party MP Robert Brown for what some considered his lacklustre performance on the SBS Insight program on gun control 20 years after Port Arthur.

Brown’s critics were particularly scathing, but this said far more about their total lack of understanding of the way such programs assemble an audience, along with the basic realities of pre-recorded programming, than anything else. 

The vast majority of the more than two hours of filming that goes into the final 50 minute Insight program (including ads) was always destined for the cutting-room floor. 

Ironically, those ordinarily keen to accuse the media of only putting to air that which serves to portray shooters in the poorest possible light, on this occasion did a back-flip worthy of Nadia Comaneci.

They ‘reasoned’ that if the bits of the program that went to air portrayed Brown’s performance in a less than glowing light, he must have performed even more poorly in the edited bits.

I mean, really?

As we all know, the media is committed to covering up our more inglorious moments caught on camera, I don’t think!

As one who has occupied an ‘experts’ seat in the audience on Insight and similar programs over the years, I can appreciate Brown’s no-win situation better than most. In fact many who had been invited to join the studio audience for this event declined because they too foresaw the outcome. 

But had no-one appeared to represent shooters the outcome for us in public relations terms would have been terminal. The sector recognised this and so two representatives sallied forth as whipping boys for the media and an audience bourgeoning, not with objective experts and analysts, but with victims invited to be loud, angry, emotional victims. 

One need only look at any of the dozens of reports that followed in the print media to see whose pictures and quotes feature to the exclusion of all reason and objectivity. 

Short of apologising to the victims of Port Arthur on behalf of all gun owners and undertaking to work in future towards greater gun control, nothing Brown could have said or done would have prevented his cunningly edited portrayal as an angry, insensitive, disingenuous, bearded ogre.  

In short, whoever turned up with the intention of contending that shooters are not all monsters and guns are OK in the proper hands, was destined to be pilloried by the Greens and the majority Howard-worshiping anti-gun audience, strategically stacked by the Insight program for maximum pathos and emotive controversy. 

I commend those who took the bit between the teeth and strove, on our behalf, to make the best of a set-up. What’s more, I challenge their critics to have a crack at being the public face of firearms advocacy and show us all how it should be done.

Ironically, those who have been most critical of the likes of Brown and Harvey, also push the line that every shooter/hunter should make the effort to call-in to radio programs taking shooters and hunters to task, in order to defend their fellow enthusiasts on air.

In principle it’s a theory...not a good one perhaps, but it’s a theory nonetheless.  However, I have this to ask of those encouraging our comrades to take the bit of public advocacy between their teeth. 

Why on earth would anyone bother, if they risk being taken to task, ridiculed and inducted into a cartoon character shit-list of fame if their performance doesn’t meet the standard laid down by the Brotherhood of Don Farq-Al? 

Advocacy and representation is a complex and imperfect ‘science’. It is only made more complex and imperfect by harsh public criticism and the ostracisation of people doing their best to gain ground against insurmountable odds on a heavily mined playing field.

Dividing the sector by attacking people who, while agreeing with us on 9 of 10 key objectives, have reservations about the 10th, is unproductive in the extreme and part of a naive and outdated approach to advocacy and representation that has hardly served us well to date.

While there is great wisdom in the phrase, “United we stand, divided we fall” there is no fabled lost second verse that runs, “And vilify all the splitters”, despite what Monty Python may have counselled on the topic. 

True unity comes only with open constructive dialog and compromise. Not necessarily the compromise of principle, but rather the kind of compromise that permits people to work together towards mutual objectives, and agree to disagree and work separately towards others.

Naming and shaming people publically for perceived failings in public performance, is a very dangerous, arrogant business. 

It is dangerous because it plays into the hands of the Antis who seek to discredit our advocates and demonstrate a dysfunctional sector full of angry people with guns.

It is arrogant because the critic presumes the right not only to speak for ‘us’, but also to marginalise someone who may be a very great asset to us and the sector over-all.

Of course everyone has the right to disagree with public statements thought ill-considered and even damaging. This does not, however, necessitate the pursuit and punishment of a transgressor, and the application of juvenile pejoratives that serve only to demonstrate to potential new talent that perhaps they’re better-off keeping their heads down.  

There is far more to be gained by constructively debating the issues of contention with a view to convincing the apostate of the merits of your doctrine, or if need be, accepting that Australian shooters and hunters were not all tipped out of the same mould.

Of course if we're really striving for a one size fits all style of advocacy, managed by angry people who'll brook no moderation, error or compromise...

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/2016/06/open-season-on-splitters.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.