(November 10, 2015)
Associate Professor Philip Alpers, one of Australia’s leading firearms researchers and a director of the Centre for Armed Violence Reduction at the University of Sydney, said the national ban on semi-automatic weapons following the Port Arthur massacre had spawned criminal demand for handguns. “The ban on semi-automatics created demand by criminals for other types of guns,” he said, adding: “The criminal’s gun of choice today is the semi-automatic pistol.”
(H/T: Says Uncle)
THIS, from the nation which Hillary Clinton has held up as the epitome of "reasonable, good-sense gun laws" working?
I have no idea why a nation which restricts full gun rights to law-abiding citizens should expect their citizens .. who are otherwise law-abiding, and I deliberately repeat myself .. to honor illegal laws.
My guess is that it's the arrogance of the elected who have no respect for the trusting citizens who innocently voted for them. Those in-office assholes must be laughing at the ignorance of their naive plebes.
Two questions:
(1) What are"gun crimes" in a nation where mere possession of several kinds of guns are in and of itself a crime?This article is vague ... perhaps deliberately vague, when it comes to defining their terms. When we in America (where ownership of firearms is a constitutionally acknowledged RIGHT) see the term "gun crimes", we tend to think in terms of "Assault With Intent To Kill", or "Assault With A Deadly Weapon" or "Armed Robbery".
However, in countries where a citizens' basic rights are being denied by administrative fiat, the First Freedoms which Americans take for granted are themselves considered "Gun Crimes".
In other words, we question the use of the word "CRIMINAL" in the entire opening statement.
It's biased, it's undefined, and it's confusing to the reader.
To wit:
We do not KNOW that the subtle insinuations we get from this article are actually referring to societal crimes which are supported by possession of a firearm. All we know is that Australia considers them as "Gun Crimes", and the authors of this very poorly written newspaper article conveniently forgets to enumerate the various types of "Gun Crimes" which are being committed .. now, Instead, we read the vague charge "firearms offences ".
Really? Why is "OZ" afraid to call a Spade a Spade, or an "Assault" or "Robbery" or "Homicide" by it's legal name.
Judging by the sly use of innuendos, it's difficult to consider this honest reporting. Instead, it's Yellow Journalism, And to think, I once thought that Australia would be a nice place to live!
(2) Why should we listen to Hillary Clinton citing Australia as the POSTER CHILD of reasonable gun control measures ... aren't those same laws making criminals of otherwise honest people there?
When reporters obfuscate, they are either bad reporters (because they don't know how to write a clear story), or bad reporters (because they are slanting their journalism according to a pre-determined bias).And that's just what Clinton and the other gun-grabbers do when they cite a news source or store to illustrate their particular political agenda.
Reporters are "suppose" to report the truth. Though they don't always do so, at least an honest reporter will define their terms.
Politicians SHOULD report the truth, though they don't always do so because they have a political objective and they will gladly slant their statements, too.
The thing about Reporters vs Politicians is:
- We know that all politicians are liars, and they will say anything to get re-elected;
- We hold reporters to a (slightly) higher standard, in that we HOPE they don't have hidden agendas.
Unfortunately, reporters are NOT more honest than Politicians.
Reporters will NOT always (in some venues, not even 'generally') attempt to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the trough.
Reporters who don't know the truth (in some venues, would not recognize the truth if it came up and bit them on the ass) don't always CARE about the truth. They just want to get a story told, edited, and published. Their paycheck depends on whether they are published, just as politicians only want to get re-elected.
And both for the same reason that infant diapers are changed regularly.
For the rest of us, which constitute nothing more than the unthinking audience for Reporters and Politicians .... it doesn't matter what we think.
It only matters what we DO NOT THINK.
Preferably, we do not think at all.
2 comments:
I prefer to blame the problem on liberal university professors. We should not bash Hillary too much, she is ordained to become our next president. Furthermore she is at least as honest as our current president.
RE: The big shoot out in Paris. Bloomberg is blaming the dead and wounded on "gun violence", no mention of Islamic terrorism. Guess he thinks France needs stiffer anti-gun laws.
Post a Comment