CLM 208 Sporting Shooters - Oxymoron of the Month (2) - Re:

Tue, 18 Jun 1996

Clergy/Leaders' Mail-list No. 208 I'm posting this as a response to the Gun debate articles I've put on the mail-list, which were, admittedly one-sided. This will balance the argument, and here endeth the discussion on this! Rowland Croucher ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Geoffrey Hugh Miller Subject: Re: *** Oxymoron of the month [2] *** >Thanks for your response. Here's another view of the subject: And here are my comments, which you may care to forward to the originator of your document. > > Lawyer-theologian-activist Rev. Tim Costello (Collins St. Baptist > Church, Melbourne) has given me permission to make this available > on the Internet. Reproduce it for your church bulletins, give it > to your friends, use it in discussion groups! > > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > 'Please Don't Buckle. We Want Gun Control' > > Our politicians are under enormous pressure from the gun lobby to > back down on their commitment to outlaw semi-automatic and > military type weapons. The stridency of the shooters' outburst > would make one think that all their weapons are being confiscated. When some people publicly applaud this measure as a step along the way to their ideal of a total ban on privately-owned guns, what are we supposed to think? When John Howard talks publicly about gun prohibition -- not control, not regulation, but prohibition -- what are we supposed to think? > Whilst many of us might prefer a total gun ban the new laws only > envisage a minimalist surrender of the most destructive guns. Destructive? Destructive of what? Clay targets? Exotic pests that damage the Australian environment? A gun, of whatever type, is not inherently destructive. You cannot impute attitude and emotion to a mechanism. > To > use a motoring analogy the Government is not banning all cars but > only those that travel at 300 kilometres per hour. To use a motoring analogy -- you can, if you can afford it, own whatever car you like in this country. The Government regulates only where and how you can use it. Guns are already subject to far greater regulation than this! > Notwithstanding these small steps the gun lobby has gone ape! Such a reasoned choice of words! Consider: shooters have been judged collectively by a kangaroo court; found guilty, not of anything they have done, but simply guilty by association, guilty of something some people think they might do; denied any right to speak in their own defence, and indeed told they are lucky to be let off so lightly and to shut up if they don't want worse; and 'sentenced' to have valuable property stolen from them by the minions of the Government. Oh, no doubt some derisory 'compensation' will be offered, but at what rate? How do you compensate someone whose wife gave him an engraved Browning shotgun as a wedding present? Costello may call it going ape; I believe that any rational person will agree that shooters have a legitimate concern. Certainly, some shooters have gone further than I would in expressing their opinions. I do not support them, but I can understand why they feel as they do. > It > is our responsibility as a community to shoulder the burden of > this sometimes vicious and threatening attack directed at > politicians - otherwise they are left isolated. A diverse alliance > of churches, civil liberties groups, Trades Hall Council, the > Jewish community and the Police Association have formed in Vctoria > to reassure the Federal and State Government that it is only a > small minority of Australians who speak of their _right_ to bear > arms. We believe it is time that the silent majority of > Australians stood behind our politicians and supported Mr. > Howard's gun control laws. > > How often have we heard the gun lobby's slogan guns don't kill > people, people kill people. This reductionist argument can be > applied to cars, alcohol, sport and any other human activity. It > is shallow, mindless logic which defends guns and implies that we > should reduce the number of people (the real problem) to have > fewer deaths by guns. No -- it implies that if you want to tackle the problem you have to address why people kill, not simply the tools that they use. There are probably some 300,000 gun owners in this country, although probably the majority of these would have only a .22 or a shotgun, but still -- if guns cause the problem, why do they affect so few gun owners? If guns do not cause the problem, would it not be more effective and sensible to try to find out the cause and address it? There are no more guns in society than there were thirty or forty years ago, and the guns that are available are no more dangerous than those that were available thirty or forty years ago. Perhaps the reason that politicians and social reformers are so desperate to cast the blame onto guns is that they see that the real blame lies in the society that they have created; they cannot accept this, for it would mean that ultimately they are to blame. > The gun lobby must be held to account for peddling false and > deceitful arguments. Indeed -- those who do peddle false and deceitful arguments should certainly be held to account. > Firstly they argue that the mentally > disturbed killer or the professional criminal will not be deterred > by stricter gun control legislation. Thus, they conclude that > strict gun controls will be ineffective and not provide us with > safer communities. I have been repeatedly told that gun control will make society safer because it will prevent the mentally disturbed killer or the professional criminal from getting access to guns. > The truth is that most homicides are not committed by professional > criminals or by mentally disturbed people. The majority of > homicides occur in the heat of the moment, often in alcohol > charged situations where the availability of a gun makes the > difference between life and death. The Australian Institute of > Health and Welfare conducted a survey which demonstrated that more > gun homicide victims are shot by licensed gun owners and their > lawfully held weapons than by criminals, unlicensed offenders and > the mentally ill combined. In fact, 73% of killers are known to > have no previous history of mental illness. Furthermore, 87% of > killers have no previous history of violent crime. Two-thirds of > the killers were licensed gun owners and 64% of all victims died > in a shooting where a military-style semi-automatic was used. I am not familiar with this study, but I would like some clarification -- did these figures include suicides? Also, are you aware that military- style centrefire semi-automatic rifles are already tightly controlled in most states? The use of such weapons by their licenced owners would therefore be fairly rare -- can we have some actual numbers rather than impressive percentages? > Secondly the Gun Lobby pushes the myth that restrictive laws make > little differ ence. A seminal piece of research in The New England > Journal of Medicine (1988) reports the fascinating 'Tale of Two > Cities.' This research examined robberies, burglaries, assaults > and homicides in two very similar cities - Seattle and Vancouver. > A major difference between them has been Vancouver's strict > regulation of guns. The study found that the rate of assaults > involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than > Vancouver. Moreover, the relative risk of death from homicide was > significantly higher in Seattle than Vancouver. The clear > conclusion of the researchers is that restricting gun access will > reduce the rate of homicide in the community. Now, this study I am familiar with, and unfortunately for Costello is is a very dubious piece of work. Very similar cities? Similar in size is about all -- socially, racially (in terms of the ethnic background of their citizens) and culturally they are very different. There have been several thorough debunkings of this piece of work, and anyone is welcome to ask for them on the talk.politics.guns newsgroup. > Thus, the question of whether the Prime Minister's legislation > will or will not deter criminals and mentally ill from getting > guns is hardly relevant. So it is strange that a number of people have claimed that this is one of its major benefits. > Fewer guns will mean fewer total deaths. Oh yes? > On this matter the AMA states that 'Reducing access to easy means > of suicide has been shown to substantially reduce the overall > death rate.' Accordingly, the AMA actively promotes safety > measures such as stricter firearm control. The risk of dying as a result of a medical mistake is a great deal higher than the risk of dying from a gunshot -- possibly the AMA is not an authoritative source of wisdom. > The conclusions of the AMA are substantiated by a study which > found that following the introduction of Queensland's Weapons Act, > which came into effect on 1st January 1992. There were 69 fewer > firearm suicides than in the two years prior to the Act. The > total number of suicides fell also. The study also found that > more than 85% of Queensland firearms deaths between 1980 and 1989 > were linked with distress rather than crime or accidents. The > conclusion from this discussion is clear. While people (not guns) > do kill people - people with guns kill people much more often and > much more efficiently than people without guns. Restricting guns > through legislation is effective. What I think Costello has actually shown is the rather tragic fact that people with guns kill themselves more efficiently, because if a person is sufficiently distressed or disturbed to commit suicide then a gun is an effective tool for this purpose. Is that a sufficient reason for restricting gun ownership? I don't believe so. When natural gas (non-poisonous) replaced coal gas in England there was a fall in the suicide rate -- for a few years. When Canada introduced firearms legislation there was a fall in the gun death rate -- for a few years. In both cases the previous trend was resumed. The problem is that these effects don't last. > The third myth of the gun lobby is that guns can protect you from > crime. One need only look to the US with an estimated 200 million > guns in private hands to spot this fallacy. One of the first things you learn in studying statistics is that you need to be very careful about concluding that because A is associated with B A must have been caused by B. Does America have a high crime rate because it has many guns, or do many Americans own guns because of a high crime rate? Interestingly, firearms laws are very variable in the USA, and in some states much tougher than what Howard has proposed -- and these are the places where the crime rate is highest! (Oh, and please let us not have the old furphy about how easy it is in the USA to cross over a state border and buy a gun -- you can't do it legally.) > America would be the > safest nation on earth if gun ownership deterred crime. >From some of the figures I saw, the safest places in America are where gun ownership is highest. > The > easier it is to get guns, the more people will get shot. Contrary > to the Gun Lobby's shrill claim research over several decades has > consistently shown that a gun in the home is far more likely to be > used in a suicide, murder or fatal accident than to kill a > criminal. For example, a study in the US revealed that for every > time a firearm in the home was used for legitimate self > protection, 37 lives were lost in gun suicides, 4.5 lives in gun > homicides, and 1.3 lives via unintentional gun deaths. Thus, > since the most likely person to be shot by a gun in the home is > the owner (followed by a member of his/her family) it appears that > any benefit of privately holding guns for self protection is far > outweighed by other types of gun deaths which result from easy > assess to a lethal weapon. This looks suspiciously like another one of those phone USA studies, which purported to show that the odds were 42:1 that any any killing would be of a family member or an acquaintance. Hardly surprising, in some ways, since you generally have to be acquainted with someone for them to have some reason to kill you -- of course, these 'acquaintances' also included cases where one criminal killed another! > Finally, the gun lobby often uses the argument that it is their > 'right' to own a gun. However, in a civilised society, only the > State and its lawful agencies (having assumed responsibility to > protect its citizens) have the 'right' to have firearms. Why? Serious question -- Costello seems to take this as a part of the definition of a civilised society, and I don't. In a truly civilised society the State would have no need for weaponry to coerce (or 'protect') its citizens, while a civilised individual (such as, for example, myself:-) is quite capable of owning and using guns while posing no threat to anyone. In fact, a truly civilised society would be able to trust people to behave responsibly, not feel that it had to prevent them from having even the opportunity to behave irresponsibly. > The > private possession of firearms is not a right but a 'privilege' > granted on conditional licence to suitable people for acceptable > reasons. It is not an unfettered right in Australia, but the wording of the Bill of Rights (which presumably still applies here) is not quite as restrictive as Costello suggests, and certainly the original intent of the legislation was not so restrictive. > This privilege should not only be heavily regulated but > severely restricted. Why? Because the overwhelming evidence > suggests the greater the access the commun ity has to firearms, > the greater the toll of victims through murder, suicide or > accident. The overwhelming evidence in fact suggests that firearms on their own are not the problem, and that if misuse of firearms is a problem it is a symptom of a deeper problem with the society created by our politicians and social reformers. > It is clearly time to stand up to the gun lobby. Despite their > protestations that they are being punished for the murderous > actions of a 'madman' in Port Arthur we must insist that the > common good has precedence over individual liberties to use > military type weapons. No shooter will lose his beloved sport Untrue. Even to a purist target shooter such as myself, many of Howard's proposals would have a severe impact on my sport. Limits on purchase of ammunition will mostly affect the target shooter who shoots a lot of rimfire ammunition -- I shoot over 5000 rounds per year, and I don't practice as much as I should. Target guns are specialised pieces of equipment, and most are sold privately within the club structure -- why should we have to go through the rigmarole of paying a dealer 10% to get his signature on a bit of paper. As I pointed out earlier, the declared aim of some of the most vocal gun banners is complete prohibition, and they see this as the first step along the way. I agree with them in that -- so I want to prevent that first step. > and > no farmer will be prejudiced. Farmers may still satisfy the police > of special cases under the proposed laws and gain an exemption to > keep their semi-automatics. We need to point out that future > generations will certainly accept that these weapons are illegal > even if some go underground as the shooters warn. The ban on > importing them will bring long term benefits as guns are much less > able to be smuggled into the country as are drugs that can be > concealed in bodily orifices. Oh yes? Are you aware that the Customs service has admitted that it is not able to prevent importation of illegal firearms? Are you aware just how easy it is to manufacture a working firearm with fairly basic machine tools? > The gun lobby's idea of gun control is to impose longer gaol > sentences upon those found guilty of using firearms for criminal > purposes. Seems reasonable to me. > In addition, they suggest that doctors report all > mentally unbalanced patients to a 'central register of loonies' to > block them from obtaining a gun licence. This is hardly practical. And could constitute an invasion of patient privacy, of course. However, it perhaps isn't such a silly idea as Costello suggests. Doctors might also consider advising police when they prescribe drugs which are known -- not suspected, but known beyond any doubt -- to increase the potential for violence as a side-effect. (We're back to the AMA here.) > It is more sensible to use preventative measures such as > disarmament of lethal weapons. It's much easier to treat a symptom than to treat the problem -- it just doesn't achieve anything in the long term. > We are in desperate need of stricter gun controls because > Australia has no Federal Laws or national agency to keep tabs on > guns - estimated to number between 3.5 - 5 million. Federal laws have some magic power that make them more effective than State laws? > Our patience with the gun lobby is up. They vehemently oppose the > registration of firearms yet routinely accept the registration of > cars, boats and dogs. Their arguments just don't stack up. > Politicians should realise that the overwhelming majority of > Australians want tighter gun laws. No law can cure crimes of > passion, stupidity or a twisted mind. But societies can do > something to curtail easy access to destructive weapons. Politicians already realise, quite cynically, that most of the people who call for 'tougher' gun laws don't know what the current laws are. Does Costello? Is he aware that in NSW and the ACT there are legal requirements for safe and secure storage of firearms and ammunition, that the ACT already has gun registration, that the use of guns even on target ranges is strictly controlled, that prospective applicants for a shooters licence in NSW must (no matter how many years of experience they have had) undergo an examination in firearms safety? Is he aware that in the ACT the cost and complexity of obtaining a licence was deliberately raised with a view to discouraging poorer shooters? (Ironically, this was done by a Labor politician!) Funnily enough, I don't totally oppose all of Howard's suggestions. Registration will provide some reassurance that guns will not leak out from legal ownership on to the black market, although people like Costello must realise that shooters quite justifiably see registration as a precursor to confiscation, since it has been so in Australia and in many other countries. Shooters have also seen that registration in most states is a poor joke; Victoria is apparently a farce, but even in the ACT the information that I gave to police was not correctly transcribed into the computer, leaving me -- according to their records -- the owner of some very strange guns indeed! What shooters have to realise is that the non-shooting public does have some legitimate concerns, and that these must be addressed. However, what the non-shooters must also realise is that our concerns are legitimate, and that we will not carry the can for one lunatic or for the deeper and longer-term failures of successive governments to create a truly civilised society. Shalom! Rowland Croucher ================================================================= Director, JOHN MARK MINISTRIES Resources for pastors/leaders & spouses Tel: 613 9729 2517 Fax: 613 9729 2494 Email: rowlandc@werple.net.au Home Page: http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm Clergy/Leaders' List: clergym@pastornet.net.au (SUBSCRIBE on subject-line) ================================================================= --------------------------------------------------------- Clergy Mailing List (Moderated) All submissions welcome: clergy@pastornet.net.au This mailing list is open to all Christians via Internet email and most fax destinations. Copyright: Postings may be re-sent ONLY with all copyright notification intact. __________ R V CLOUGH Tel: (+61 3) 9842 1562 PO Box 1014 e-mail: clourv@acslink.net.au DONCASTER EAST Vic 3109 AUSTRALIA

Clergy Mailing List Index | Mailing List Index | PastorNET Home Page | John Mark Ministries Home Page