 |
| 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gary, no offense but if you have all these facts and arguments under your belt why arent you speaking out on our behalf? No offence again, I love your blog but its not where this stuff needs to be said. You seem blessed with a rare ability to analyse a statement and structure your arguments logically so wouldnt it make more sense to put your efforts into fronting the media? Maybe you dont want to but if you are being kept at arms length by people who want to keep the spotlight on themselves Id like to know.
ReplyDeleteAnyway keep up the good work mate!!
G'day Phil and thanks for your question. The answer is simple really. I don't speak on shooters'/hunters' behalf because I am not a representative and therefor lack the authority of a mandate to do so. It also doesn't help that I live in rural NSW a considerable distance from TV studios that will not publish views without a talking head to set-up for ridicule.
DeleteI will occasionally respond to issues when approached to do so, but only while making it clear my views are my own. That said, our sector is a divided and often embattled place in which moderate practical opinions are marginalised in favour of a more hardline Jihadi all or nothing approach to advocacy.
Such influences in our sector who invariably control our minimal broadcasting and written media appear to believe winning battles is secondary to preaching the doctrine of "It's not fair for me" to the proverbial choir.
I hope that answers your question.
Yes Garry I agree whole heartedly, Howard's smug countenance on insight a couple of weeks ago was sickening to say the least, as was the whole programmes vilification of the law abiding gun owners, I felt for those victims and their families, but to see Howard, that has been politician up there in front of that studio audience basking in their adulation was the last straw for me, I will never watch that program again.
ReplyDeleteThe vilification should have been directed at the politicians who continue to ignore the fact that the gun problems in this country are coming from the organised crime gangs, gun smugglers and drug dealers, hopefully this election will see more people that are affected by the major political parties, ie: the law abiding legal gun owners, direct their vote away from the major parties and direct them towards the candidates who see us as being not a criminal in waiting, but some every day people from all walks of life that deserve respect and not be classed as red neck no hopers.
I agree Hank, but I also think we give the public little reason to consider us anything but bias stakeholders who're unconcerned by gun violence.
DeleteIf our demands to have our guns returned to us were backed up with an outline of considered practical strategies for improving public safety, we'd have more credibility. As it is, however, we are rarely known to suggest anything that doesn't translate to the public ear as "we demand less accountability". A classic example is the gun registry.
In my view we would be much better served by suggesting how it may be made more functional and better secured, than by our current strategy which is claim it is too expensive, completely useless and should therefore be dissolved.
I don't care if the registry exists if it's functional and well secured. By suggesting how it may be improved we have the chance to contribute to an overhaul that makes it less of a burden while demonstrating we are not opposed to practical accountability and that's a win-win situation from my point of view.
It's about strategy, Hank, and we don't do strategy. We do shouting and pie-charts.
Another brilliant essay Garry. I'm sickened by the way the media uses tragedy to advance its agenda and saddened that no one involved - the victims, their families, firearm owners - all lose while criminals go on undeterred.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I've been pointing out that massacres routinely happen in "gun free zones" and that while firearms are used to "assault", they can equally be used to "defend". And the numbers purchased for "personal defence" (in the U.S.) outnumber those purchased to do harm, by millions-to-one.
G'day Bootstrapper. The gun debate is always going to be tricky for us, especially when the opposing side in debate assembled by the Australian media is selected for its emotional impact rather than its expertise in the topic under debate.
DeleteNot only does this disadvantage the pro-gun side, it equally disadvantages the public who tunes in to be informed, not emotionally manipulated. As a result the public is denied facts and the opportunity to participate in the interrogation of research.
And yes, gun free zones have backfired (no pun intended) on the gun control lobby. Why would they happen anywhere else, given spree shooters are cowards looking for captive dis-empowered victims.
ok Garry cards on the table mate. do you think you can do a better job with the media then Borsak and Leyonhjelm and Brown?
ReplyDeleteG'day Anon,
DeleteGood question, the answer to which is, I'm not running a replace them with me campaign.
My 'criticism' is not aimed at the advocates but the arguments and strategies they deploy in their advocacy role.
I simply believe that doing more of the same stuff we've done for the past two decades, much of which hasn't worked for us and in some case even damages our image (the last Insight debate for instance), does not preclude the exploration of other approaches too.
Continuing with the same old approach requires that we have confidence in at least two things 1) the media will provide fair and impartial opportunities to put our points across, and 2) that the public doesn't just switch-off when they hear the same old arguments about stats and Howard's great fraud.
There is profit to be made from turning the tables. Rather than being forced to justify our claims about guns, we could ask questions that force a bias media into the position of having to justify their claims. It requires a studied approach, but I have every confidence our current high-profile advocates could use it to good effect.
you pretty well summed it up in your opening statement, unfortunately it will take generational change before the big wrong is righted. Those public figures gullible enough to swallow the Howard plan realize how they were manipulated would rather defend their false idol rather than accept they were wrong.
ReplyDelete