CALL TO BAN DEADLY ASSAULT TRUCKS

It has been very interesting to watch the media's manipulation of 'truth' in the aftermath of the latest French massacre. Yes, the latest, since it appears they are becoming quite commonplace if not regular.

There are a number of parallels with the gun debate in Australia and the US, the most intriguing of which, to my mind, is the media's transference agenda - instruments are evil! The inanimate object done it!

One need only read the majority of headlines the world over to discover a truck killed 84+ people in Nice.

One could be forgiven for expecting each article to carry an eye-witness account of the truck crying "Iveco-u Akbar!" as it went.

If there is one message the public should take away from this, it's that what shooters have been saying all along is 100% correct.

If you ban guns, psychopaths will find an alternative.

From what we know now, this was not a terribly elaborate plan. A religeous zealot took advantage of circumstance and used a heavy vehicle to plough down a crowd of distracted revelers.

He needed no gun or special permits, nor special skills. He didn't even need a drivers licence to do it. He just needed motivation and opportunity.

So what can the French do to prevent future outrages of this nature?

The answer is nothing at all! The best they can hope to do is mitigate the inevitable damage, and the responsibility for that will rest chiefly with the people of France, not their government.

They will have to sacrifice their right to gather peacefully in public places, especially for well publicised events that afford the Islamic psychopath time to plan.

It really doesn't matter what percentage of Muslims are extremists, when one poorly armed nutcase can take out 84+ people. Authorities cannot be expected to monitor and assess every Muslim in the community and they won't.

It will be up to the French people to stay at home, watch what they say, never gather in places or in ways that offend or make them vulnerable to attack.

Of course if a gun had been Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel's weapon of choice, the media would be able to tell the public exactly what was needed to ensure public safety - a ban on guns...all guns...not just the extreme guns, for they all have the potential to be extreme!

But guns didn't play a major role in this event, other than to bring it to a close, and no-one would entertain a ban on motor vehicles for so much as a second.

There is only one ban that would definitely strike at the heart of France's Islamic violence epidemic.

Unfortunately its implementation would necessitate some very uncomfortable admissions of error and culpability on the part of both the French government and the media.

It's not an alien strategy. They suggest it every time there's a "gun massacre" and while a gun wasn't the main instrument of death in this case, the logic is still just as sound as it ever was.

If banning all the guns is the answer to gun violence, banning all Islam must surely be the answer to Islamic violence. Any other approach must be accepted as a risk mitigation strategy at best.

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/call-to-ban-deadly-assault-trucks.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.

WHEN BIAS ANNIHILATES REASON

As many will be only too aware, my recent article “96: The Year of Victory” resulted in a veritable tsunami of disapproval expressed among more intemperate firearms enthusiasts and advocates.

While few bloggers today encourage, let-alone publish comments on their work, I do and regardless of whether they are positive or negative, provided they amount to something more than profanity-loaded personal abuse. 

I'm pleased to report most do. 

Not only do I publish comments, I routinely engage with those leaving them. While this is also comparatively rare in the bloggersphere, I believe it is essential, not only in the interests of basic accountability, but also in order to improve my own understanding of how people view the issues.

What this process revealed in the case of 96: The year of Victory, was the extent to which the condition known as “Comprehension Bias” pervades the shooting community and potentially contributes to disunity.

Put simply, the principle of comprehension bias as it relates to my article played out as follows:

Upon reading the title, rather than wondering to themselves "I wonder what his angle is" as one might have hoped, many simply interpreted the title as an indication of my approval of Howard's 1996 gun-grab.

Oy vei!

Having made that initial foray into the realm of fantasy it was nothing for some to apply this same principle to the article itself in order to back-up their initial assessment with evidence that I approve of Howard's reforms, none of which existed anywhere but in the readers' imagination.

The problem was then compounded by some, who, having indulged their biases and expended considerable effort misinterpreting the article, sped off to share a personal critique via social media, claiming:

Mallard wrote an article praising Howard’s #96 laws as a victory.

Despite the unlikely nature of this claim, the technical term for which incidentally is “arrant bullshit”, a percentage of people reading such a critique, having invested sufficient faith in the critic to believe his interpretation must be correct, whizzed off to the blog to leave disapproving comments, without bothering to read the article for themselves.

This failure to read the article objectively for themselves being considered "just details" by some, they set to work busily issuing their own critiques Facebook. 

Of course it wasn't long before fish & chips had morphed into roast beef in true Chinese whispers tradition, despite the fact the article itself didn't contain any of the betrayals and heresies attributed to it.  Not one!

Its message, for those who read only what was written, would turn out to be really quite innocuous. This is a fact many among the terminally bewildered would later come to realise, as one by one I encouraged them to read my words objectively, rather than attempt to read my mind in that very dangerous way so many highly restricted medications exist to regulate. 

There was no salute to Howard; in fact he was roundly condemned as a despicable opportunist with an agenda he was willing to exploit tragedy to prosecute. 

There wasn’t so much as a single lonely syllable dedicated to praise of his gun laws or banning of semi-automatic and pump-action firearms, and nowhere did the article suggest shooters should not strive for their return.

Nothing in the article indicated that shooters should break ranks with, or withdraw support for, even greater firearms freedom in Australia. Yet the article would come to be accused of all this and more, simply because that was the message it suited the biases of some to read.

What the article did say was that focusing solely on what we lost in 96, fails to acknowledge the unity, albeit flawed, which prevented us losing much more. 

It acknowledged the hard work of tens of thousands who wrote petitions, letters to local members, called meetings and organised rallies, all of which was hugely beneficial in sending the message “your actions will have consequences”.  

It was the ameliorating influence of this activity that I chose to identify as a ‘victory’, although by no means a total victory, which the article also very clearly said. 

I acknowledged these positives with a simple objective in mind i.e. to move away from the exclusive and angry focus on failure and defeat that turns many a shooter away from the cause before s/he ever gets involved.

What many chose to read as condemnation of anyone who strives for the return of our semi-autos, was in fact nothing of the kind. It was, however, a very clear condemnation of prosecuting that objective with angry fist-shaking, insults and ill-considered campaigns likely to have the opposite effect of that intended.

In a nutshell, focusing solely on the failures of an activity never motivated anyone to engage in it long-term, nor did it ever recruit so much as a drop of new blood to a cause. 

If you doubt this, just ask any football coach, recruitment agency or ad campaign manager.

‘Angry’ is not a plan, it is simply an emotion and a largely unproductive, self-indulgent one at that. While some would claim it is a great motivator, it more often that not motivates people to ill-conceived folly. It clouds judgement and only plays into the hands of our adversaries. 

Name-calling is not a strategy. It is just another energy-sapping indulgence that in the history of mankind, has never silenced a single critic nor caused one to reassess his position. It certainly hasn’t me!

It was this consistently unplanned, sabre-rattling approach of a minority, along with their contempt for its impact on the objectives of others, and their failure to recognise that the passage of time has made many of the old mantras redundant, that the article was most critical off, not the objectives themselves. 

In the final analysis, the fact that so many were committed to interpreting my article to complement their own comprehension bias, is unimportant. I’m just a blogger whose opinions, for what they’re worth, are his own and of little consequence in the great scheme of things.

What should be accorded great consequence, in my opinion, is the fact that many of those who are unwilling to assess material objectively, and time and again prove themselves incapable of interpreting it accurately, are also those who believe they are best suited to representing the cause in public and leading the charge overall.

Sending a loud united message is all well and good, but unless the right words are selected (and placed in the correct order too), the message will be lost on government and the public, regardless of its volume or how many shout it in unison. 

This will be my last entry on this particular drama. Those irrevocably committed to their angry simplistic approach are wedded to their course, while others engaged in the business of developing sound strategies are too busy to regard these dramas with more than wry despair and a sense of inevitability.

As for me, I will continue to support the sound, prioritised and strategic pursuit of the full range of ambitions held by law abiding firearms owners and responsible ethical hunters. Of course, how the individual may choose to pervert that statement is completely beyond my control.

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/when-bias-annihilates-reason.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 and your personal information will not be shared with third parties for any reason.

OL' DADS AND THE AL DENTE PARADOX

Mervyn Walter Mallard (1923-2001) seen here
with his favourite beagle Cuvva in 1962

Ol’ dads can make their sons very proud sometimes. 

There are magic moments when something they say or do – sometimes both – can make an 11 year-old feel like he’s in the company of a superhero. 

These moments and the feelings they evoke will stay with us until we’re ol’ dads ourselves, recounting stories of the ‘olden days’ to our grandkids that will pass into family legend. 

My ol’ dad was one such man and he left me with a wealth of stories that I cherish and recount with great joy and pride to this day.

My ol’ dad was a toolmaker by trade, for whom precision was both a religion and in his hands, an art form. 

In his later years he turned his hand to the gunsmith’s arts and in doing so turned me off shooting and onto archery.

The thing is, by the time my ol’ dad got through bedding an action, floating a barrel, tweaking a trigger, loaded the shells, honing the mounts and mounted the scope, all of it had been done with such perfect precision that failing to hit a bullseye was 100% down to human error, and who wants a rifle that’s sole raison d’être is to make its owner look like a bloody idiot?

Bows, on the other-hand, are built with the obfuscation of incompetence in mind – traditional bows doubly so. 

There are all those wonderful vagaries associated with the myriad types of wood that arrow shafts are available in, and there’s the argy-bargy of conflicting opinion about what arrow spine is just perfect for what draw weight and so on.  

Then you need to decide what types of feathers you’ll use – left or right-wing – and whether it really matters as long as you don’t mix them.

Should you use parabolic or shield cut feathers and of what length, and should they be attached straight along the shaft with sinew, or are they best glued in place in a helical twist formation, and if the latter, should it be a left or right helical. 

Finally, if we ever manage to guess all that stuff right with such consummate precision that we’re in imminent peril of clevering ourselves right out of things to blame for the odd lousy shot, we archers can always rely on the ever-present mitigating companion know as the “Archer’s Paradox” as an excuse – hallelujah!

The archer’s paradox is complicated science and, woe is me, I was away they day they did science at school, but in a nutshell it goes something like this. 

When a wooden shaft is fired from a bow the stresses of acceleration around the bow stave and through the air itself, results in the rear-end impatiently trying to accelerate faster than the front-end. 

Unfortunately, because the rear-end’s blinkers are out, it can’t pull into the right-hand lane and overtake the front-end in an orderly manner.

Instead it tries to overtake the front-end by passing through it. 

Of course this is not possible because of.....more science, and the result is a sort of bumper-car effect without the bumps per se. 

The rear pushes, and the front, not being in any particular hurry to get out of its way, allows itself to be pushed ever so slightly slower, while the bit in the middle, trying its level best to maintain some semblance of decorum, bellies and twists as it takes the brunt of all the resulting.…science.  

The end result when viewed via the wonders of modern slow-motion cinematography, is an arrow that speeds determinedly towards its target in a sort of horizontal wriggling action reminiscent of a piece of spaghetti sneezed from the nose of the only animal with sinuses long enough to accommodate 28 inches of 5/16 diameter al dente pasta i.e. a bemused giraffe.

My point is this; it’s really hard to turn a traditional bow and arrow into a precision instrument in quite the same way one can tweak a riffle and scope to deliver minute-of-angle accuracy.

As a result, when I miss a target’s A-zone in competition, snagging a B-zone instead I simply examine the recovered arrow and say, in learned and considered tones, “I’m not certain I’m entirely satisfied with these new spruce shafts”.

This I could say safe in the knowledge that my buddies will reassure me that a B-zone shot in the field would mean fresh game on the table nonetheless, and that’s all that really counts. 

But the fact is, I know that were he still with us today, within a few hours of putting my bow and arrows in the hands of my ol’ dad, the two would be working in such perfect harmony the Archery Alliance of Australia would be holding crisis talks to institute a new zone in the centre of the A-zone, which they would no-doubt christen the “bloody Mallard!” zone.

There was one occasion I remember very clearly, when my ol’ dad’s skill at tuning a rifle not only made me proud, but also made me realise that, in the parlance of the 1960s, he was ‘way-cool’ too. 

We were living in the suburbs of what was then Sydney’s outskirts and we’d regularly pack-up the car and journey into dairy country to shoot a few conies in a little one-horse farming community known as Camden. 

My ol’ dad would carry one of his numerous .22s, while the trusty Browning .22-short was my rifle of choice and, coincidentally, the only rifle in my ‘collection’ at the time. 

I would come to refer to that old Browning as ‘Lightning’, not because it was fast, but because like lightning it rarely hit the same spot twice. That is, until my ol' dad got jack on me missin'!

One day we pulled up at the farmer’s gate in Camden and while preparing our gear for the day ahead, another car arrived. 

The driver saw that we were also shooters and came over to introduce himself. A brief conversation about which direction we were headed in and what time we planned to return to our cars ensued, and it was decided that in the interests of safety all shooting should cease promptly at 10am to allow both parties a safe return. 

OH&S issues sorted, off we went to bag a bunny or three.

As we wandered off into the field I happened to glance back to find the other hunter looking at us over his shoulder with a snug little grin on his face. 

I reported this observation to my ol’ dad who, completely unphased, told me it was known as the ‘shotgun smirk’.

Apparently the shotgun smirk comes with the purchase of expensive guns such as the Bentley centre-fire, and is pre-set to leap from the breach onto the new owner’s face where it surgically implants itself the very first time he manages to hit what he’d previously been unable to hit with “a proper gun”.

The day was very productive. My ol’ dad took ten young bunnies and as luck would have it, another two does whose Prozac scripts had run out, very accommodatingly leaped in front of Lightning with suicide-aforethought.

With the freezer topped-up and the dogs sorted with food for a few days, we headed back to the car to get stuck-into the business of dressing the day’s take. 

As prearranged we arrived back at the car just after 10am, as did the Smirk to his credit, and as we searched the car for our field kits the Smirk opened an old and bloodied sugar-bag and began laying out his day’s take on a nearby fallen tree that had been used by generations of hunters as a cleaning table.

Like my ol’ dad, the Smirk had taken a total of ten bunnies, which he proceeded to lay out at strategic intervals calculated to impress. 

Field kits retrieved from the car, we proceeded to the same fallen tree and began to set-up, and it was at this moment that the Smirk set in motion circumstances that were about to make a little boy very proud of his ol’ dad.

“You were shooting rabbits, then” inquired the Smirk?

“Yes, rabbits, that’s right” replied my ol’ dad.

“Only, I don’t shoot rabbits with a rifle. Rifles is for foxes and pigs and such” the Smirk informed us.

“Oh really” said my ol’ dad with a wry note of incredulity in his voice, “and why’s that” he inquired?

“Well, .22s leave rabbits all bloody and bruised inside and no good for eating at all” said the smirk, and as my ol’ dad pulled his ten young rabbits from his bag and laid them out neatly on that fallen log, he calmly uttered the words that would burn themselves indelibly into an 11 year-olds memory for life:

“Well yes, a .22 can bruise them up a bit, you’ve got a point there…still, I don’t eat the heads!”

And there they were, ten bunnies every one of them taken cleanly with a single shot just behind the ears.

To this day I cannot walk past a fallen tree without harking back to the day my ol’ dad taught me two very important lessons; 

1) the importance of remaining calm when accosted by an idiot, and 

2) the effectiveness of understatement back-up by raw talent.

I miss my ol’ dad!

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/ol-dads-and-al-dente-paradox.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.

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. 

  

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.