Thursday, 1 August 2013

Crime Control - Australia following Americas mistakes since 1968.

If you happened to watch Channel Nine News last night, 30 July 2013, you would have witnessed a flustered NSW Police Commissioner and Police Minister seemingly exhausted of ideas on how to tackle Sydney's growing spate of gun violence.

Repeating the same tired line "People must report illegal guns", they continue to ignore the root cause of gun crime or why witnesses are too scared to come forward.


For decades many Australian journalists have perpetuated the simplistic ideology that stricter gun control laws will solve gun crime, whilst ignoring the mountain of evidence demonstrating no connection between lawful firearms use and organised crime.


Despite our streets being awash with firearms, many continue to hail John Howard's tremendous success, passing what are arguably known around the world as the most comprehensive and draconian firearms laws in the OECD.  Some commentators will go as far as saying we need stronger laws to combat gun crime.  But short of installing airport style security at the exit point of every home and entry point of every public place, we need to face the reality that criminals do not obey the law, and that we will never stop the evil acts of every mad man.


In response to the Channel Nine news report, Miranda Divine from the Daily Telegraph wrote a blog warning "We are facing an explosion of gang violence to rival Los Angeles 30 years ago".  It was a well researched article, exposing many truths about gun violence in Western Sydney, but it did not draw on the parallels between Australia and America and why we are facing this explosion in gun crime.

I'll draw comparisons later between our two countries, how we are inadvertently creating a much larger problem for society, and what we need to do to reverse this trend.


But first, some background........ 



Ideology
One of the biggest challenges we face in the debate about guns is the ideology people have that we can ban guns, fix our border controls or implement more laws to solve gun crime.

When you look at the border protection issue, it is absolutely farcical to believe we have the money or resources to check all the freight that comes into Australia.  We cannot stop the tonnes of drugs flowing into this country, so what makes anyone seriously believe we can stop a few metal parts shipped with other metal parts.  At least a dog can be trained to detect drugs, but it's impossible to train a dog to detect metal or plastic parts.


It's also well known that we have corruption in both our police force and border security.  Whatever controls we put in place, however much money we spend, we will never plug the holes.  No police force around the world ever has and no police force ever will.


The sad reality is, we need to learn how to live with guns in society.  Guns were invented in the 13th century and are rudimentary in design.  It's bizarre to believe they could not possibly be made at home using blueprints readily available from the internet.  The authorities know this, but they won't change their stubborn approach to the problem until we change our attitude as a society.  Accepting the status-quo is not working.


Learn
how to make a 9mm submachine gun at home from a book you can buy online.
how a jeweler made up to 100 MAC 10 9mm submachine guns.
how to make a zip gun watching a video online.
about illegal manufacture in Australia as an example. 
about the new technology of plastic printers.
about how firearms were imported from Tennesse in engine parts.
about our leaky postal service.
how to buy firearms online illegally from a US exporter. 
about CNC machines owned by many factories and home owners. 
what happens to firearms after handed in during an amnesty. 
about incompetence of our Customs officials.

Massacres
By far the most emotive anti-gun argument is the issue of massacres.  Massacres are not preventable, but we can employ smart measures to mitigate the risk of experiencing a massacre and mitigate against the number of fatalities and casualties.  The do-gooders, with their idealistic views, still have the absurd view that deranged people and criminals obey the law.  They keep pushing for more and more laws, ironically making it even easier for a mad man to inflict more carnage.  

In 1990, the President of the United States introduced "The Gun-Free School Zones Act".  Quite possibly the worst gun legislation introduced by any country ever!  The legislation was nothing but an advertisement for madmen, advising where the easy targets were.  If they wanted to inflict the most carnage possible, a school would be the best place to do it.  Since the legislation was introduced, school massacres have increased five fold.  The NRA have lobbied hard against this legislation and to repeal it, but the mainstream media refuses to listen to their arguments or air the words "Gun Free Zone" in any press release.  Instead, the media continues to verbal the NRA by suggesting "Their solution is we need more guns.  They are just a self-interested lobby group interested in selling more guns".

Across many states, authorities refused to enforce the "Gun Free School Zones Act".  Some state legislatures even passed their own laws, allowing teachers who are trained to conceal and carry to carry a gun in school.  There have been no mass shootings in schools where teachers are allowed to conceal and carry.  I'll talk more about conceal and carry later.

Australia is not immune to another gun massacre and many are of the view that we have just been lucky.  The Australian-New Zealand Counter Terrorism Committee recognises this by recently releasing the Australian Government guide to surviving a mass shooting.


Bad people do bad things
Say the name Roger Dean and most people wouldn't know who you're talking about.  It was only late last year, November 2012, when he pleaded guilty to arson for the Quakers Hill nursing home fire, killing 11 people and badly burning 8 others.

Today, as I write this blog, I learned to discover Roger was convicted to life in prison without parole. 


Roger chose to use a box of matches to massacre 11 people instead of a gun, so it begs the question, why is he is not as revered by the media as Martin Bryant?  Marilyn Manson summed up the media culture well when he spoke about the cycle of fear and consumption in Michael Moore's documentary Bowling for Columbine.  I disagree with many of Michael's views, but that one interview is worth consideration. 

It's no secret the media thrives on fear for ratings.  If it bleeds, it leads.  If there is a gun, even better!  But by far the best ratings and sales can be made glorifying killers such as the Boston Bomber when they put him on the cover of "Rolling Stone" magazine.  

The techniques the media uses for its own self-gratification cost lives and will continue to cost lives if we don't have a fair debate about gun ownership and gun crime.  We should pass laws to stop giving killers rock star status.  I'd rather we never knew their names or saw their faces.  However, this is an unrealistic ask in a world with the internet, so I'm not going to push it.

Read more about Australia's mass murder arsonists. 

Gun ownership in Australia
Many Australians are of the belief that since the 1996 gun buyback, all guns are now illegal.  These people are surprised to hear that nearly 800,000 Australians have been issued a firearms license for any number of genuine reasons.  Australians legally own approximately 3.2 million registered firearms - firearms that include shotguns, rifles, semi-automatic handguns, revolvers and air guns.

The demographic consists of primary producers, sporting shooters, recreational hunters, professional vertebrate pest controllers, theatrical armorers and collectors.

Primary producers, professional shooters and some clay target shooters also have licenses to own semi-automatic shotguns and rifles.


Gun buyback 1996 - Australia
In 1996, the Australian tax payer funded half a billion dollars for the gun buyback of semi-automatic longarms.  Broadly speaking, the legislation included a raft of other measures, including stricter licensing and safe storage laws, as well as the registration of firearms.

The on-going cost to manage our firearms registries is estimated at approximately $70 million per year, but it is difficult to measure the additional cost burden on the police force and border protection agencies who also have an administrative responsibility to process paperwork for the registry.


The police force is required to conduct routine safe storage inspections of firearms owned by licensed individuals.  The cost to conduct inspections across 800,000 homes would no doubt be significant.  Then there is the opportunity cost to the community when police are conducting these inspections, rather than patrolling crime hot spots. 


The plan

Information from the Firearms Association of Australia suggests that prior to announcing the buyback of semi-automatic long-arms, the State Police Ministers were told at the May 10th, 1996 meeting that...

“No reliable figures of total numbers of firearms in Australia are available.  Estimates for all firearms vary from 3.5 million… to over 10 million. Best estimates of the number of military-style semi-automatics suggest around 350,000 throughout Australia. Best estimates for other semi-automatic, self-loading (sic) or pump action longarms suggest around 3,000,000.”

"The Attorney-General’s Department estimated that 3.35 million firearms would become prohibited."

Results
The buyback resulted in 640,381 firearms being turned into police.  The buyback yielded such embarrassing results for the government, with only the State of Victoria willing to release official figures as to what was handed in.

Of the 192,940 firearms handed in by Victorians, only 6,420 were classed as "Prohibited" firearms.  These consist of automatic and semi-automatic centrefire rifles.


Pump-action shotguns and semi-automatic shotguns (limited to a five shot capacity) as well as semi-automatic rimfire rifles are still available, but restricted to those with a genuine need.


At best guess, 21,308 prohibited firearms were handed in nationally, well short of the best estimate of 350,000 thought to be in circulation.


Most in the firearms community believe a significant proportion of firearms handed in were inherited from deceased estates - grandpa's old shotgun or rifle.  The buyback was also a great opportunity for firearms owners to get almost as-new prices for old firearms, allowing them to upgrade to a new firearm for little cost. 

Even the gun prohibitionists acknowledge that the buyback was a failure.  Gun Control Australia’s John Crook says “It may be that we have to start this buy-back again because it is estimated there are still approximately 300,000 prohibited weapons to be brought in”.

Homicide
Statistics from the Australian Institute of Criminology show no evidence the gun buyback and gun laws of 1996 had any effect on the homicide rate.

John Howard is very tricky with his words when selling the 1996 gun laws as a success.  He never talks about overall homicide rates, but rather how gun homicide has fallen.

Conclusion

In 2008, the Melbourne Institute released a working paper on "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths".

The working paper concluded: "Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths."

John R. Lott JR Ph.D is regarded as the foremost world expert in crime rates in relation to gun control measures being introduced.  He has had over 90 articles published in various journals around the world. In 2012 he analysed the growing trend of violent crime since the 1996 gun control laws were enacted and concluded less guns translates to more violent crime.

Read the Harvard research paper that says....

"..the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.  To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world."

Firearms Registry
On April 2012, Canada abolished their firearms registry citing it a complete failure and waste of public funds.  The police chiefs argued there have been tens of thousands of searches of the registry and that it was an important tool to help prevent and solve gun crime.  When asked to supply records of the searches to the committee tasked to review the firearms registry, there was no evidence the searches could be linked to gun crime.  The searches merely related to gun owners making licensing inquires.  Watch this important video to learn the arguments that supported it be abolished.

Despite Canada abolishing their registry, our Labor Government have committed to buying the intellectual property of the system.


Gun Control tricks of the trade
Gun control advocates are poorly educated on the various types and functions of firearms, ignore crime data and often make up their own evidence.

They "ALWAYS" conveniently ignore the following facts:
1) We have porous borders. 
2) Firearms are registered by serial numbers to owners. 
3) Firearms are randomly and routinely inspected by law enforcement. 
4) Ballistics checks enable the ability to track firearms back to crime scenes.
5) No evidence exists to suggest licensed firearms owners provide the criminal underworld with firearms.

American gun culture
Another furphy Gun Control advocates like to peddle is "We don't want an American gun culture".

You might be led to believe that we have a lot of guns, but to put the 3.2 million registered firearms we own into perspective, the small arms survey ranks Australia as 42 in gun ownership per capita


We are well behind Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Germany, Iceland, New Zealand, Greece, Northern Ireland and the Czech Republic in terms of gun ownership.  Yet our crime levels far exceed most of these countries.


We would need to increase our gun ownership six-fold and import over 20 million more firearms to rival America on 
per capita gun ownership.

Seeding firearms to criminals
For decades, the media and politicians have drawn a connection between gun violence and the sporting shooting community, asserting that our great Olympic shooters or hard working farmers have been seeding the criminal element with firearms.

The notion that an individual, who has passed federal criminal police checks and background checks into character, would risk jail to earn a quick buck by providing firearms to criminals is simply ludicrous.  


But despite the absurdity, the NSW Police Commissioner, desperate to make a dent in gun crime, introduced the Ammunition Control Legislation in 2012, to track sales of ammunition.  This legislation was simply more red tape and more administration for police to manage.  The spirit of the legislation assumes a licensed shooter would risk jail time to make a small profit.     

Firearms theft 

Gun control advocates such as "Samantha Lee" have again ignored all the evidence, claiming "theft was the main source of black-market firearms, along with rogue arms dealers selling them under the counter."

Customs and the Firearms Registry keep track of all firearms legally entering the country.  Serial numbers are tracked and firearms dealers are routinely audited.  Firearms may only be purchased with a firearms licence. Details of the transaction are recorded from the importer through to the dealer and then to the owner.  The transaction is processed by Australian Customs and the Firearms Registry throughout its lifecycle, using the Permit To Acquire (PTA) and Customs B709 paperwork process.  The physical transfer of a firearm from importer to buyer often involve delays of approximately 3 months.   


What Samantha is notably silent about is the revelation the NSW Police dumped the firearms registry database into an excel spreadsheet, before loading it onto their intranet for access to all sworn officers and thousands of civilians.  The security breach lasted for 18 months, without any audit trail as to who may have copied the information to sell to organised crime groups.  The police continue to deny the data fell into the wrong hands, but are at a loss to explain why there has been a spate of gun thefts across NSW.


Growing gun violence
For decades, the media and politicians have drawn a simplistic connection between gun ownership and gun violence.  Politicians are faced with thousands of proposals and policies throughout their term in office.  It is naive to think they actually read the detail behind the comprehensive policy proposals.  They would much rather support the two page, easy-to-read, gun control policy that says "Gun Control = Crime Control"

American politicians have made the same mistake with dire consequences.  It has taken the United States decades to reverse the "Gun Control" culture that started in 1968 after the assassination of John F Kennedy and Robert Kennedy.  Lyndon Johnson enacted knee-jerk legislation through the Gun Control Act of 1968, with the very view that strict gun laws would prevent gun crime.  The 2nd amendment right to bear arms was infringed, escalating violent crime by 200% over only a few short years.


The next logical step was harsher penalties for criminals, followed by mandatory sentencing and the three strikes and you're out rule.


America was so tough on its criminals that it wasn't long before its prisons were filled to capacity.  America built more prisons and even tent prisons, creating a breeding ground for criminal gangs to network and host crime schools.


Criminal records made it almost impossible to find a decent job, and the inability to live on the minimum wage has resulted in more criminals becoming recidivists.


It wasn't until nearly two decades later, in 1987, that Florida introduced Conceal and Carry permits.  These permits, issued by the local Sheriff, allow citizens to legally carry a concealed firearm, after obtaining a federal background check and undergoing comprehensive firearms training and training on obligations on the use of deadly force.



Quoting a conceal and carry page.... 'Anti-gun folks were horrified. Obviously concealed carry would turn Florida into another Dodge City. Blood would flow in the streets. Fender-benders would turn into firefights.

The fight was tough, but the Unified Sportsmen of Florida succeeded. The dire predictions? A year later, the President of the police chiefs association, who had opposed the bill, was asked if he had kept track of all the problems the law caused. "There aren't any," he said.'


Over the next 25 years, almost every state across America has adopted Conceal and Carry permit laws, significantly reducing the contact crime victimisation rate and putting the United States nearly on par with Australia, but both above the OECD statistical median.

Crime rates halved and it is estimated over 500,000 home invasions are prevented each year and over 2,000,000 violent crimes averted.  In the case that a firearms is drawn, the firearm is only discharged once in every thousand incidents.

American law enforcement has been so impressed by the laws that they have responded overwhelmingly to reject firearms restriction, including magazine capacity restrictions, semi-automatic AR-15s (commonly referred to by the media as assault weapons).  Many Sheriffs have written to President Obama advising that whatever Federal firearms laws he plans to introduce, neither he nor his deputies will enforce them.   

Gun deaths in America
Many might be justifiably afraid of conceal and carry laws in Australia, citing statistics that America has 11,000 gun deaths (excluding suicide) each year.  This might be true, but they also need to recognise that America has 14 times the population of Australia and that 8,900 of those deaths are gang homicide related.

So to put gun deaths in America into perspective, we will subtract 8,900 from 11,000 and divide by 14. The final total is a far more palatable equivalent of 150, which is not far off the Australian gun homicide rate.

Since 1993, gun deaths in America have halved.  This has been widely attributed to conceal and carry laws.


Illinois is one of the last states to introduce conceal and carry legislation, passed on the 9th of July 2013. The gun homicide rate in Chicago, Illinois is currently at 15.2 per 100,000.  

Suicide 

The media love to cherry pick statistics. Recently the courier mail wrote a great article exposing how much gun violence we have in Australia, but when comparing Australia to America, they inflated their figures to 10.3 deaths per 100,000 disregarding the fact roughly 65% of those deaths are suicide related.  Since 1996 gun laws were introduced, there is no evidence in the Australian context overall suicide rates had fallen.

John Howard is very tricky with his words when selling the 1996 gun laws as a success.  He never talks about overall suicide rates, but rather how gun suicide has fallen.


Root Cause
The root cause of growing gun violence in America from 1968, and in Australia since the draconian 1996 laws were introduced, can be broken into six categories.  We need to stop wasting money controlling our law abiding citizens, but rather trust them and redirect this investment into better education, mental health, drug education and closing the gap on poverty.  

Media
The dangerous rhetoric by some media continues to indoctrinate Australians to lobby politicians to introduce further gun control measures.  Celebrating and glorifying mass murderers only puts ideas into the heads of those already deranged.  The media preempted the Port Arthur massacre with a scary story about guns just prior to the shooting. Coincidence?

You'll hear much about the Zimmerman case in both the American and Australian media.  A young black boy was gunned down in cold blood by a blood thirsty white man.  The trial by media in this particular case is overwhelming evidence the media brazenly lies for ratings.  If you've been led to believe an innocent young boy was gunned down, you may wish to watch this short clip exposing the truth.  The entire trial is also online on youtube, so judge for yourself.  

Socio-economic circumstances

There is a direct correlation between the growing socio-economic divide and an increased demand for drugs. Those fighting poverty and homelessness are likely to join criminal gangs and peddle drugs in order to survive.  We need to fix that divide by offering better opportunities and education to our young people. 

Multiculturalism 

More cultures equate to a larger number of gangs, exponentially increasing turf wars and gun violence.  We need to be cognisant that multiculturalism, coupled with a socio-economic divide, will exacerbate gang wars. More gangs = more competition.

Self-defence rights

Our inalienable civil liberty.  We must have the legal right to defend ourselves.  Criminals will be far more brazen in attacking a law abiding citizen knowing they're almost certainly guaranteed to be disarmed  - 'BY LAW'.

Police Mantra
A systemic belief that the police should be the only ones to have guns and that citizens with guns are a danger.  This creates a cultural divide between the police and the community, hindering investigations into crime.  Police need to learn from US cops who have overwhelmingly accepted 'APPROVED' lawful citizens carrying firearms.

State Budgets

Despite no evidence of any public safety benefit, we continue to waste millions of dollars managing a firearms registry bureaucracy.  These much needed funds must be redirected to police and border control intelligence work to further put the pressure on organised crime.

Australia making the mistakes of America
With gun crime (drive by shootings) exploding in Western Sydney, police continue to remain defiant that harsher penalties will deter criminals from carrying or using firearms.

Mandatory Sentencing.
Mandatory sentencing is usually the first tool in the crime kit bag promoted by police to influence politicians to pass legislation guaranteeing lengthy prison terms for those who commit gun crime.  The public are mostly supportive of these measures, but have little understanding of the consequences.

Crime School.
More criminals sent to jail results in more prisons and ultimately larger crime schools.  Prisons are education centres for criminals to build crime networks, collaborate on opportunities and run crime syndicates from the inside.  They're also used as opportunities to recruit petty criminals to participate in more serious criminal behavior after they have been released.

3 Strikes and you're out.
Mandatory sentencing has a positive short term effect on reducing crime, but as these criminals are released back into society, we see a trend of increasing crime, more brazen and more violent criminal activity.  Law makers in the US were then forced to introduced "3 strikes and you're out" legislation, effectively jailing violent repeat offenders indefinitely.  Again putting more strain on the prison system and increasing the size of the crime school.  

Under-cover operations.

There have been few cases where police have successfully managed to infiltrate organised crime groups by placing under-cover operatives inside to gather evidence in order to charge and convict the leaders of these gangs.  The success of under-cover operations has been limited as well as expensive.

Initiation killings.
Crime gangs are weary of under-cover operatives infiltrating organised crime groups, so gangs have forced new recruits to commit initiation killings - random killings in order to prove their legitimacy as a gang affiliate. 

Moving forward
America have recognised the ever increasing number of innocent victims as a result of their policies. This has put pressure on law makers to support self defence laws known as conceal and carry laws across almost the entire US.  A policy Australia should consider adopting to stem the tide of ever increasing (gun) violence.

Some short videos to sum it all up - All are a MUST WATCH 










What you can do...
800,000 law abiding firearms owners handle guns safely every day.  So don't be a victim of the media or politicians that plug an alternative agenda.

1) Don't be the next Jill Meagher. RIP.
2) Don't let Australia make the same mistakes America did.
3) Fight for your civil right to defend yourself.
4) Vote for a party that is firearms friendly.
5) Join a gun club today.
6) Shoot safe and have fun. 

Sunday, 14 July 2013

The George Zimmerman / Trayvon Martin Case

There is a lot of conjecture and bias, thanks to our mainstream media, about the Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman case.

This will probably be one of my shortest blogs, as I believe pictures are worth a 1000 words, particularly in this case.

But first a little bit of background including undisputed facts on both sides about the case.

George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch person, observed suspicious activity by Trayvon Martin.  George called the police, was asked by 911 where Travyon was heading, got out of his car so he could read a street sign with his flashlight.  He lost Trayvon and was then told by 911 there was no need to follow him.  George started to return to his car, only to be then attacked by Travyon. 

Treyvon punched George in the nose, got him on the ground, repeatedly punched him in the face before picking up his head and smashing it into the concrete.  At that point George drew his firearm and shot Treyvon.

An autopsy confirmed drugs (marijuana) in Trevyon's system as well as liver damage from a codeine based drink known as "Lean".  Commonly made with Arizona watermelon fruit juice, skittles and cough syrup.  The drink has been know to cause aggression and paranoia.

-----------------------------------

The media in the US, Australian and other countries deliberately chose to publish pictures of Trayvon taken approximately 5 years before the event.  They continue to post pictures of Trayvon of him when he was 12, rather than 17 years of age when he was considerably taller and larger than George Zimmerman.  

Two important questions our media need to answer.

1) Why didn't the Sydney Morning Herald post a current picture of Trayvon?
2) Why didn't they publish pictures of George after the alleged attack?

A verdict of NOT GUILTY was returned by a jury of 6.  Why would the jury not return a not guilty verdict if there was any evidence George was not acting in self defence?

What the media want you to see....








What the media don't want you to see.









Bill Whittle summed up the case perfectly in less than 10 minutes. 





Zimmerman providing the walk through for police.



Trayvon Martin's girlfriend testifying in court.



Important testimony from the officer on the scene


Interview with George Zimmerman's brother.


Ask yourself....

Why does the media not want you to be able to defend your liberty as a law abiding good citizen?

Why is there so much news of violent crime on Australian news...but very little news of suspects caught?

How can a drug dealer illegally buy a handgun, but only be to be prosecuted with a $2800 fine with no conviction recorded? Story here...

Why does a man defending himself in his own home against four armed thugs get charged with manslaughter?  Story here...

Something is seriously wrong with Australia's justice system.

Jill Meagher would still be alive today if she had a conceal and carry permit and pistol to protect her liberty. 
Each year in the US 2,000,000 crimes are prevented by conceal and carry permit holders.  Only 1 in 1000 cases is a firearm discharged.


Tuesday, 11 June 2013

Four Corners - The Hunting Party

"Investigative journalism at its worst"

If you have any rural or hunting background and happened to see the story on Four Corners last night (10 June 2012), you would have witnessed ABC gutter journalism at its finest.

This blog will investigate the issues with the report to help you better understand that your tax payer funded ABC has been overrun with fanatical "Greens" who have infiltrated this media organisation in order to spread their political lies.

The intent of the program was to shed light on the growth of recreational hunting and political muscle that is driving the demand in NSW for access to more land for public hunting.  The land being some 33 national parks, 29 nature reserves and 15 state conservation areas of our total 882 National Parks.

As a hunter with more than 30 years experience, I was excited to watch and looked forward to a positive story that will encourage people to learn the truth about hunting.  I was and am still hoping some will want to become hunters to help society yet again appreciate where their food comes from.

None the less, I was very disappointed.  All the sound points raised by responsible hunters was flanked either side with fear mongering paranoid rhetoric about bullets whizzing over peoples heads, unsubstantiated claims about licensed hunters acting illegally, blokes shooting everything that moves, further reminders about a mass murderer from 17 years ago and rubbish claims about our firearms laws being watered down so guns are easier than ever to obtain.

Lets explore the sensationalism, inaccurate claims, half trues and lies that programs like Today Tonight and A Current Affair are renowned for.  

-------

CLAIM: The NSW Premier has given them go ahead to hunt in the States 77 National Parks and reserves.

FACT: The claim asserts hunters will get access to all National Parks across NSW, however there are over 882 National parks in NSW.  Hunters will get access to just 33 of these.  Many of these 33 are larger parks where only 1 hunter will be allowed per 400 hectares.  Hunters can hunt in pairs though for safety reasons."

-------

SENSATIONALISM: Mention the death of one hunter back in 1994 prior to the Game Council coming into existence.

RELEVANCE: Since the Game Council regulatory body began issuing permits to hunt on public land in 2006, there has not been a single death or shooting injury by an 'R' licensed hunter.

The report makes no mention that well regulated public land hunting in National Parks is and has always been legal in Victoria and South Australia.  Under the Bob Carr Government, the same Government that approved the Game Council in the first place, there was always a plan to allow regulated hunting in National Parks.  The Labor government were just slow to make it happen after declaring hundreds of new National Parks in the 90's.  This was land we were previously allowed to hunt on, but is now infested with feral pigs, goats, rabbits, foxes, cats and deer - invasive species that do untold damage to our native flora and fauna, thanks successful lobbying by the Greens to lock it and leave it all these years.

Hunting on public land was finally legal again in 2006, and while the Game Council were feverishly zoning state forests and crown lands to have the permit system up and running, we hunters anticipated when those areas were zoned, we could move onto National parks and other reserves.  Unfortunately disunity in the Labor government and multiple changes of leadership by an incompetent party in bed with the Greens lead to hunting in National Parks never getting the rubber stamp approval.  The media have been desperately claiming a 'dirty deal' has been done simply because a minority party, that now happens to hold the balance of power, is simply trying to be accountable by delivering to their constituents.  Heaven forbid a political party that actually delivers results and is getting NSW moving again.  All this despite amnesia that it was the Labor party who originally pushed for the power sell off and this much needed money was then and still is now needed to invest in our States ailing assets thanks to years of neglect, incompetence and debt by Labor.    

Since recreational hunting has never been shown to be a danger in Victoria and South Australia, why would this model be so dangerous now?  Are NSW National Parks that much different to those in Victoria? Why would the ABC want to instill all this fear into Australians who are already so tightly wrapped up in cotton wool?  Ratings perhaps?  We'll get to that in the next blog.......

The Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine completed a study in 2012 illustrating hunting and shooting are some of the safest recreational activities we Australians enjoy.  Water sports were the most dangerous.

The report analysed hunting deaths on public and private land between 2000-2012, a total of 17 relating to a firearm, compared with 1156 from swimming, fishing, scuba diving, surfing, snorkeling, rock fishing, diving, water‐skiing and wind surfing.

Bushwalkers have launched a campaign against hunting in National Parks citing safety issues, but there isn't a single case on record across Australia I can find when a hunter had accidentally shot a bush walker.  The claims of bullets hitting homes and whizzing over peoples heads just aren't stacking up.  Maybe they just have an irrational fear of firearms and will say anything to protect the motherland and their beloved Greens.... or is that Reds?  I would have thought hunting deer that breed naturally in our native forests would be far more sustainable than factory farming or raising cattle that release all that harmful methane.   The German Greens support hunting on 1/20 of the land of Australia with 4 times the population.

If you told the Germans you could only have 1 permit per 400 hectares to hunt on they be laughing in your face suggesting how completely absurd that is.

-------

SENSATIONALISM: Claims of illegal hunting and video footage dating back to 26 January 2013.  

INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM: Zero.

I have been in touch with the Game Council.  They advised no report was ever lodged of this activity.  Despite having the licence plate, no police report was ever filed and no investigation took place.

Regarding the interview with the Game Council spokesperson re: the 30 other incidents raised, this was the response.

GAME COUNCIL:  "They expected me to have detailed knowledge of every incident there and then. All they gave me was topics. They laid into me for a hour and showed about 50 seconds. Game Council are aware of a number of the issues but most of them occurred pre Game Council by unlicensed hunters.  They never got back to me with their list so I could not respond as had promised."  

-------

SENSATIONALISM: Suggestions there is no requirement for the Game Council to test firearms marksmanship.

FACT: Firearms licenses are approved before being issued by NSW Police.  A safety certificate must be issued by an approved hunting club along with the firearms licence application.  The Game Council are not responsible for this process.  It would be redundant duplicating the efforts made by police approved hunting clubs.

-------

SENSATIONALISM: Associating 800,000 law abiding firearms owners with the actions of one individual in Port Arthur 17 years ago.  Statements from ex-politicians claiming relaxing firearms laws will take us down a slippery slope which will lead to another massacre.

FACT: Prior to 1996, firearms licensing and background checks were practically non existent in Tasmania.

Since then, every State conducts a Federal background and criminal history check.  Anyone not deemed a fit and proper person due to a history of mental health, domestic violence etc would not be issued a firearms licence.  Police routinely cancel licenses and reacquire firearms from license holders who no longer meet eligibility requirements.

The Shooters and Fishers Party are not advocating removing background checks or safe storage requirements of firearms.

FACT: Despite 700,000 firearms being handed in after the 1996 buyback, most of these were owned by a deceased family member (Grand dads old shot gun in the cupboard).  Of all the firearms handed in, only 3.2% were centre-fire semi-automatic.

-------

CLAIM: 18 amendments have been put through by the Shooters and Fishers to make it easier to get a gun.

FACT:  The Shooters and Fishers party have removed unnecessary supplementary red tape that should have never been included in the NSW State legislation in the first place.  The State legislation does not breach any of the National Firearms Agreement that was introduced by John Howard. . The criminal background checks are still the same and the waiting periods are also still the same.

FACT: The majority of firearms legislation focuses on the firearm itself, not the character of the individual that owns it for a lawful purpose or safe storage and handling.

The Melbourne Institute released a working paper on "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths"

A comprehensive study of the laws concluded "Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths."

-------

INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING: Rather than investigating the behavior of unregulated illegal hunters, the program tarred all hunters with the same brush, despite not having any evidence of any illegal behavior by a Game Council 'R' licence holder not already under investigation.

No mention of the problems associated with illegal hunting / poaching and potentially large stocks of up to 1,500,000 unregistered firearms in circulation.

No mention it's compulsory to be a member of an approved hunting club which provides practical hunter education.  Clubs help new shooters buy the right firearm to suit them, teach them how to sight it in and how to use it safely as part of their training an membership.  It's not uncommon from the time you first book in your firearms safety training, to then obtaining your first firearm, to take a minimum of six months.  Game Council licensing can be done in parallel with this process, but unfortunately the hunter needs to then change his firearms licence to include the genuine reason 'Recreational Hunting' on his licence prior to being legally allowed to hunt on public land.  The initial application and club membership will only support 'Target Shooting' at a club initially.  Four compulsory annual club attendances are also required to maintain that membership and genuine reason 'Recreational Hunting'.  

-------

INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING: No talk about the personal agenda of professional shooters and trappers who don't want to lose lucrative government contracts to continue trapping invasive species.

The Victoria National Parks Association recently paid professional shooters, from New Zealand, $42,000 to cull 23 goats.  A job that could be done for free by recreational shooters by accepting and promoting a culture of hunting.

There was also no mention in the Four Corners story of the recent auditor generals report on the failings of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.

No mention about the fanatical animal liberation movement who have known to constantly lie for their own personal agenda - an agenda to convert everyone to Vegan.  These extremists find hunters a far easier target than factory farmers and have been known to make completely hysterical claims.

"The wild inaccuracies of anti duck hunting campaigner Lauie Levy cannot go unaddressed" - The Hon Peter Ryan, Minister for Justice, Victoria.

-------

Read the Game Council media release by clicking here...

-------

CONCLUSION:  A sloppy report by a tired veteran reporter.  Very disappointing Kerry O'Brien.

Join Guns in Australia on FACEBOOK.  I invite any questions you may have.

Stay tuned.....  

Learn more about the Greens and their anti-hunting, anti-gun, anti-farming and anti-anti-vegan agenda.

I will be exposing the hypocrisy of the Greens, the hypocrisy of the Vegans, the hypocrisy of the ABC, Agenda 21, the pitfalls of world government and the cruel use of 1080 poison supported by the Greens who refuse to issue a bill in NSW parliament to ban a poison illegal to use across the developed world (except in Australia and New Zealand).

Friday, 26 October 2012

The Environment, Ethics, Politics and Social Media.

There was a time when the citizens of Australia went to the polling booths every 3 years for the Federal election, casting their vote for a candidate that was nothing more than the best of a bad bunch.  Some naively believed their single vote might actually make a difference in the grand scheme of things, others, more cynical, cast a donkey vote or submitted a blank ballot paper.

Thankfully for the Australian voter times have changed dramatically.  Some politicians are still trying to grapple with how the new wave of social media impacts their political strategy.  Some are oblivious to it.  And the rare few, Tony Windsor as an example don't even know how to switch on a computer, yet continue to carry on blindly using political strategies from the jurassic period to convince us how great a job he is doing.   

Back in the day when the Greens were the only real choice as an alternative to a major party, they had momentum and some substance.  My blog today is going to explore how relevant they are in this day and age, especially since they have lost their way and the voice of social media has proven it has far more political sway, more balance and doesn't sing to the tune of fanatical policies and communist tones.

To do this, i'm going to talk about a few topics close to the political heart of the Greens and analyse how these issues have played out in day and age. 

Veganism

Make no mistake about it - the Greens are all about converting us all to a vegan.  They are not about sustainability or the humane treatment of animals.  If they were, they would support recreational hunting and campaign against the use of 1080 poison rather than supporting it.  You can read my blog here about how vile this chemical really is.  

Recently David Shoebridge from the NSW Greens, hosted a forum on pig dogging, with the intention to indoctrinate more city voters to support a ban on the practice.  This was nothing more than a kumbaya to convince a bunch of do-gooders with too much time on their hands yet too busy to go find the facts for themselves to add a little more flab to the Greens campaign.  These are people who would rather be herded like sheep or jews to the gas chamber than learn to think for themselves.  

The panel was stacked with Greens and Animal Liberation organisations.  Why the Australian Pig Doggers & Hunters Association were not invited to add balance to the panel just goes to show the Greens don't care for democratic process and see more success promoting a campaign full of lies.  You can read more about what pig dogging is by following the link to the association itself.

If the Greens knew the first thing about pig dogging, they wouldn't have used the image of a knife that is not suitable for the practice on their campaign brochure.

You can read an article on the outcome of the event here...where a University of Technology Sydney conservation biologist, Daniel Ramp outlandishly claims,

"Hunters had to get away from this idea that we can eradicate feral pigs".

"Feral pigs in the future will be native pigs, they're there for our future," he said.

If Daniel Ramp had an inkling as to how much damage feral pigs are doing to our environment, he would appreciate the pig population exploded completely out of control when hunting was banned in NSW National Parks.

The news article was sloppy and failed to get to the crux of many of the issues discussed.  Tristan Thompson made the trip to Sydney all the way from Bourke to have his say in the Audience.  You can read his comments on the Shooters and Fishers facebook page about how ridiculous the entire fiasco was right here..

Meanwhile, the Greens profess we save every little bit of energy we can by unplugging appliances from wall sockets to help the environment, yet this philosophy somehow doesn't apply when it comes to hunting.  Surely hunting pigs and other invasive species for food is the most sustainable and environmentally friendly practice of all!  David Shoebridge famously quoted that hunting actually increases feral animal numbers because hunters only kill off the doom surplus.  No credible scientist to this day is able to explain this delusional theory.  You can listen to the interview where he quotes this rubbish right here....

Moving on, it's no secret the Greens work closely with Animals Australia who have recently launched their 'Make it possible' campaign exposing the treatment of animals in factory farms.  Don't get me wrong, I don't actually support factory farming, but until their is a better alternative, it is nothing more than tenacious to believe Australians are going to stop eating pork, ham, bacon, sausages and other small goods.  Anyone that knows anything about pigs knows you need to keep them locked up.  They will happily rip through your fences and destroy your land.  There is no such thing as free range pig farming.

Which brings me back to pig dogging.  Surely if the Greens and Animals Australia were serious about reducing the number of factory pig farms, why on earth do they discourage hunting free range pigs in our wild?


Surely that would be a win-win for the pigs and the environment.  Less pigs damaging our native flora and fauna and less people buying pork from factory farms.

The only conclusion I can draw from all of this are the Greens wanting to turn us all into vegans.  Lee Rhiannon is also a Vegan as well as a communist.   But don't take my word for it though, google it yourself!  These are the type of people you are voting for when you vote Green.


So you're reading this and still not convinced.  You believe none of us should consume or use animal products.  Well get familiar with the list of items in the picture on the left that illustrates some of the things made from animal products.

When you tell me you refuse to use any of these products, then we'll talk about how ethical you really are. 






The Super Trawler

One thing I will say about the Greens.... they reckon they did a fantastic job stopping the super trawler!!!!


It's fascinating when you analyse the turn of events that actually stopped the super trawler.  Let me make it clear, stopping the super trawler had absolutely nothing to do with the Greens.

So what was it then?  Was it just a knee-jerk reaction by the Government after another Four Corners style of campaign that saw a ban on the live export trade?

Or was it the voice of the people, writing to their local members and ministers?

Unlike the live export ban, there was little talk about the cruelty of the fishing trade.  Dolphins, seals being collateral damage of the haul etc.   Instead the arguments focused around the super trawler depleting all our fish stocks.  Emotive words such as 'Hovering the fish out of the water' were used.

AFMA (The Australian Fisheries Management Authority) approved the super trawler fishing in Australian waters.  Did the department get it wrong?  Well, if you look at the data and the terms and conditions the trawler were required to operate under, this vessel is nothing but good for our economy.

So why did the Environment Minister feel the need to ban it?  One thing is for certain, there was immense political pressure.  Where did that pressure come from?  The Greens? Greenpeace?   They'd like you to believe that so you vote for them next election.

But the pressure really came from 5 million Australian recreational fishers and fishing groups who viewed the Governments approval of the super trawler as the height of hypocrisy.  As a recreational fisher myself, I am severely restricted as to where I may fish.  Where I am able to fish, I'm restricted to a few fish to feed my family.  A few fish I might take from the water during our annual camping trip.  Yet the Super Trawler was approved to farm 18,000 tonnes of fish per year.  That's 3kg of fish per recreational fisher in Australia!

The science says we're not going to deplete our fish stocks, but politics and the Greens suggest we need marine parks to protect them.   What a crock!

Click here to see a map of a small section of NSW where you cannot fish and the rules and regs associated with the areas that you can.


Ethics

I don't claim to be an ethicist, so I won't try to explain why I believe it is ethical to eat meat, but I would like to ask a vegan why they believe it is not ethical to eat meat, when humans have been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years!

This video sums it up perfectly.




Sunday, 2 September 2012

Recreational hunting - totally useless

I recently tweeted David Shoebridge, a Greens member of the Legislative Council in NSW, asking why the crusade against recreational hunting in NSW and why he is so supportive of aerial baiting using 1080 poison.  A poison well known to indiscriminately target native wildlife and cause horrific suffering of animals subject to secondary poisoning (animals that feed on animals that are poisoned).

You can read more about my views on David's agenda and the use of 1080 poison here... but in this blog i'm going to focus on David's comments concerning the effectiveness of recreational hunters after he suggested amateur hunting is totally useless.

Unlike David, i'm not going to cite evidence from a Greens lobby group (Invasive Species Council), but rather evidence from reputable sources such as the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre and the NSW Department of Primary Industries.

Neither of these bodies claim recreational hunting is totally useless.

In fact they actually support recreational hunting.

Best-practice pest animal management encourages the use of a wide range of control techniques within a strategic framework. Given private recreational hunting and commercial harvesting constitute over 30% of control technique use throughout NSW, it seems appropriate to integrate these techniques within a well-organised control framework administered by regional pest animal managers.

Recreational hunting is also widely used for several pest species, however, careful planning and regulation are required to ensure activities are targeted to maximise their effectiveness at reducing the impacts of pest animals. In short, mechanical control techniques were most commonly used for all species, followed by chemical control, and biological control techniques.

This graph shows recreational hunters make a significant contribution to feral animal control in NSW.

You can read the DPI report here here.




Monday, 27 August 2012

Tonnes of neurotoxic chemical (1080) poisoning our water supply every year.


Recently I was alerted to a documentary on research from NZ that speaks about the devastating environmental effects of sodium monofluroacetate, or 1080 as it is more commonly known.

I've always known it has been widely used to control feral animals in NSW National parks, but I was never aware of its devastating effects. It wasn't until I began to question the motives of the anti-hunting lobby groups that I began to uncover something far more sinister, the true agenda of the anti-hunting lobby groups. Supported under the guise of environmentalism by the Australian Greens, a party too lazy to do it's own research and has a history of only supporting the idealistic side of an argument.

Before we start, please watch this video.  It is nearly two hours in length, but it won't take to be convinced we must ban the practice of aerial baiting in Australia.  As the makers of the film describe it:

“Poisoning Paradise - Ecocide New Zealand” takes you into the drop-zone of aerial 1080 operations, beneath the canopy, where the birds and animals die. For the first time, supported by scientific evidence and indisputable footage, this film fully exposes the truth about a culture that is believed will eventually see New Zealand's image tarnished, and an international embarrassment." 


One particular lobby group, the Invasives Species Council, seem to have been very vocal in their opposition to recreational hunting in NSW National Parks on the grounds that it is ineffective at controlling introduced species.  This lobby group are the same group that work with the NSW National Parks and Wildlife service on aerial baiting programs.  As with all lobby groups, someone must be funding them.  I suspect it might be the manufacturer of 1080 poison in Alabama, USA.   Australia and NZ consume 92% of the world supply of 1080.  What is the obsession with this poison?

Lets delve deeper.   The Invasives Species Council's biggest threat is the recreational hunting lobby groups.  Why? Because if we can prove that recreational hunting and the issue of bounties on feral animals by Government is an effective means for pest eradication, they would be out of a job!

They often quote "The Game Council" when suggesting how ineffective recreational hunting is controlling feral animals.  If this were the case, why are they so afraid of them?

What they fail to mention is the Game Council is required by law to limit the issue of permits to no more than one permit per 400 hectares of land.  Of course recreational hunters cannot be as effective in eradicating invasive species when you compare them to the alternative - an alternative that involves aerial dumping of thousands of tonnes of toxic poisons throughout our National Parks every year.

They cite figures such as $3 million annual cost to tax payers to fund the Game Council.  Money they would rather see re-directed into aerial baiting programs and bigger kickbacks.

I decided to explore their website to see what expertise they really have when it comes to feral animals.  Click on first link of the left called feral animals to see what we find.

Three paragraphs telling us how bad foxes, cats, rabbits and pigs are for the environment.  Thanks ISC - I never knew!!!

Scroll down further and the first link you see is a link titled "Hunting of feral animals, is it conservation?"
Lets follow this link to explore deeper.


Their first claim is "But evidence (including the failure of numerous bounties) shows that, at best, hunters can supplement more effective methods of feral animal control or provide control in small, accessible areas." 

Victoria supports recreational hunting in national parks via a permit system from the Department of Primary Industries.  In October 2011 they issued a bounty of $10 per fox scalp and recently hit the 100,000 milestone, paying out $1 million to recreational hunters.  You can read the media release here....

The second claim is  "Funding recreational hunting as a primary method of control is a waste of taxpayers’ money. There is also the risk that opening up public lands to hunting creates an incentive for maverick hunters to shift feral animals into new areas - as has occurred particularly with pigs and deer."

How is funding recreational hunting a waste of tax payers' money and where is your evidence to support this claim?  When was the last time NSW issued a bounty?

The Game Council was set up to support recreational hunting in NSW but the uptake has been slow, largely due to bureaucracy.  I often plan a hunt in a NSW State Forest, only to discover they have exceeded their permit issuing quota.  One thing is for sure, the more people become licensed, the less of a burden it will be on the tax payer.  Increasing the hunter to land ratio would also encourage more hunters to hunt.  Costs to the tax payer will not increase because of the economies of scale.

Suggesting maverick hunters in this day and age will shift feral animals into new areas is ridiculous.  Feral animals are everywhere.  Sambar deer that were introduced in Victoria have migrated all the way to Sydney.  Animals will always breed and explore new habitat - that is simply nature.

The NSW environment minister recently admitted the National Parks and Wildlife Service only removed 25,000 feral animals in the previous 12 months.  It's a bit rich to claim 10's of thousands of recreational hunters couldn't match that.  I personally shoot hundreds of feral animals every year.  You can listen to Robyn Parkers comments made on lateline here.


Andrew Cox, the President of the Invasive Species Council also has opinion pieces published by the ABC.  Here you can read one of his anti hunting pieces.  As a lobby group potentially getting kickbacks to supply the government with more 1080, this screams of conflict of interest.

David Shoebridge is just as guilty.  He would rather our water supply be contaminated than over-come his Hoplophobia (fear of firearms).  Regardless of the science.  He is anti hunting and anti-guns.  Can you really trust him to make the best decisions for the environment?

I could go into further links on this page, but I think you get the idea.  It's all anti-hunting rhetoric supported by the Greens with no real science to back it up.

Watch a video on the poisoning of Australian dingoes here.

Learn the facts about recreational hunting here...