Wednesday 6 July 2016

1996: THE YEAR OF VICTORY


“All for one and one for all!”

"Where there is unity, there is victory!"

“United we stand, divided we fall!”

“In unity is strength!”

It seems the merits of unity and mutual cooperation are hammered into us from the cradle, and justifiably so. Unity can be a glorious thing, provided it serves all parties, if not equally, then at least well.

From my perspective the unity angrily demanded by those Australian shooters lobbying for the introduction of US-style gun rights here at home, appears to serve none but the very small minority they represent.
  
In fact were it not for the noisy and often angry pursuit of the comprehensive rescission of Howard’s post-Port Arthur gun laws, the shooting sports might not be subject to the consistently negative publicity and persistent controversy that dogs shooters today.

It strikes me that the events of 1996 have been skewed somewhat in the collective consciousness of the shooting fraternity, who today see it only as the year in which, despite unprecedented unity, we lost a battle with the Howard government.

I recall the mood and events of those days very differently. So much so that I see 1996 as having been an enormous win for shooters, given what was at stake.

Those of us involved in the campaign 20-years ago may recall that the loss of our precious semi-automatic and pump-action firearms was a compromise forced, not only upon the Howard government, but the Opposition and minor parties too, whose real intent had been to ban all firearms in a hitherto unprecedented demonstration of unity of their own.

Thanks largely to the unifying influence and effective lobbying efforts of the likes of John Tingle and the Australian Shooters Party, as Shooters, Fishers & Farmers was then known, the events of 1996 represented a resounding victory for Australian shooters.

Not a total victory perhaps, but a victory nonetheless, for which every shooter today owes the SFFP and others who drew a line in the sand, a debt of gratitude.

How and why such a victory is remembered in infamy as a resounding defeat is a question I have often asked myself. 

I have no sure answer, unless it lies in the motivating nature of anger born of extreme injustice and perceived powerlessness, and a desire by some to harness the power of resentment. 

For those whose agenda far exceeds the repeal of Howard’s gun reforms and in fact includes a desire to see the introduction of a system reminiscent of US 2nd Amendment gun rights, there is much benefit to be realised from nurturing feelings of systematic oppression.

Any stratagem intended to capitalise on such unwarranted feelings, will, by necessity, require that those who appreciate the truth of the matter, are discredited and silenced just as systematically, if the illusion of oppression is to be sustained.

But how does the absolute and unreserved unity demanded by today’s uncompromising firearms advocates, serve all Australian shooters as did the Australian Shooters Party of 1996?

The answer is simple. It doesn’t, tho' it loudly professes it does.

The vast majority of Australian shooters have put 1996 behind them. In fact for an even greater majority under the age of 30, the mantra “we want our semi-autos back” is a complete non-sequitur, given they have never handled a semi-auto or pump-action, let-alone lost anything to “want back”.

Likewise, comparatively few consider the current system is particularly onerous or oppressive, until told their attitudes are wanting and traitorous for not considering them so.

What they do feel oppressed by is the poor standing shooters enjoy in the community, due in no small part to ill-considered and often arrogant campaigns that serve only to stoke the fires of fear and suspicion.

It is this fear and suspicion among the public that does us injury, not perceived disunity. 

Ill-conceived campaigns afford the extremist gun control element endless opportunities to portray all shooters as cowboys, conspiracy theorists and people obsessed with exposing government’s true covert sinister and tyrannical nature.

There is no doubt the media has an agenda in portraying even the most moderate advocates as nut-jobs – sensationalism sells – but all too often little embellishment is actually necessary.
  
A very few yet extremely vocal advocates given voice beyond merit by dint of various independent social media platforms, consistently demonstrate their contempt for the mood of the population and the very peaceful and safe country and times in which we live, seemingly intent on providing mainstream journalists with opportunities to pose the question: 

“Are these really the sorts of people who should own guns?”

It is to this incredibly small percentage of the shooting fraternity to whom the rest are told they owe support. I for one do not believe this is a reasonable request, nor for that matter, one that will ever come to pass.

All too often what their demands for unity amount to is the expectation that all shooters will adopt their clumsy, short-sighted, largely unconvincing and invariably angry approach to advocacy and representation.

Far from normalising firearms ownership in the public consciousness, they serve only to ensure it remains a highly contentious and nervous issue, ripe for the type of media and political manipulation that impacts all shooters negatively.
  
Unity in a democracy requires that the objectives of the majority are identified and acted upon, and that the minority does not act to the detriment of the majority’s priorities and objectives.

If the minority believes their priorities and objectives will better serve the majority, it is incumbent upon them to make a persuasive case for that position and to propose strategies for the realisation of their objectives. 

Demanding that all shooters nobly unite for a hopeless  angry assault on some distant and poorly defined objective, is not a plan.  

It’s a suicide pact!


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/2016/07/1996-year-of-victory.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. 

  

26 comments:

  1. I was there 20 years ago.
    I agree with you that the assault was all out and the intention was to wipe us from the face of the culture.
    I agree with you that a robust and valiant defence was mounted by our side.
    I do not agree that we had a victory.
    We at best had achieved an honourable defeat, rather than decimation.
    We had to surrender our goods, we had to submit to new rules imposed by our opponents, and we have had to constantly justify our existence to the media and public ever since.
    Even now we fight constant skirmishes as they press and harass us even after we retreated to the negotiated NFA position.
    On the other points, I will agree, the pusuite of USA style laws attract the media and are used to distract the public from truth that most Aussie firearms owners would be quite happy to simply move to NZ’s level of regulation. …


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously some people are going to interpret victory in their own way. For my money, if a hostile force attempted to invade Australia via the East coast, and we repelled that force losing only Fraser and Lord Howe Islands, I'm going to call that a victory. Perhaps not a perfect one, but a victory nonetheless.

      Remembering that as a consequence of Port Arthur and several preceding massacres, Howard had the support of 99% of the population and the political spectrum as well, to ban all private ownership of firearms, yet was prevented from doing so, I say it is the consequence of that massive victory that the shooting sports still thrive in Australia today.

      Why we choose to look at it only as a comprehensive defeat defies all reason.

      Yes, you are correct, we continue to be attacked in the media and some sections of the political sector as well, but whose fault is that? Is it the vast majority of shooters happy to get on with life under the rules as they stand, or the people who keep harping on about everyone being much safer if we could all wear a pistol in Coles?

      But if those people think fighting for such rights is a practical and achievable proposition, I would love to see the plan. Whining, insulting people, demanding uncompromising unity - none of it is a plan.

      Delete
    2. I think we have murdered this analogy but for the sake of the game...

      I don't think "comprehensive defeat" nor "massive victory" are accurate presentations.

      It is true that in a fight for survival we survived and so I can see that "a victory of sorts" might be a valid perspective.

      I think that we paid a high price. A price that was more than a couple of nice but not very useful islands. :-)

      But that might be the difference in how much it cost me vs the other guy.

      As a guy who loved using semi autos & the being able to buy spam cans of cheap surplus military ammo, the New Zealand changes to magazine capacity & registration of the "assault rifles" would be "Lord Howe & Frazer" in my scale.

      If I had only been a clay and fullbore target shooter (both of which I was doing at the time)the current rules might well have been "fantastic" because it cost me nothing really. (No judgement intended here, just observation of relative cost of the compromise position)


      So given the price I paid, it feels more like defeat than victory.

      As things have progressed from 1996, the caliber restrictions on handguns and ammo bill have not given me any sense that the enemy has been defeated. These things did not come in as a response to the "NRA Apostles". They came in because GCA & crew work tirelessly on their original goal of wiping us from the face of the earth. They will do it one regulation at time if they have to.

      When I read the administrative tribunal records and see the punitive & unreasonable positions taken by police...

      When I see WA police classify a bolt action gun as to much like a semi auto to be allowed in the state.....

      When I can legally own a firearm in one state but can not own that same firearm in the state next door.....

      When someone like Shoebridge screeching under parliamentary privilege triggers an unscheduled visit to your home by the police (even if they are polite and apologetic) it does not seem that "victory" is the right adjective.

      I am not convinced that urging the "the vast majority of shooters happy to get on with life under the rules as they stand" to push back against 1996 is wrong. When they came for us last time our "Victory" required a retreat & defend.

      If we continue to adopt a "retreat & defend" then we risk a run of "victories" leading to extinction. (for clarity I am not saying or suggesting that you have adopted or advocated a "retreat & defend" view) Our opponents are happy to slowly smother us to death with "reasonable compromise"

      [as an aside I recall General Washington was a master of the retreat being the thing the Continental Army did for most of the war :-)]

      I agree NRA "2A" battle tactics do not translate to AUS. We have never been much of a "pistol packing Coles Shopper" crowd and the general population has clearly demonstrated zero tolerance for it as a proposition.

      However, I am concerned that a "don't rock the boat" approach is also doomed as we face an enemy who are trained to steal a mile one inch at a time. (Not saying that "don't rock the boat" is your position, just calling it out as a position that I believe is fatal)

      So I do think we need to stand somewhere between "Don't Rock the Boat" & "Liberty or Death".

      I can see the "Liberty or Death" approach is not achieving the outcome hopped for.

      I know the "Don't rock the boat" is slow death...

      What I don't know is if the "the vast majority of shooters" are asleep or awake in as we face the creeping death that GCA and the like are working on.

      If they are asleep, how the hell do we wake them up & get them into the right fights so we can win back Lord Howe!


      I'll keep reading your blog, because I have stolen good ideas from it before, & I am sure I will again.

      Delete
    3. All fair enough if any of it was relevant, however, my question to you is this.

      Did the article set-out or claim to be a detailed analysis of the events of 1996, therefore being worthy of criticism for its omissions, or is that simply what you have unjustly and without justification, chosen to make it?

      I did not claim it was a post-mortem, which is the consistent and completely incorrect nature those intent on reading their own narrative into its content and purpose have chosen to mutate it into so the narrative complements their anger. It is simply a brief recognition or the hard work and commitment of the many men and women who helped mitigate Howard’s worst excesses.

      It can be judged solely on that basis, not on the basis of what others might contrive it to be, and on that basis I stand by what I have said.

      Delete
    4. Your right I rambled & went off topic.

      The only point I trying to make is i don't agree with the proposition "1996 as a victory"

      I don't think 0-0 draw is a win.
      I don't think we managed a 0-0 draw in 1996

      I do agree:
      "every shooter today owes the SFFP and others who drew a line in the sand, a debt of gratitude."

      I do agree it could have been much worse.

      I think it goes to far to say this defense was "resounding victory" & " massive victory "

      They wanted all my guns.
      They got some of my guns.

      They wanted to take everything,
      They got to take some things I didnt want them to.


      As I lined up to hand guns, those in the line did not look like victors. At best is was a truce. A truce in which we had to hand over our personal possessions the ones we had fought to keep.

      No doubt the truce was much better than the the annihilation we thought was coming.

      1996 was neither "resounding victory" or "resounding defeat"

      We survived, we owe the guys that fought that fight a debt of gratitude.

      To be fair you did a bit more than do a simple brief recognition of the hard work and commitment of the many men and women who helped mitigate Howard’s worst excesses.

      You went on to postulate an answer to the question: "How and why such a victory is remembered in infamy as a resounding defeat is a question I have often asked myself."

      I leave the last word to you mate. :-)

      Delete
    5. Again, I take your point. But it still appears largely a matter of semantics, the cause of which I believe I'm coming to understand to be a communications issue. This appears largely the result of me having "enjoyed" an outdated classical education, that causes me to use language in a very specific manner, which is no longer the norm in these more relaxed days.

      E.g. "resounding victory" is intended to imply loud, unambiguous, not total or without casualties of any kind, which appears to be your interpretation. This I intentionally emphasized in the next paragraph, quote: "Not a total victory perhaps, but a victory nonetheless".

      While as a communicator I must accept responsibility when my words do not convey the intended message, I don't think it is quite fair to say what I have said is incorrect on the basis of another's chosen interpretation.

      Again, I stand by what I wrote in the spirit and context it was written. The message sent was 'resounding' i.e. very loud and very clear i.e. "You cannot do what you want without consequence. You cannot expect to take our guns away without a backlash in the form of letters to local members, walking votes, petitions, marches, the formation of lobby groups etc." It was this noise that prevented Howard & Co exercising the full extent of they plan. I would be surprised (even more so) if anyone really doubted that. After all, he didn't limit his oppressive plan as a kindness to us, did he?

      I do not understand why so many people are opposed to me recognising both the efforts of the era, and the fact that there is at least one fine example of shooters pulling together in common cause and in unprecedented numbers. Unless, as I say, the fault is my use for formal, somewhat arcane parlance.

      Nonetheless, if that is going to be the case, it is an issue I'm obligated to look at in future. That said, and as has been the case between us, if people were to approach requesting clarification, rather than manifesting their ignorance in the form of lies, non-sequitur statments and insults, everyone would be better off.

      But then some would not be able to capitalise on the ignorance of their fans and convince them to toss their grenades for them now would they?

      Delete
  2. Fact mate. It is a bitter pill for many to swallow and for those who went for broke trying to stir up and motivate more people to get active. As you eloquently suggest, some are unable and unwilling to see the long game. Behaving more like prisoners released from jail shedding control and routine for drug fuelled oblivion only to be picked up and put back in the cage for another go round.
    A glaring lack of public knowledge of exactly what our "gun laws" are id precisely why media campaigns are so effective. This would yield exceptional fruit should they be put on a standalone objective portal to be accessed when curious or referred to. Tracking the whole process, right to the lint in WLB, would offer immeasurable benefits when refuting media malpractice. If we can't and won't work with the government, I'm sure the feeling will be mutual.
    Thanks for your service and I hope it continues.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Garry I would have to disagree with you in this.

    Especially the analogy used re invasion of Aus.

    I would say its more like we were invaded and lost the mainland bar the Victoria, which have lost most of ever since and are now facing down the barrel of us being completely wiped put in a new puah over the next few months.

    ReplyDelete
  4. We are at War, make no mistake.
    The enemy is constantly at the gate and we are spread thin in our resistance.
    We may never win the war, but certain skirmishes and indeed battles can be ours if we unify, and I don't mean join a club with four initials who want your money.
    We must have unity, and that comes from an organisation spawned for just that purpose, to unify, to pick our battles, and to make sure we have the numbers at each battle to justify a win.
    We cannot prevail on so many little fronts at the same time.
    The NRA is just such an organisation, and we must develop our own with leadership that is not ego driven, but sage, knowledgeable and determined.
    Just sayin'.
    Crrrock

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point is, who will sign up to serve if even significant wins are portrayed as absolute and shameful failures?

      Who will bother if no matter what is accomplished, the only acceptable status is that of eternal victim?

      While those who are nothing without their victim status will choose to see my article as an endorsement of 96 gun control, smart people will see it for what it really is. Recognition of the fact we have stood our ground and repelled an enemy. Not without casualties certainly, but we have fought in the war against guns and we have won! The NRA you cite makes such reminders constantly.

      Perhaps if people here were reminded of that occasionally, they might be more inclined to sign up for another tour of duty.

      Delete
  5. You are a fuckwit
    Hand your guns in you dirty fudd

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Are yes, articulate as ever I see. And your spelling has improved out of sight.

      Delete
  6. is this a pisstake, or have you been drinking?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it your contention we were roundly defeated on all fronts in 96 and nothing worse would have occurred had no one put up any resistance?

      Delete
  7. Hahah is this for real Garry? Put the crack pipe down. You've gone senile you old coot!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Exactly how is what I have said in error, Jason? Or are you just offended that it doesn't comply with the pervading narrative of abject humiliation and failure?

      Delete
  8. Accepting the 1996 buyback as any sort of victory at all is simply unbelievable.

    As a law abiding Australian I was personally penalised for the wrongdoings of an insane member of society and I can under no circumstances agree with the knee-jerk actions that followed.

    Every single firearm review we face results in people commenting on how little we lost, it is accumulative and paints failure as acceptable.

    If you stand up and make a noise you still may lose but at least a noise has been made rather than thanking the powers that be for not taking too much.

    I stayed out of the FUDD debate but it is increasingly obvious that all FUDDS are achieving is helping the media move the wickets closer to the bowler each time.

    Something to chew on anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, it is your belief that none of the effort put into opposing Howard is praiseworthy, is that right? It is the act of a Fudd to recognise the opposition mounted by tens of thousands of shooters and it is the act of a traitor to suggest things might have been much worse had everyone just took Port Arthur on the chin and just prayed for mercy, yes?

      You see, what I don't understand is why people are opposed to recognising the merits of uniting in a common cause, even if it doesn't result in an absolute and unreserved victory. In my view it is the people who oppose that recognition in favour of the "we all got screwed. We may as well have done nothing" who are the liability, because they send the message anything less than absolute victory is a worthless effort. No one will sign-up while that's the prevailing attitude.

      Delete
    2. There was plenty to praise when it comes to those that opposed John Howard. At the time, and I was only a very small part of it, we opposed the banning of semi automatic firearms and firearm registration, we didn't throw part of the firearm community to the wolves in an attempt to appease the antis(and yes I do remember that happening in some instances and the scars are still there).

      There is no reason we should aim for anything less than what we had, undermining those that seek more to fulfill our own ends is questionable.

      But I have better things to do than get involved in a slanging match, nor do I appreciate words being placed in my mouth.

      Aim low achieve your goals.

      Just my personal opinions.

      Delete
    3. I challenged your own claim, Tim, which you appear to have ignored, "Accepting the 1996 buyback as any sort of victory at all is simply unbelievable." You have now conceded that there were victories, even if they were, as I said in the very next sentence, incomplete. I'm not interested in a slanging match either. I'd just like to know how often you guys will slope the field and shift the goalposts to suit your game.

      NOWHERE does the article suggest we should settle for less than what we had. NOWHERE does it say we should not strive for more. The only thing I have condemned is the idea that anything will be achieved by angry fist shaking and name calling or that anything associated with the Fudd campaign can pass for a plan of action.

      Prove me wrong. Explain the Fuddervision.

      Now, if you want to debate me on that topic, I'm all ears. If not, you are simply intent on reading whatever suits you into the article in order to facilitate your own anger. It's called Comprehension Bias and ain't you all masters of its practice.

      Delete
    4. Gary, the second place getter is always the first of the losers no matter how you paint it.

      I took exception to you calling the 1996 buyback a victory and I will never accept throwing one group of firearm owners to the wolves to further the aims of another like many "FUDDS" seem to be doing(which in the two examples I have seen is how it appears).
      As far as your statement "I'd just like to know how often you guys will slope the field and shift the goalposts to suit your game", well that pretty much stereotypes me as an anti FUDD doesn't it?

      As far as comprehension bias, facilitating my own anger etc goes, well I will have to take your word on that as I only had the basics at school and have no idea what it is nor can I debate worth crap.

      You can have the last word, I'll go back to my shed.

      Delete
    5. And with this you have nailed my objection to the FUDDfest and summed up the crux of the article. As long as the initiative sends the message that any defeat is a complete and total defeat, failing to acknowledge the merits of even trying and attacking people who will at least give due credit, I can see thousands coming out of the woodwork to join the charge, can't you?

      "Roll up, roll up. If we don't win it all, it was all a waste of time!"

      There is not a single word in my article devoted to tossing anyone under a bus and not a single sentence says we should not support the wants of all shooters. It simple says to do it angrily and by use of persecution of our own as a tool for unity, is utterly unproductive and exactly what the Antis want us to do.

      The fact that some are intent on reading their own messages into the text, as so many do, demonstrates exactly why they are not fit to Fudd.

      Sheds are good. Enjoy!

      Delete
  9. So proud of all the brave OAMs posting in reply to you Garry! They exemplify gun owners in every way. All we need now is a lazy reporter to come along and really show them how stupid they are. I believe we're heading into the troglodyte zone. I won't apologise for their behaviour but I will hold them all personally responsible for tarnishing my and all FUDDS reputation and standing in our communities.They have done nothing of note and their opinion is worthless. Our right to use firearms in professional, recreational and sporting activities is not a dung heap to crow from, nor a pit in which junk yard dogs are thrown to tear each other to pieces. All for the entertainment of emotionally stunted individuals who are unable and unwilling to READ and COMPREHEND. You wrote a reminder that LAFOS united with common purpose and juggernaut strength are able to pull victory from the jaws of defeat. I'm nobody's bloody victim, don't tread on me.
    As an intelligent gentlemen wrote we are floundering in the channel, our compass broken and running out of supplies. Now we've become cannibals eating our own, seeking a level of depravity in which to feel comfort for our transgressions, no plan,no care for tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is astonisging to me that people who've proven, time and again, that they cannot read a very straightforward article without so contaminating it with their own Confirmation Bias as to completely and wildly misinterpret every single simple sentence, can think they are capable of correctly interpreting legislation or policy. Let alone develop any kind of plan.

      The fact they push themselves forward as leaders after getting the equivalent of 0% on a basic reading comprehension test is testimony to the extent of their unfounded hubris.

      Delete

Your comments are welcome, and dont forget to recommend this post to a friend.

Thanks!