C
Complicated
Guest
Hey Guys,
Seeing as we are all under increacing pressure from the anti-gun lobby to stop resisting being part of a civilised society, and hand in our barbaric instruments of death (although getting some people to hand in their car keys would make the world a safer place IMO), you are all no doubt aware of the sweeping gun-law reforms we had here in Australia in 1996, and probably not aware of the latest lot aimed specifically at handguns, that we had in Nov, 2004....again sparked by some nutter on a rampage.
Before I make my posting, I will just say that I am NOT OPPOSED to gun control IN AUSTRALIA, and agreed fully with all the laws introduced in 1996 (although many were already in place). I know some of you will be reeling back in horror, but here, I am fine with gun control, and very tough laws/requirements/regulations/licencing/etc, so long at it is FAIR TO THE LEGITATE SPORTING SHOOTER. And trying strip away all handguns is not being fair, neither is banning all handguns above 0.38cal (that one passed in Nov). I can elaborate on that, should any of you want to question my thinking, in fact I am all for open friedly, and intelligent discussion. I am not interested in arogrant, brazen opinions.
Anyway, back to the point. I just wanted to post this artical here, as it breaks down the main tools of the anti-gunner, showing how the media was used to really place a lasting negative connotation on firearms owners. The source was: http://www.potfire.com.au/info/glaws.htm , it doesn't say who though Author is, but I suspect it was Rob Potter. He raises some interesting points, that can be seen in any country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.potfire.com.au/info/glaws.htm
A Warning to the Rest of the Free World
In May 1996 35 people were killed by a lone gunman at Port Arthur, Tasmania. John Howard, Australia's recently elected Prime Minister, wasted no time in travelling to the scene of the tragedy to make all the right political noises, vowing on national television to ensure this could never happen again. The nation's shooting fraternity has been reeling ever since as it fights to save its sport.
In the two months following Port Arthur there has been a carefully calculated and well orchestrated media campaign to change the way the people of Australia think about gun laws. George Orwell would have been proud, as with their 1984 style tactics they have convinced themselves, and possibly the non-shooting public, that the majority of Australians support the Federal government in their anti-gun stance.
From the outset Howard seized the initiative. He promised to ban all military-style semi automatic weapons from civilian ownership. He also promised to have a close look at recent trends to release mental patients into the community to save money. The first was no surprise, as even the gun fraternity has been long expecting the loss of centrefire semi autos, and the second was a welcome sign that for once the blame was not to be placed wholly and solely on an inanimate object.
But no mention has since been made about mental health. Within days a draft agreement was made up for State Police Ministers to tighten all states' gun laws with the following major points:
1. A ban on all automatic and semi automatic firearms. This includes rimfires and shotguns. As a matter of interest, full autos have been illegal in mainland Australia for more than seventy years, but their reasons for including this will become obvious later.
2. A ban of all pump action shotguns.
3. National registration of all firearms.
4. Tough new criteria for granting a shooters licence (to include existing licence holders). Licences only granted to competitive target shooters who regularly attend ranges or regular hunters of feral pests who can produce letters from landowners. Personal protection is not a reason to own a gun.
5. A 28-day "cooling off" period for the purchase of any firearm (airguns included), regardless of how many firearms you already own.
A couple of states made noises that they would not follow Howard's guidelines. These soon faded to a whimper after Howard threatened to reduce their funding.
The ban on semi autos was modified to exclude pistols after a few days as it became obvious that our Olympic Team could be badly affected in Rapid Fire and Sport Pistol, and that could be too unpopular if we hope to hold the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. Besides, pistols are so well regulated they will be no problem to confiscate at a later date when the political climate is ripe.
In order to appease the growing howls of protest from shooters, the government decided to offer a buy-back scheme of all banned firearms. Of course, they would not fund this themselves, so they increased the Medicare Levy (medical benefit levy on all taxpayers) by 0.2% to cover the projected costs.
None of the events so far have been remarkable. What followed, and what continues, should be a warning to all free people of the world. The issues here are truth and freedom, and while the media is free to say what it likes, they are not held accountable should they bend the truth a little.
How to Bias an Issue Without Apparently Trying
1. Always quote the issue as being "the proposed ban on semi automatic and automatic weapons". It does not matter that no shooters own, and few have ever seen, a machine gun. If this phrase is repeated enough, and by a vast variety of quotable notables, the majority of people will believe that they are out there in their thousands, and feel appropriately insecure about it.
2. Never quote anyone from the gun lobby saying that automatics are already illegal. This is irrelevant.
3. Find a vocal redneck and videotape him until you can contrive a good quote out of him. Even if all he does is quote Thomas Jefferson: "When a country loses its freedom the only way to get it back is through blood in the streets". If you cut out all but the last four words and overlay an enthusiastic pro-gun meeting you can paint a creative vision of the country's gun lobby.
4. Take the country's most popular TV current affairs host and make banning guns his personal crusade.
5. Repeat the following as often as possible: "The vast majority of Australians are in favour of the Federal government's gun control measures". Whether they are or not, as Goebbles often said, if you repeat it often enough it will be true.
6. Always understate the numbers of protesters in pro-gun rallys, and only report them at all if you can not avoid it. Try to double the numbers at anti-gun rallys. Okay, so the pros outnumber the antis 10 to 1, but we're obviously takling about the silent majority here.
7. Take plenty of footage of the Prime Minister addressing a pro gun rally wearing a bullet proof vest under his suit. This just proves how dangerous they really are.
8. Say nothing about the fact that two-thirds of shooters will no longer be eligible to hold a licence, and that handing in their bolt actions, air rifles and single shots will bring them no compensation.
9. Give no air time to any logical, coherent or seemingly sane member of the gun lobby.
10. Make a big issue out of whether crimping mag tubes on shotguns will be allowed to limit capacity. Have Howard threaten a referendum if all states do not conform with his point of view, and as the vast majority so obviously support him, it would be a waste of $50 million anyway. It's also time to get another few public figures quoting the automatic thing again.
Their greatest moment came at a supposedly anti-gun meeting at the Gold Coast in Queensland. Howard arrived, was heckled all the way into the building, booed as he came on stage, and was given a hostile reception throughout his speech. With the aid of an imaginative editor the resulting television report showed him basking in the approving glow of an adoring audience. Bring me a bucket.
All through this the killer sat in a Tasmanian jail, later to be tried and convicted, now serving a life sentence. While there was a flurry of publicity about Martin Bryant straight after the massacre, the media have been strangely silent ever since, preferring to concentrate on the instruments they deem to be responsible. A few significant factors did slip out, however.
He was known to have psychological problems and had threatened people in the past. While they have not admitted he was on medication, Howard himself hinted that he may have been released from an institution. Police reopened several cases of deaths which they now consider to be suspicious (although we have heard nothing about them in months). One was Bryant's father, whose body with a bullet in the back of the head was found in a dam - this was originally considered a suicide, even though they never found the gun. In the week preceeding the shooting Bryant had approached several gun dealers trying to buy firearms and parts. As he had no licence he was not supplied, and in fact one dealer was so concerned he notified the police.
He was left to roam for more than two hours through Port Arthur, a historical site popular with tourists, shooting anyone he came across. How he was not stopped before this when Hobart, the state's capital, is a matter of twenty minutes away by road, remains a mystery. Police snipers had him in their sights after he had killed 32, so they are responsible for at least the final three deaths.
It could be argued that health authorities have a case to answer for Bryant to have been walking the streets. There is definitely a case of incompetence in the Tasmanian Police in firstly their reluctance to recognise the danger signs, and then their failure to deal effectively with the situation. But the most worrying aspect of all has been the media's ability to divert the entire responsibility of this tragedy on to the shooters of Australia.
Seeing as we are all under increacing pressure from the anti-gun lobby to stop resisting being part of a civilised society, and hand in our barbaric instruments of death (although getting some people to hand in their car keys would make the world a safer place IMO), you are all no doubt aware of the sweeping gun-law reforms we had here in Australia in 1996, and probably not aware of the latest lot aimed specifically at handguns, that we had in Nov, 2004....again sparked by some nutter on a rampage.
Before I make my posting, I will just say that I am NOT OPPOSED to gun control IN AUSTRALIA, and agreed fully with all the laws introduced in 1996 (although many were already in place). I know some of you will be reeling back in horror, but here, I am fine with gun control, and very tough laws/requirements/regulations/licencing/etc, so long at it is FAIR TO THE LEGITATE SPORTING SHOOTER. And trying strip away all handguns is not being fair, neither is banning all handguns above 0.38cal (that one passed in Nov). I can elaborate on that, should any of you want to question my thinking, in fact I am all for open friedly, and intelligent discussion. I am not interested in arogrant, brazen opinions.
Anyway, back to the point. I just wanted to post this artical here, as it breaks down the main tools of the anti-gunner, showing how the media was used to really place a lasting negative connotation on firearms owners. The source was: http://www.potfire.com.au/info/glaws.htm , it doesn't say who though Author is, but I suspect it was Rob Potter. He raises some interesting points, that can be seen in any country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.potfire.com.au/info/glaws.htm
A Warning to the Rest of the Free World
In May 1996 35 people were killed by a lone gunman at Port Arthur, Tasmania. John Howard, Australia's recently elected Prime Minister, wasted no time in travelling to the scene of the tragedy to make all the right political noises, vowing on national television to ensure this could never happen again. The nation's shooting fraternity has been reeling ever since as it fights to save its sport.
In the two months following Port Arthur there has been a carefully calculated and well orchestrated media campaign to change the way the people of Australia think about gun laws. George Orwell would have been proud, as with their 1984 style tactics they have convinced themselves, and possibly the non-shooting public, that the majority of Australians support the Federal government in their anti-gun stance.
From the outset Howard seized the initiative. He promised to ban all military-style semi automatic weapons from civilian ownership. He also promised to have a close look at recent trends to release mental patients into the community to save money. The first was no surprise, as even the gun fraternity has been long expecting the loss of centrefire semi autos, and the second was a welcome sign that for once the blame was not to be placed wholly and solely on an inanimate object.
But no mention has since been made about mental health. Within days a draft agreement was made up for State Police Ministers to tighten all states' gun laws with the following major points:
1. A ban on all automatic and semi automatic firearms. This includes rimfires and shotguns. As a matter of interest, full autos have been illegal in mainland Australia for more than seventy years, but their reasons for including this will become obvious later.
2. A ban of all pump action shotguns.
3. National registration of all firearms.
4. Tough new criteria for granting a shooters licence (to include existing licence holders). Licences only granted to competitive target shooters who regularly attend ranges or regular hunters of feral pests who can produce letters from landowners. Personal protection is not a reason to own a gun.
5. A 28-day "cooling off" period for the purchase of any firearm (airguns included), regardless of how many firearms you already own.
A couple of states made noises that they would not follow Howard's guidelines. These soon faded to a whimper after Howard threatened to reduce their funding.
The ban on semi autos was modified to exclude pistols after a few days as it became obvious that our Olympic Team could be badly affected in Rapid Fire and Sport Pistol, and that could be too unpopular if we hope to hold the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. Besides, pistols are so well regulated they will be no problem to confiscate at a later date when the political climate is ripe.
In order to appease the growing howls of protest from shooters, the government decided to offer a buy-back scheme of all banned firearms. Of course, they would not fund this themselves, so they increased the Medicare Levy (medical benefit levy on all taxpayers) by 0.2% to cover the projected costs.
None of the events so far have been remarkable. What followed, and what continues, should be a warning to all free people of the world. The issues here are truth and freedom, and while the media is free to say what it likes, they are not held accountable should they bend the truth a little.
How to Bias an Issue Without Apparently Trying
1. Always quote the issue as being "the proposed ban on semi automatic and automatic weapons". It does not matter that no shooters own, and few have ever seen, a machine gun. If this phrase is repeated enough, and by a vast variety of quotable notables, the majority of people will believe that they are out there in their thousands, and feel appropriately insecure about it.
2. Never quote anyone from the gun lobby saying that automatics are already illegal. This is irrelevant.
3. Find a vocal redneck and videotape him until you can contrive a good quote out of him. Even if all he does is quote Thomas Jefferson: "When a country loses its freedom the only way to get it back is through blood in the streets". If you cut out all but the last four words and overlay an enthusiastic pro-gun meeting you can paint a creative vision of the country's gun lobby.
4. Take the country's most popular TV current affairs host and make banning guns his personal crusade.
5. Repeat the following as often as possible: "The vast majority of Australians are in favour of the Federal government's gun control measures". Whether they are or not, as Goebbles often said, if you repeat it often enough it will be true.
6. Always understate the numbers of protesters in pro-gun rallys, and only report them at all if you can not avoid it. Try to double the numbers at anti-gun rallys. Okay, so the pros outnumber the antis 10 to 1, but we're obviously takling about the silent majority here.
7. Take plenty of footage of the Prime Minister addressing a pro gun rally wearing a bullet proof vest under his suit. This just proves how dangerous they really are.
8. Say nothing about the fact that two-thirds of shooters will no longer be eligible to hold a licence, and that handing in their bolt actions, air rifles and single shots will bring them no compensation.
9. Give no air time to any logical, coherent or seemingly sane member of the gun lobby.
10. Make a big issue out of whether crimping mag tubes on shotguns will be allowed to limit capacity. Have Howard threaten a referendum if all states do not conform with his point of view, and as the vast majority so obviously support him, it would be a waste of $50 million anyway. It's also time to get another few public figures quoting the automatic thing again.
Their greatest moment came at a supposedly anti-gun meeting at the Gold Coast in Queensland. Howard arrived, was heckled all the way into the building, booed as he came on stage, and was given a hostile reception throughout his speech. With the aid of an imaginative editor the resulting television report showed him basking in the approving glow of an adoring audience. Bring me a bucket.
All through this the killer sat in a Tasmanian jail, later to be tried and convicted, now serving a life sentence. While there was a flurry of publicity about Martin Bryant straight after the massacre, the media have been strangely silent ever since, preferring to concentrate on the instruments they deem to be responsible. A few significant factors did slip out, however.
He was known to have psychological problems and had threatened people in the past. While they have not admitted he was on medication, Howard himself hinted that he may have been released from an institution. Police reopened several cases of deaths which they now consider to be suspicious (although we have heard nothing about them in months). One was Bryant's father, whose body with a bullet in the back of the head was found in a dam - this was originally considered a suicide, even though they never found the gun. In the week preceeding the shooting Bryant had approached several gun dealers trying to buy firearms and parts. As he had no licence he was not supplied, and in fact one dealer was so concerned he notified the police.
He was left to roam for more than two hours through Port Arthur, a historical site popular with tourists, shooting anyone he came across. How he was not stopped before this when Hobart, the state's capital, is a matter of twenty minutes away by road, remains a mystery. Police snipers had him in their sights after he had killed 32, so they are responsible for at least the final three deaths.
It could be argued that health authorities have a case to answer for Bryant to have been walking the streets. There is definitely a case of incompetence in the Tasmanian Police in firstly their reluctance to recognise the danger signs, and then their failure to deal effectively with the situation. But the most worrying aspect of all has been the media's ability to divert the entire responsibility of this tragedy on to the shooters of Australia.
