By Terry Shulze
Although there are many, one of the reasons in Australia that there has never been an in depth analysis of the gun control issue has been the squandering of health funds on gun control. (You didn’t think the levy on Medicare for the gun buyback was a coincidence did you?) I remember the Coalition for Gun Control had a rally in the Domain in Sydney, it must have cost a lot of money with the billboards around Sydney, the advertisements on the TV and radio, the bands, balloons, sound stage, miles of port-a-loos – too bad about the lousy turn out.
Health system resources were used for that rally, even proudly proclaimed on some of the flyers that were handed out. In a bizarre twist, the Friday before, the medical profession had a rally in Macquarie Street (just the other side of the Domain) protesting the closing of two wings at Westmead Hospital. I wonder if these educated fools understand the concept of robbing from Peter to pay Paul – here’s a reality check for the medical profession – if you take money out of the health system for gun control, there will be less money for the health system. Think about it, Doc.
Statistics
Back in 1988, when the NCV started to rev up to their figures to support the push for gun control, they quickly ran into a brick wall – bam! You see, their terms of reference stated that “It was agreed that it would be necessary to exclude some types of behaviour from the ambit of its enquiries. These include self-inflicted violence, motor vehicle deaths and negligence generally.”
After all, they were supposed to be a committee concerned with violence in the community, not self-inflicted violence like tattooing, body piercing, or suicide. Well, firearm homicide amounted to only approximately 80 people a year. Nobody in the NCV was going to be able to justify spending millions of dollars for a policy that affected so few persons, but more importantly, even if firearms were totally eliminated, the homicides would have probably been committed by other means. As it was, the highest form of homicide was assault – beating, kicking, stomping someone to death, and the next highest was homicide with a knife. Take away the gun and you were still faced with the same intent to kill.
The NCV got around the problem by padding the figures with suicides with a firearm (also accidents, see negligence in terms of reference). If you, the reader, have noted that the inclusion of suicides was completely contrary to the NCV terms of reference, congratulations, you have just connected-another-dot. Whereas, there were only about 80 homicides with a firearm every year, around 450 people chose to end their life with a firearm every year. Easy enough mathematics for the NCV, just adds the two and says that 500 people die every year from firearms. Actually, the NCV didn’t say 500 – they said 700, but what the hell, as long as you’re padding statistics why not add a few more.
To be fraudulently consistent, the NCV omitted the fact that suicides and homicides involving a firearm had been on the decline for years; however, suicides in total had, and still are increasing. Whether the person next door hangs, shoots, gases, or poisons himself is a tragedy, but it doesn’t affect a person’s fear in the community. Violence does, and that is what the NCV lost sight of – if it ever had it in its sights at all. Of course, suicides are still included by the anti-gun crowd, even the Australian Democrats (keep the bastards honest?) still refer to them.
The NCV was set up to provide Australia with the “necessary” gun laws. The authority of the AIC was behind the NCV, but what was the authority behind the AIC? Nothing more than what its letterhead proclaimed “affiliated with the United Nations”. The correspondence I referred to earlier also asked whether the AIC had a MoU with any legitimate criminology group such as Scotland Yard or the FBI – the answer was no. Apparently, the UN was the ultimate, if not the only, authority for the AIC.
The AIC was not the only government organization aware of the agenda of the “disarmament of the people”. In 1992 the Commonwealth Employment Service had this to say in regards to the occupation of “Gunsmith”. After a lengthy description about the necessary skills it ended with,
“Restrictions on gun ownership in the future is likely to impact most upon the demand for this occupation. It is expected that private gun ownership will cease within the next 10 years.”
Port Arthur
Stories – the two police officers on the peninsula being directed to the farthest location from the shooting on an anonymous bogus tip at the time of the massacre, time sequences in tendered documents that don’t match the observation of eyewitnesses, Barry Unsworth’s 1988 statement, “there won’t be gun control in Australia, until there is a massacre in Tasmania”.
Yes, conspiracy theories surrounding the Port Arthur tragedy are alive and well. Of course, if I wanted to find out what happened at Port Arthur, I would just read the Coroner’s Report – except there isn’t one. Perhaps a survivor of Port Arthur, Wendy Scurr summed it up best in a letter she wrote, “4 people are killed in an accident on board a Navy ship and there is an enquiry sufficient to lay the matter to rest. 17 people are killed in an Army helicopter accident and there is not one enquiry but two. 35 people are killed at Port Arthur and despite the many requests of other people, who were there, like me, there is no enquiry. Why?”
The laws were ready, they had been sitting on the shelf since 1994, the media was ready, and it had perfected the technique in 1991 after the Strathfield massacre. All that was needed was a suitable massacre, preferably in Tasmania of course. Then we had “Port Arthur”. Wow, what a coincidence. Was that a lucky break for international gun control or what?
HOSPITAL BRACELETS R US
Terry, I am atending the Lindt Cafe Inquest again in Sydney.
Saw this sign in the widow of a bookseller on Elizabeth Street:
“I tremble for my country when I think of the fact that we may get the leaders we deserve.”
— Gary Hart, presidential candidate years ago.
Yep, you would have to spend some time at a Local Court list day to fully appreciate the kind of people that inhabit your community.
HEALTH FUNDS
As I mentioned, all this funding was coming out of the Public Health portfolio, which was running dry so they bumped it up with a Medicare Levy to help stem the bleeding. They took money out of the sheeple’s pocket and then gave back a portion of it in ‘compensation’ for surrendering a firearm. They never had to go door to door to confiscate firearms, they got the Australian citizens to stand in line for it.
STATISTICS
Here’s where the MSM played a big part in conditioning the population. Culture has a lot to do with violence. I constantly heard the ‘In America’ argument, so I researched what was going on in America. It turns out that the rural Australian and rural American homicide rates were virtually identical. However, the inner city gangs, like the Crips and Bloods, were always having turf wars. Those gangland (subculture) homicides were included in the overall homicide rate.
I looked across the border to Mexico and their homicide rate was twice the American rate (mostly done with cutting instruments). I then looked at Australian subculture homicide rates and found that Northern Territory Aboriginal communities had a homicide rate that was 7 times the American rate (mostly by assault).
When I heard the ‘save the children’ argument, I looked at how the CDC compiled their statistics. They called people up to age 26 as a ‘child’. What? Up to 26? Why would they do that? Well, it was because the inner city gangland killings started dropping off after that age.
If the media had been honest they should have reported a gang killing as “Another gangbanger met his fate today in a turf war”. Instead they would report it as “Another child was killed by a gun today”.
Here’s one statistic from Australia that the MSM never wants you to know about. The homicide rate in Australia had been fairly consistent throughout the 20th Century – except for one period where it dropped significantly. That period was during WWII when virtually everybody and their dog was walking around with a firearm.
You are going to totally puke when you see this,Terry. And it is only 3 weeks old.
.
I won’t watch it, I’ve had enough BS to last a lifetime.
I mentioned the Public Health system being involved with the gun control movement. Here’s an article I wrote for a veteran’s webpage in the U.S.
Thin edge of the wedge
by Terry Shulze
June 2000
Your posting about the exchange of VA information with the FBI is IMHO, the thin edge of a very big wedge. The similarities between the US and Australia on the gun control issue are not to be ignored – what has happened in Australia is what is coming to America.
On the issue of “mentally incompetent”, next it will be PTSD, depression, treatment for anxiety, etc.
Here in Australia the laws state that a “health practitioner” may inform the police if they believe the person is not fit to possess a firearm. A health practitioner is defined as virtually anyone who thinks they are a “health practitioner”. For example, anyone providing professional counselling advice – which means all the dingbats at the Department of Community Services. Not only are they allowed to inform the police – they are specifically indemnified in the legislation against any action being taken against them for any damage arising out of the notification.
A few years ago I had a client who had his firearms license taken away from him because of such a scenario. He had some pretty disturbing incidents in his life and he was terribly depressed. He had thought about suicide, but it was just a thought, nothing further. One of his friends suggested he go to the Royal North Shore Hospital for some help with his depression.
At the interview, the hospital asked if he had any firearms. He replied “yes” – that was all it took. They put him in the hospital that night and in the morning the police arrived to escort him to his home and surrender his firearms. He did so. When he arrived back at the hospital he was told that they needed his bed and discharged him. That’s right – no treatment, no prescriptions, no counseling – they simply took his guns away.
When we went to court to try and get his firearm license back the prosecution did not have a case and it was stood over to another date. On that date, the prosecution had a medical report from a doctor that had never examined or even met my client. The medical report allegedly relied upon the clinical notes taken in his interview. The report indicated that he was a violent person and suicidal.
Well, now WE adjourned the hearing and subpoenaed the clinical notes and got our own doctor’s (psychologist) report. Our doctor actually spent two hours with the client, further, I had obtained the clinical notes by that time and the doctor used those during the interview. My guy was deemed to be entirely rational from the way he conducted himself and his past history. However, it was the clinical notes that we couldn’t believe – you see the hospital had originally assessed him as NON-VIOLENT, that’s right, the hospital doctor flat out LIED in his report. Further, although he was assessed as depressed, he was not assessed as being a danger to himself or anyone else – again the doctor had lied.
I hammered the Hell out of that doctor on the witness stand. It did no good. You see the Magistrate we appeared in front of hated firearms, he didn’t think anyone should have them. The Magistrate made up a bogus argument about how it was “not in the public interest” for my client to have a firearm as he had previously had suicidal thoughts and he MIGHT have suicidal thoughts in the future, and being a member of the public, it was not in the public’s interest that he have access to firearms. I told my guy that we could appeal on that point of law – he declined. He had had enough of the legal system. He then told me certain things – I expect he now has firearms outside the system.
Pass this email on to others – this story will soon repeat itself in the U.S..
Teens. The reportage in the US always calls them “Teens” (including at times teens in their 30s).
So ‘teens’ is the new spin. This is an old article going back decades, perhaps we need a new updated article to keep pace with the rapid flow of BS from the media.
Ahh, the UN corporation…. I am midway through writing an article on this particular evil organisation for gumshoe.
Thanks for the great article so far, it has given me the required focus to finish and share my knowledge from much research.
Strangely enough the UN corporation (United Nations is their trademark) does not have a definition for a terrorist… They have held Junket’s on many occasions to establish this meaning and have never been able to come to any agreement..
Perhaps its because every time they establish the points of criteria required for such a definition they always seem to list descriptions which mirror their current/past/future agendas/actions/items???
[…] gun-control agenda, I’ve learned from Terry Shulze’s 3-part article on that subject (Part 1, Part 2, Part […]