I used to go hunting with my mother when I was a child. By the time
I was fourteen I owned and used my own semiautomatic .22 Ruger for
culling rabbits and kangaroos. Our weapons were tools. Now the guns we
own must be registered as sporting equipment through thorough licensing
procedures that keep strict tabs on shooters and make it very hard to
own firearms in this country. The result being that only the terrorists
(yes, these home invaders are the only terrorists that we have to deal
with) invading our homes have access to guns for protection. Those of
us who abide by the laws must keep our weapons locked up and out of
sight. God help us if we ever use our weapons to defend ourselves as
the law has made it clear that we are to lie down like dogs and let
crime happen to us rather than inflict injury on an intruder or
attacker.
In Australia we do not have the peace of mind that
comes with the necessity of resistance when attacked in our homes and
no one was shocked more than me when in 1997Howard decided to diminish
this country's security by disarming innocent citizens intimating
responsible persons, like myself and most gun owners, are potential
mass murderers.
In 2003 the same government is at it again, wasting millions of dollars
of taxpayers money forcing gun owners to hand in even more of their
treasured weapons to leave our already seriously disarmed citizens even
more vulnerable to inside and outside invasion.
Again this stupid exercise will do nothing to
reduce the crime wave in this country in fact, as time has shown, it
will actually contribute to the terror Australians are experiencing
daily with the highest incidence of home invasion in the world.
CONVERSATION HEARD ON A BRISBANE TALKBACK PROGRAM
"Gun nuts, rednecks and lunatics. That's all they are. What
would ever possess anyone to want to own a thing that kills people is
beyond me"
"Yeah, I heard them say that they use their shotguns for sport. What
kind of sport do you need a shotgun for? That's what I'd like to know?
It's ludicrous."
"That's right, it just goes to show how stupid they are."
Two weeks later our shooters were the first to bring gold home from the
Atlanta Olympics and that ignorant talk-back host and his equally
ignorant supporter must have felt very foolish to find out that one of
Australia's safest sports is clay shooting and we are among the world's
best.
ANOTHER COMMENT HEARD ON BRISBANE TALKBACK
"I don't know a thing about guns - all I know is I hate them"
SOMETIMES THE MEDIA GETS IT RIGHT
Alan Jones is a giant in Australian radio. Like all high profile
talk-back hosts he wields considerable clout with the general public
with his controversial comments. He got it very wrong with the GST
(and one wonders how someone so intelligent fell for that con) but this
comment below shows a lot of plain common sense not often displayed by
the media.
Alan Jones Today Show Editorial
GUN BUYBACK 17 June 2003
"I can tell you, there is positive outrage at what the Prime
Minister is trying to do in relation to another handgun buy-back from
July 1." "Police vans will be touring the countryside,
seizing and destroying handguns and paying compensation to owners, and
with the money in compensation, owners will just buy another gun of an
approved barrel length."
"But this involves a phenomenal amount of taxpayers' money that could be spent elsewhere."
"No-one who writes to me seems to be able to understand why we have
buy-backs when the only people handing in the guns are the people who
aren't breaking the law."
"No-one has ever seen a criminal queuing up to hand in their weapons."
"But the worst feature of all of this is that it's a government policy fashioned independently of all research."
"The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics Report demonstrates that
the most up to date figures show 49 people in Australia killed with
firearms."
"And this is not just with handguns, which we are going to buy back, but rifle as well."
"49. "
"You might recall in 1996, a fellow broke into the Dunblane Primary
School in Scotland and opened fire on a class in a gym, killing 16
children and a teacher."
"Suddenly handguns were banned."
"London's Daily Telegraph editorialised earlier this year and I quote,
"The increased use of handguns bears out criticism that the ban imposed
after Dunblane took weapons out of the hands of law abiding, shooting
club members, rather than criminals, and had no impact on gun crime."
"Whereas, in America, since 1986, more than 25 States passed laws
encouraging people to carry concealed handguns and an academic, Dr.
Gary Mauser, recently wrote about this, "As surprising as it is to the
media, these new laws have caused violent crime rates to drop,
including homicide rates."
"At a time when there is no money for the disabled, the mentally ill,
or to improve the quality of aged care, the government has spent over
$500 million in the Port Arthur gun buy-back and now, more than $100
million is proposed to be spent from July 1 onwards on a gun buy-back
that will do nothing to reduce the incidence of crime."
"This is madness."
"49 people have died in one year on the latest available statistics from firearms."
"And that includes rifles as well as handguns."
"49."
"So buy-back handguns."
"Well 50 pre-school aged children died in swimming pools last year - do we close swimming pools or buy them back."
"80 people died in boating accidents."
"What are we going to do about boats."
"60 people died on beaches last year."
"Spare us the thought!"
"If this is called public policy, we need to start again."
"Says it all really."
TERRORISM IN OUR OWN HOMES
Australians are being terrorised in their own homes every day. Our
crime rate for car theft, home invasions, muggings, party rape, assault
and hold-ups is amongst the highest in the world due to the soft
approach on criminals. It has always amazed me how someone who robs a
bank gets a higher sentence compared with the mongrel who robs a family
home. Why do people who can least afford to be victimised get treated
like they don't matter in the scale of things? Politicians and
celebrities can afford to have paid protection and all hell breaks
loose if one of them gets assaulted but poor old Joe Bloggs isn't even
allowed to fight back unless he uses "reasonable force".
We listen to the hype and drama of the media trying to make us scared
of our own shadows. Do they want us to turn into a generation of whimps
letting the criminal element walk all over us?
Soon after the attempted hi-jack of a Qantas airline in June of 2003
Channel 9 sent an over anxious reporter to the airport to get a
reaction to the story. The reporter shoved the microphone in front of
the faces of three people in a flight queue eagerly asking them how
they felt about flying in the light of what had just happened. The
first woman looked at him with the disdain he justly deserved telling
him that she wasn't the slightest bit concerned and that the recent
hi-jack incident was an isolated incident that wasn't going to worry
her. The next young man said something similar and the third man again
answered the reporter in that cool Aussie way telling him that
"Australians can handle themselves". I was so proud of these people not
being swayed by the hype of the media and reacting to the reporter in a
way that I and probably everyone else I know would have.
The media loves to make mountains out of molehills forgetting that we
face terror every day in our own homes. While we are inherently law
abiding, I hope we never cease to be capable of dealing with situations
as they arise despite a government who continually decreases our
liberty with unfair rules and regulations and a justice system which
works in favour of the criminal.
The Reload Bench
POLITICAL DECISIONS THAT MAKE NO SENSE
I
was lulled into a false sense of security thinking that our politicians
were wise men with the best interests of our country at heart but that
was before John Howard decided to punish innocent people for a crime
they did not commit. I wasn't one of the ones affected by the new gun
laws but I pride myself in certain areas of logic and common sense.
MEDIA TO BLAME FOR BIAS REPORTING
Even worse than Howard making the mistake of a lifetime was the non
existent opposition from the other party and that lot who are supposed
to keep all of them honest.
Never be fooled by the corrupt media who tried to brainwash us into
thinking that the majority of Australians were behind Howard because
one incident alone convinced me that the media has its own barrow to
push.
That event took place on the 29th June 1996 when almost nine thousand
people against the gun laws took to the streets of Brisbane in the
biggest protest march since the Vietnam War and the next day it was
reported as a non event on page 43 of the Sunday papers. Proving my
point, the next week just over one thousand people, mostly politicians
and media, rallied for Howard’s gun laws and made front page headlines
in the same paper.
Thanks to the media we didn't even get to hear about the 150,000 who
marched in Melbourne until they needed a clip of the march for some
promo. Who knows how many others marched in the other capitals. The
media has no intention of telling us.
GUN RALLIES
Not everyone who marched in the massive gun rallies all over Australia
were gun owners. Hundreds of people who marched were simply concerned
Australians worried about the security of a nation that must now rely
on our depleted military for protection.
Gone was the security of knowing that the neighbour down the street and
the one across the road had a gun to avoid an incident like Port
Arthur. Reason enough to protest against a government who was planning
to leave them defenceless.
I witnessed a rally to rival a rock concert at the Sporting Shooters and later had friends remark to me what a flop it was.
They
apparently watched the TV news reports that showed before and after
shots of the rally. Before everyone got there and after they had left.
e-Gun Banner Exchange
SOME POLLS TAKEN BEFORE PORT ARTHUR MASSACRE
March 3, 1994: Channel 7 offered a phone poll of "Australia's Most Wanted" viewers.
Q: Should a citizen have the right to self-defense with a firearm when attacked at home by an intruder?
A: 13,414 ,YES..........315,NO..........97% in favour
March 24-25, 1994: The Sun Herald-Sun asked
Q: Should the Government ban keeping guns in homes?
A; 1427,NO..........51,YES..........96.5% against.
April 6, 1995: The Herald-Sun asked Victorians
Q: Do you think (Victorian) gun laws are tough enough?
A: 89% said YES.
P.M.'S NEW GUN LAWS BEGAN INSECURITY
That was when I decided that enough was enough and so began my small
campaign to enlighten others as to what was going on. I wrote reams of
letters to every politician and other people concerned similar to these below.
I gave dozens of reasons why this country should not be disarmed while
the opposing side’s argument was simply "guns kill people". This is a
typical response from people who know absolutely nothing about guns. It
is the kind of thinking that comes from those who haven't bothered to
consult or debate the opposing argument. They, instead, resorted to
name calling. Before Port Arthur, few Australians had ever heard of the
expression "redneck". Not that name calling bothers me. It did for a
while until I realised what they were trying to do to us and then I
decided to have some fun with it. I bought myself some Jeff Foxworthy
tapes, had a Redneck Games Party that was the most fun I've had in
years and even bought myself some flamingos for the garden (that's a
Foxworthy joke). So long as we don't lose our sense of humour they
can't put us down no matter how much they try.
U.S. POLICE POLL ON GUN LAWS
The San Diego Police Officers Association polled it's members about gun
control on the 5th May 1997 and published the results in their official
newsletter, "The Informant".
Note that the actual questions asked are stated here to prevent
confusion. Anyone who has taken a survey knows the pitfalls of vague or
misleading questions. I know I certainly do.
1.....Do you support an assault weapons ban? NO - 82.1%
2.....Do you support a limitation on magazine capacity? NO - 82.2%
3.....Do you support a law-abiding private citizen's right to carry a concealed weapon? YES - 84.9%
4.....Do you believe that armed, law abiding citizens are a threat to you as a police officer? NO - 87.8%
5.....Have recent gun laws (weapons ban, magazine capacity limits, and
increased waiting periods) reduced violent crime in your area? NO - 94.2%
6.....Would you support a point of sale background check (instant check) for the purchase of a firearm? YES - 92.1%
7.....Does gun ownership by private citizens increase public safety? YES - 87.1%
8.....Do you believe the criminal justice system needs streamlining and reform? YES - 99.2%
9.....Do you believe in the death penalty? YES - 99.2%
10...Do you believe that restrictive gun laws will reduce violent crime? NO - 92.1%
11...Do you believe that gun buy-back or turn-in programs take guns out of the hands of criminals? NO - 98.5%
12...Do you believe that misuse of a firearm in a crime should result in stiff, mandatory sentences with no plea bargaining? YES - 95.6%
These results are consistent with similar polls taken all across the
U.S. for over 20 years. At least they got asked. Here in Australia
there wasn't even any debate.
PORT ARTHUR USED AS AN EXCUSE TO DISARM
The events that took place after Port Arthur have convinced the
majority of Australians that the present government either does not
have our interests at heart, are not very bright, are totally out of
touch with the general public and probably all three.
BLAME FOR KILLINGS MORE WIDELY SPREAD
* There were far more people to blame for those killings than Martin
Bryant beginning with the thief who removed the Colt AR 15 from the
conveyer belt after it had been handed in at a previous amnesty.
* The policeman who followed the killer around, unable to do anything because he wasn't armed. A policeman without a gun?
* Those who tightened gun ownership to the extent where only the
lunatics and bad guys have access to any amount and type they want and
when one goes berserk there's no good guys with any legal means of
resistance.
* Those who decided to close mental institutions and allow mentally
handicapped people to live in your street with your family often to the
detriment of themselves as well as the general public etc. etc.
BRYANT - PATSY FOR DISARMAMENT?
And what about this Martin Bryant?
Here's a bloke who has been described as intellectually handicapped
with an IQ of 66 yet he has the ability to shoot 32 victims (20 of them
dead with head shots in less than 90 seconds), methodically, one at a
time, from the right hip (even though he was left handed) and at a rate
that could have been done with a bolt action rifle. That kind of
accuracy is almost unheard of.
Although lacking any military training he managed a kill rate well
above that required of a fully trained soldier and a killed-to-wounded
ratio that is an achievement of a special forces commando after months
of training and yet weeks before the killings Bryant was in a gun shop
asking the gunsmith to tell him how to use a weapon similar to the one
used in the massacre.
I find it very hard to believe that Bryant acted alone if indeed he
acted at all. For someone who was so accurate in the Broad Arrow Cafe
one can only be totally surprised that he didn't wipe out the whole
Tasmanian police force with the 250 rounds he fired from the Seascape
Inn siege and didn't hit anyone. By then he certainly didn't have
anything to lose if he was at all capable.
There were no positive identifications of Bryant since the media made
sure his "enhanced" photograph was circulated nationwide corrupting any
police line-up. He pleaded not guilty at first, a plea that was not
accepted because no one "wants a lengthy trial that would involve
putting witnesses on the stand causing more distress". This implied
that they couldn't have a trial by jury in case no one could identify
this bloke on the stand, after all, no one got a good look at him - he
was just a "man with long blonde hair".
Again he was hauled before the court to plead guilty this time and
laughed all the way through the reading of the charges against him. I
wonder what he found so funny? Could it have been the irony of it all?
I guess we'll never know since the records of the Port Arthur massacre
have been locked away for thirty years making them immune from scrutiny
under the Freedom of Information Act. What do you suppose they're
trying to hide?
Joe Vialls Investigation into the Port Arthur Massacre
NY SHOOTINGS ADD WEIGHT TO VIALLS INVESTIGATIONS
At 12.40AM on the 4th Feb 1999 in New York City, four plain clothes
police officers accidently shot an unarmed black man on the stoop of
his building as he reached for his wallet. The police mistook the man's
action as reaching for a gun and fired 41 shots from a distance of
about 12 ft (3 meters) with 9mm semiautomatic pistols each holding 16
bullets in the magazine. The man, Amadou Diallo, died from gunshot
wounds after being hit only 19 times.
If the NY Police are such lousy shots perhaps they should try to find
the real Port Arthur shooter to give them some lessons. Read why Martin
Bryant couldn't have been the shooter at Port Arthur.
Joe Vialls Investigation into the Port Arthur Massacre
KILLING MACHINES
In 1996 a trained Israeli soldier went berserk in Hebron and fired a
complete thirty-shot magazine of ammunition from an identical Colt AR15
(as used at Port Arthur) into a crowd of Palestinians at the same
range. His thirty high velocity bullets injured nine and killed no-one
at all.
PORT ARTHUR WAS THE EPITOME OF A DEFENCELESS SOCIETY.
Instead of acting on better defence the government went the other way.
It didn't occur to the brainless yuppies of Canberra that one gun could
have saved the lives of dozens of people that day. Our leader, a man
who knows absolutely nothing about guns, made a snap decision that
horrified most Australians. Being thoroughly out of touch with people
and oblivious to their reactions all he could think of was finally
having an excuse to implement a law that had been on the agenda since
the 80’s. A law that both sides were too afraid to pass for fear of an
intense backlash.
They had good reason to fear the backlash because it was there all
right. It just never got reported but those who attended the marches
and rallies all over Australia were not fooled.
While the media played down the unrest of the thousands and played up
the ignorance of the few they literally used the victims of Port Arthur
and almost destroyed one of the most beautiful tourist destinations in
the world in a desperate effort to bring attention to the gun issue.
Imposing media attention and out of proportion sensationalism on a
crime that was horrendous, but no more so than one which took place
soon after on the Gold Coast and hardly got more than a mention.
Probably because the weapon used was a lump of wood. The media couldn't
find a way to accuse this lump of wood of kidnapping, raping and
mutilating two little girls on a Gold Coast beach so there was no
mileage for the Prime Minister to attend their funerals.
DISASTER DESIGNED TO HAPPEN?
The Proposed Uniform Gun Laws were designed, drawn up and already
signed, just waiting for the right disaster to present itself
activating the disarmament mode. The media did their bit to play up the
emotional side which helped the States come to an agreement and allow
the Commonwealth to take over yet another 'State' controlled area,
further weakening the States.
It was even prophesied that Tasmania would be the State where this disaster would occur.
The Sun Herald reported May 5 1996 that ex-Premier of NSW, Barry Unsworth made this prediction in 1987 - Before Uniform Gun Laws become possible in all States there will have to be a massacre in Tasmania.
Allegedly, similar comments at the same time were attributed to at least one other premier, and possibly two.
A Mr. Roland Brown of the Tasmanian Coalition for Gun Control made the following statement. "We
are going to see a mass shooting in Tasmania of the likes you have seen
in Strathfield and Hoddle Street, unless we get National Gun Control
Laws".
FIGHT CRIME - SHOOT BACK
FEWER GUNS - LESS SECURITY
In 1991, in the town of Killeen, Texas, a young woman and her parents
were sitting in a restaurant eating a meal when suddenly a man with a
gun began firing on patrons.
One after the other the assassin methodically and deliberately executed
people while this young woman was forced to sit and watch her parents
killed before her eyes.
A medal-winning pistol shooter, she later remembered that on five
separate occasions she could have stopped the gunman with one shot to
the head, quite safely with not another soul in her line of fire.
What stopped her from doing so?
While the carnage ensued, she could only look out at the family car
where her pistol was locked in the glove-compartment, in compliance
with the Texas law of 1897 which forbade the carrying of side arms in a
public place.
Since the Killeen massacre the Texas legislature, via C.I.R.has
reversed the 1897 statute. In 1995, citing the young woman's
experience, they made the necessary changes to the law to permit the
carrying of handguns.
The Texas legislature resolved that "never again will we leave our
people defenseless in the face of a maniac." Therefore, whatever
measure they adopted the emphasis would necessarily be on defense.
Would it not be wise for other state legislatures, and national
governments to examine the Texas law and so devise measures that would
enhance the defense and security of the individual and the nation?
WE, INSTEAD, HAVE A GOVERNMENT THAT WANTS TO RENDER US EVEN MORE DEFENSELESS
ONLY A GUN CAN MAKE YOU FAMOUS
The month before the Port Arthur massacre Julio Gonzalez, who had
served three years in Cuban prisons for drug trafficking before Fidel
Castro dumped him on the U.S. took the anger of his unrequited love out
on 87 people. Without the use of a semi-automatic or machine gun he
snuffed out these lives in a New York City social club armed only with
a dollar's worth of petrol.
The story was buried as soon as the victims were, though he killed more
people than all the mass murderers who used "assault weapons" combined.
If he had killed a tenth as many with an AK-47, or particularly with an
"assault pistol", the delighted press and Gun Control Inc. would have
made him famous.
INTERESTING STATISTIC
I am so sick and tired of ignorant know it alls who slavishly treat the media hype as
"holy gospel" and blatantly accuse the American people of being gun happy. You often
hear the expression, "Well, we don't want our country to become like the United
States, do we?"
I have extensively traveled the US almost as much as I have my own
country and I can
vouch for the fact that it is a lot safer place to visit and live in
than ours with the
exception of those more multicultural states which adopt strict gun
laws rivaling our
own. Compare their population with ours and we are a lot worse off
boasting the highest incident of home invasions in the world.
If you honestly compare Australia to the US for security, both against foreign and
domestic intrusion, the difference is laughable. We could well have the Americans
repeating our own lines back to us because most I have spoken to cannot imagine living in a
county like ours which has a depleted defense force and a criminal element with no
resistance from ordinary citizens - citizens who have traditionally been the last bastion
of our freedom.
Following is an extract from a really good web page with heaps of reasons why we
must resist the efforts of governments who aim to disarm their civilians.
"4. Vermont has a genuine right to carry law (i.e., requires no permits) and yet boasts the lowest crime rate in the nation
a. Nationwide, concealed carry laws have worked to drop crime rates.
Indeed, a comprehensive national study in 1996 determined that violent
crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms.
b. The results of the study showed: * States which passed concealed
carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated
assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; and * If those states not having
concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately
1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000
robberies would have been avoided yearly. "
INTERESTING TO NOTE THE GUN CONTROL HISTORY OF REPUBLICS AROUND THE WORLD
1-----In the United States the first gun control laws were enacted during the Civil War era
to prevent guns from falling into the hands of black slaves who might be inclined to
attack their masters and thereby keeping control in the hands of the latter.
2-----The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911, proceeding then to
exterminate 1.5 million Armenians from 1914 - 1917.
3-----The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently from 1928 - 1953,
60 million dissidents were imprisoned and then exterminated.
4-----China. Gun control laws were enacted in 1935. Between 1948 - 1952, 20 million
Chinese, unable to defend themselves, were likewise murdered.
5-----Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938 enabling the government to round up
13 million defenceless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human
beings, imprisoning them in concentration camps, and by a conscious process of attrition,
destroyed them.
6-----Guatemala. Gun control laws were passed in 1964: as a result, between 1964 - 1981,
100,000 defenceless Mayan Indians met their deaths.
7-----Uganda. Established gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 - 1979,
300,000 defenceless Christians met a similar fate.
8-----Cambodia. Established gun control measures in 1956, subsequently from 1957 -
1977 one million Cambodians met their deaths.
9-----Closer to home, Indonesia, another Republic, has a similar record. Out of a
population of just one million people in East Timor, 200,000 have been killed over the
past twenty years until the recent bloodshed when it still unknown how many thousands
more have been murdered. Being promised freedom these brave people elected to vote in
a referendum during which the United Nations guaranteed their safety and still they died
unarmed and defenceless.
WHEN YOU CAN'T TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF DON'T RELY ON THE
GOVERNMENT TO DO IT FOR YOU
Next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them, "Who do you want to round up and exterminate?"
With
guns we are citizens. Without them we are subjects. Don't let the
liberal media control your mind with their propaganda blitz. They want
to blame crime on gun ownership to justify eventual gun confiscation,
but they're soft on crime law enforcement.
BERLIN DAILY 15th April 1935
This year will go down in history.
For the first time a civilised nation has full gun registration.
The street will be safer, the police more efficient and the world will
follow our lead into the future.
Adolf Hitler
Emails of articles describing the changing trend for the necessity of non passive resistance to
crime.
He will refute these statistics, but if he's right then the media is reporting an alarming rise in crime that doesn't exist.
DOCTORS VERSES GUNS
Don't worry about the gun you have at home, worry about the doctor you go to see when you are ill.
The next time you see or hear some Medical Association or governmental
Public Health spokesman calling gun ownership a "Health Problem", you
may want to direct their attention to these statistics:
Number of physicians in the USA = 700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year = 120,000
Accidental deaths per physician = 0.17100
(US Dept of Health & Human Services)
Number of gun owners in the USA = 80,000,000
Accidental gun deaths per year (all ages) = 1,500
Accidental deaths per gun owner = 0.0000188
(US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms)
John Schuessler
Consider yourself well and truly warned. Doctors are approximately 9,000 times more hazardous to your health than gun owners.
FACTS HERE
THE PORT ARTHUR VICTIMS ON GUN CONTROL
A Home Office spokesman said: "The Government did not believe
that
banning handguns by itself would eradicate gun crime. We recognise
there is a continuing problem with the use of guns by criminals and
that it has increased over recent years."
[Note: There it is folks, it is not about eradicating crime at all, but
about control, and removing any effective obstacle to total
governmental control, there and here]
MEDIA WAKING UP TOO LATE
Most Australians have had a great affection for radio commentator John
Laws and must have been as surprised as I was when he fell in behind
John Howard's gun buy back scheme. After all his web page proudly
displayed a photograph of him sporting holstered pistols on his hips.
He certainly came across as a fair dinkum bloke...............something
you could never say about John Howard.
I admire and give credit to someone who is not afraid to admit when
they have been wrong, after all intelligent people are growing all the
time and must invariably change their opinions on a multitude of things
as more information becomes available. Such a man is John Laws who has
admitted that "crime is out of control in this country".
In July 2001 he openly accused the government hierarchy of playing down
the seriousness of crime in Australia. He said that deaths by guns had
gone from 50 in 1997 to double the following year.
His outburst prompted a call from a listener who could have represented
at least half of our nation.
"What happened to the gun laws" he asked.
"They didn't work, did they." Was John Laws reply.
On the 8th July 2001 Ray Martin of 60 minutes hosted a very graphic
report on gang warfare and a crime wave both the police and the
government have told us doesn't exist. Horrified we witnessed drug
dealing and killings on camera that would rival any gangster movie.
In the same week, Alan Jones, another well respected Australian radio
commentator, was irate when he mentioned in his regular nation wide
segment the following statement.
"I've said quite bluntly that people at the highest level are telling
lies. By that I mean the government and upper echelons on the police
force."
Interviewed by Jones, crime researcher, Professor Richard Basham said, "The government has completely lost the plot."
Alan Jones went on to interview 18 year old "James", a self confessed
criminal who lived in Cabramatta and who bravely shone a light on the
organized crime festering from that suburb to the rest of Australia.
Guns and ammunition were in bountiful supply to criminals in Australia
and Alan Jones asked "James", "Who's supplying this stuff",
To which he replied, "The people out there that say there's nothing
going on - and the people out there with their faces that look like
they are good business men who are supposed to be good business men
helping our community........they're the ones that bring the guns into
the country.............they're the ones who give us the guns to kill
each other."
Well Guys, we could have told you this before the infamous Gun
Buy-back Debacle. Now only the crims are armed and the rest of us are
sitting ducks.
So there you have it people. We knew we were being duped. We parted
with our rifles which we have always considered to be a part of our
equipment because we were afraid of police incrimination. We did the
right thing and handed in our only means of defense because our
government ordered us to. And why? For nothing. In fact, thanks to this
belligerent law, it seems that we have placed our lives and families in
danger by no longer having that inertia against criminal invasion. We
no longer have our defense and criminals have access to all the weapons
they want.
OUR ONLY MEANS OF DEFENCE
SIGNS THAT DETER
How do they deter invaders when we're not allowed to defend ourselves?
Well, quite simply the scum out there who are likely to enter your home
for no good reason are actually cowards who are not very sure if you're
from the old school or not.
Statistics show that most thieves and muggers are frightened of being
shot. To suspect that someone might be diligent enough to be more
concerned with the protection of their family than going to jail for
shooting an offender, can make anyone think twice about entering the
home displaying such a sign. It may well be bluff, but on the other
hand......................?
Political correctness has ensured these ingrates are protected from our
resistance but every now and then there's a chance that they're going
to come up against someone who doesn't give a damn about our antiquated
gun laws and will defend their home and family at all costs.
Do-gooders will be inclined to take care of the interests of the
criminal. They would rather you and yours be attacked, robbed, even
murdered before giving you the right to protect yourself. The rights of
the criminal far outweigh those of decent people in this country.
There is a debate going on is the US as to whether pilots should be
allowed to carry weapons in their cock-pits. The seriousness of recent
events provoked me to post this email from Gun Owners of America to
bolster the push to arm these pilots.
DEBUNKING THE MYTHS OF GUNS ON PLANES
One objection that Senate offices may throw at you is this supposed
idea that a bullet hole in an airplane's hull can cause catastrophic
depressurization or cause the ship to crash.
First, one should note that such an argument against pilots carrying
guns would also apply to Federal Air Marshals. But the fact is,
pre-fragmented ammo can minimise the supposed risks of a bullet
puncturing a plane's hull.
Having said that, writer David Kopel (along with author and pilot,
Captain David Petteys) notes that the risks related to the hull
being punctured are greatly exaggerated.
In a recent National Review Online article dated September 16, they
state, "There is only one known instance in which a bullet hole in an
aircraft frame yanked objects across the plane, expanded, and sucked a
person out into the sky. That was the James Bond movie Goldfinger.
The movie was not intended to teach real-life lessons about physics."
(Go to THIS SITE to read the entire article.)
PILOTS WITH GUNS
One of the most courageous and articulate defenses of allowing armed
pilots has been made in a letter-to-the-editor of the Wall Street
Journal (9/21/2001) by Brad Rohdenburg, a Captain for American
Airlines. Noting how "utterly absurd" it is that thousands could be
murdered by people with box-cutters, he writes, in part: "I'm told
by my airline's flight office that the FAA feels pilots shouldn't
have weapons because 'they might be taken away and used.' Well, what if
our airplanes are taken away and used? If we make ourselves
helpless, we've already done half the terrorist's work for him."
Rohdenburg says he's spoken with other pilots "who have sharpened
their belt buckles, screwdrivers, pens, etc., so that they might
have a prayer of defending their $30 million jets from guys with
boxcutters."
He adds:
"We need a last line of defense to keep hijackers out of the
cockpit. Federal agents from even the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing, Department of Agriculture, Department of Education and
the Smithsonian Institution are allowed to carry guns on
commercial airlines. Why not the pilots who are responsible for
the aircraft? Many of us already have better firearms training
than that provided to those agencies -- and we're willing to get
more at our own expense."
Rohdenburg concludes with a quote from Benjamin Franklin: "If you
make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you."
For sure!
Received from Truth in Media" Translation to English
RIO DE JANEIRO) 14 Setembro, 2001,
To avoid that an aircraft is used as bomb against important
buildings, the Brazilian parliament decided today to liberate light
weapons (calibre less than 0.38) for all passengers over 21 years old.
As 65% of all Brazilians with income more than US$ 2000 always walks
equipped with gun, the government find it safe and guaranteed that
sufficient persons will react against eventual highjackings.
Extra information will be distributed and presented by the air hostess,
when they show the safety equipment they will also inform the
passengers to prepare eventual shot with precision, always take aim at
chest to avoid that bullets perforate the shell of
the aircraft.
The president Fernando Henrique Cardoso wanted to make his veto against
the proposal, but rejected by the astounding majority of 234 against 6
votes.
Tomás Mano de Carvalho, Alliance Nacional do Brasil
NEWSPAPERS DO NOT TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH
THE MISSING GUN
By JOHN R. LOTT, JR.
January 25, 2002 -- ANOTHER school shooting occurred last week and the
headlines were everywhere the same, from Australia to Nigeria. This
time the shooting occurred at a university, the Appalachian Law School.
As usual, there were calls for more gun control. Yet in this age of
"gun-free school zones," one fact was missing from virtually all the
news coverage: The attack was stopped by two students who had guns in
their cars.
The fast responses of two male students, Mikael Gross, 34, and Tracy Bridges, 25, undoubtedly saved multiple lives.
Mikael was outside the law school and just returning from lunch when
Peter Odighizuwa started his attack. Tracy was in a classroom waiting
for class to start.
When the shots rang out, utter chaos erupted. Mikael said, "People were
running everywhere. They were jumping behind cars, running out in front
of traffic, trying to get away."
Mikael and Tracy did something quite different: Both immediately ran to
their cars and got their guns. Mikael had to run about 100 yards to get
to his car. Along with Ted Besen (who was unarmed), they approached
Peter from different sides.
As Tracy explained it, "I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun
down. Ted approached Peter, and Peter hit Ted in the jaw. Ted pushed
him back and we all jumped on."
What is so remarkable is that out of 280 separate news stories (from a
computerised Nexis-Lexis search) in the week after the event, just four
stories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns.
Only two local newspapers (the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the
Charlotte Observer) mentioned that the students actually pointed their
guns at the attacker.
Much more typical was the scenario described by the Washington Post,
where the heroes had simply "helped subdue" the killer. The New York
Times noted only that the attacker was "tackled by fellow students."
Most in the media who discussed how the attack was stopped said:
"students overpowered a gunman," "students ended the rampage by
tackling him," "the gunman was tackled by four male students before
being arrested," or "Students ended the rampage by confronting and then
tackling the gunman, who dropped his weapon."
In all, 72, stories described how the attacker was stopped without mentioning that the student heroes had guns.
Unfortunately, the coverage in this case was not unusual. In the other
public school shootings where citizens with guns have stopped attacks,
rarely do more than one percent of the news stories mention that
citizens with guns stopped the attacks.
Many people find it hard to believe that research shows that there are
2 million defensive gun uses each year. After all, if these events were
really happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news? But when was
the last time you saw a story on the national evening news (or even the
local news) about a citizen using his gun to stop a crime?
This misreporting actually endangers people's lives. By selectively
reporting the news and turning a defensive gun use story into one where
students merely "overpowered a gunman" the media gives misleading
impressions of what works when people are confronted by violence.
Research consistently shows that having a gun is the safest way to
respond to any type of criminal attack, especially these multiple
victim shootings.
John Lott is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of
"More Guns, Less Crime"
GUNS SAVE LIVES
( just ask the lady who took a ride on that crock)
True Stories Of Americans Defending Their Lives with Firearms Reviewed By John Silveira 1-12-3
I have not confined my opinions to these pages. The letters I have sent
to various politicians in argument against disarmament are too many to
print but the most important ones are on this page.
WHAT ARE THE LEGALITIES OF DISARMING OUR COUNTRY
One man's ordeal to get justice for all gun owners in Australia.
WHERE DO I GET MY FACTS FROM?
Do your own researchThe
writings on this page are available to anyone who wants to research the
truth. I have my opinions but facts have to be backed up by intelligent
surveys by qualified people from all over the world in all kinds of
institutions. My sources are ordinary patriotic people who send me
information substantiated by leading authorities, the list of who is
very substantial. However if you would like to do your own studies into
this subject........................
ONE MAN'S LETTERS OF PROTEST
A NATION OF COWARDS
Want to see what all the fuss is about when
politicians are in fear of a security problem? The problem is that they
can afford the security and armed protection they deny the Australian
citizen.
What makes them so special?
OTHER SITES THAT RIVAL PORT ARTHUR WITH SIMILAR MOTIVES
WACO MASSACRE
RUBY RIDGE
THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING
"General K. Partin of the USAF Special
Forces facility at Eglin Air Force base in Florida is an acknowledged
military explosives expert.
Partin knew the Alfred P. Murrah
building in Oklahoma City could not have been destroyed by a "blast"
bomb of the sort allegedly "planted" by Timothy McVeigh, so he put his
staff to work on a project designed to prove this fact to the US
Senate, in particular to Senator Trent Lott.
The team constructed a three story
version of the Alfred P. Murrah at Eglin AFB from identical
construction materials, then started the cameras rolling. Explosives
experts placed exactly the same charge (allegedly) used in Oklahoma at
precisely the same distance from their own test building, then
detonated it. The shock wave (blast) was so feeble it barely blackened
the front wall, and destroyed absolutely nothing. Then the experts
placed "proper" mil HE charges inside the test building and blew the
front off.
All this was compiled in the Eglin
Blast Effects Study, or "EBES" for short, which was sent to Senator
Trent Lott and members of the mainstream media. You were never told
about this by the ABC or SBS?"
Joe Vialls
BACK TO NED'S HOME PAGE
BACK TO PORT ARTHUR MASSACRE PAGE
|
