Anti-gun spew from Aussie journo in the USA

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>COLUMN -- "IN NEW YORK"
Christine Jackman
Western Australia's the Sunday Times
Sunday 26 March 2000


VITAL LESSON
Twelve children are killed by guns in America every day. Not every year or month, but every day. In New York, you're guaranteed to see enough that is hilarious, inspirational or bizarre every day to make writing a column about life in the US a joy.

But sometimes, it's just not possible when you realise that by the time you have finished writing your latest dispatch from the land of the free, another 12 children will have died. About half an average first-grade class.

Not when you calculate that by the time your column is read in Australia, between 48 and 60 people, aged 19 years and under, will have been killed by someone exercising their right to bear arms.

Nor when you've just discovered that the National Rifle Association is using inflated figures from our very own country in it's [sic] latest vicious campaign against tighter gun control in the US.

According to a 30-minute [??] infomercial currently on late-night TV, Australians have had a crime wave since the Howard Government's gun law reform in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre.

The cost of liberty (in Australia) can be measured in the loss of life, the ad says, before urging Americans to join the NRA. (In return they receive a free gift -- a replica silver bullet engraved with NRA president Charlton Heston's signature.)

Since the gun ban, armed robberies are up 69 per cent, assaults with guns up 28 per cent, gun murders up 19 per cent, home invasions up 21 per cent, the ad says.

The figures the NRA cites -- on TV and its website -- are attributed to Australia's Sporting Shooters Association. The problem is, the figures are wrong.

According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, firearm homicides have fallen since gun laws were tightened.

Armed robberies have increased -- by 20 per cent from 1997 to 1998, not 69 per cent. Unlawful entry with intent (67 per cent of which could be classified as home invasions) increased by 3.3 per cent, not 21 per cent.

The AIC says it's too early to tell whether Australia's gun law reform is responsible for any of these changes.

So why is the Sporting Shooters Association supporting a campaign which suggests Australia is in such an egregious state compared to the US -- where the gun murder rate is 200 times our own? And don't forget those 12 children who die every day.

When Buell Elementary School authorities called Veronica McQueen last month to say her daughter Kayla had been in an accideent, McQueen thought they meant a cut knee from a playground slip.

She didn't know that just minutes before, Kayla's teacher Alicia Judd had dialled 911 after the little girl was shot at close range by a first grade classmate. Here is the transcript of that call.

Judd: "I have a student at Buell school that (is) dying. I need an ambulance immediately."
911: "Where's the child that has been shot?"
Judd: "Right here on the floor in my class. Oh, God, please, she's getting white. The little girl is getting white."
911: "Is she breathing?"
Judd: "No, she's not."
911: "Do you know how to do CPR?"
Judd: "Yes, but I don't remember."
911: "Where is the child that shot her, ma'am?"
Judd: "He's in the office."
911: "He's in the office?"
Judd: "Yes. I can't feel her pulse."
911: OK, just let me tell you how to do CPR, OK? Where was she shot?"
Judd: "I can't tell. I'm scared to turn her body. Oh, God, please Lord, please Lord."
911: "Ma'am, where is the blood coming from?"
Judd: "I can't tell. She's lying on her stomach."
911: "Has she been shot in the head?"
Judd: "No, it doesn't look like it. It looks like she's shot from the front. I can't feel her pulse, but she's moving ... she's convulsing, minor convulsions. She's trying to get air."
911: "What room are you in?"
Judd: "I'm in Room 6, but I can't feel a pulse."

Think of little Kayla.

Think of your own child. Think of your nieces and nephews, goddaughters and sons, your grandchildren.

Think of them trying to breathe as the colour spills from their faces into a pool of red on the classroom floor, when they should be practising their ABCs.

Then ask the Sporting Shooters Association to keep it's [sic] nose and statistics out of the shameful, pointless, ongoing tragedy that is America's right to bear arms.

Web site [sic]: cjcolumn@aol.com[/quote]

There you go -- at least she was kind enough to provide us with her email address.

In a similar vein, here is the response from the SSAA to a Canberra newspaper regarding the NRA infomercial. Note the figures quoted:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Canberra Times editorial response (25/3/00)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:21:45 +0800
From: Paul Peake - SSAA Research
___________________________________________

Dear Editor

Regrettably, denial has become a common currency among Australian politicians -- especially where gun control is concerned. The recent controversy surrounding the National Rifle Association of America's TV
ads provides a good illustration.

According to the Australian Institute of Criminology's published 'Facts and Figures' for 1999, armed robberies have indeed increased by 69% since 1995. Similarly, Australian Bureau of Statistics 'Recorded Crime' data shows that Unlawful Entry with Intent has also risen since the government's gun 'buy-back' scheme - climbing from 402,079 victims to 435,670 between 1996 and 1998. The number of assault victims has likewise increased from 114,156 to 132,967 over the same period.

The Attorney-General Mr Williams may clutch at all the statistical straws he likes, but to claim that Australia is somehow a 'safer place' as a result of his government's efforts is complete nonsense.

One suspects that what has really offended Mr Williams is the NRA's candor in pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

Sincerely
Paul Peake
Research Section
Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Inc.[/quote]

B
 
"Sincerely
Paul Peake
Research Section
Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Inc."

Yep, and if _all_ of the gun owners in the US don't get off their duffs, we'll have lots and lots of time to write letters. Just like Mr. Peake.

" between 48 and 60 people, aged 19 years and under, will have been killed by someone exercising their right to bear arms."

Um, excuse me, but the people who are doing the killing have no right to bear arms. They're criminals.

Didn't Australia begin as a British penal colony? Seems things haven't changed much.

Dick
 
I wrote:

Ma'am:

Your recent column on the NRA's use of statistics from Australia made much of inaccuracies in the NRA statistics. Since I am not familiar with the sources available in your nation, I can only respond with an excerpt from a letter by Mr. Paul Peake to a Canberra newspaper:

"According to the Australian Institute of Criminology's published 'Facts and
Figures' for 1999, armed robberies have indeed increased by 69% since 1995.
Similarly, Australian Bureau of Statistics 'Recorded Crime' data shows that
Unlawful Entry with Intent has also risen since the government's gun
'buy-back' scheme - climbing from 402,079 victims to 435,670 between 1996
and 1998. The number of assault victims has likewise increased from 114,156
to 132,967 over the same period.

The Attorney-General Mr Williams may clutch at all the statistical straws he
likes, but to claim that Australia is somehow a 'safer place' as a result of his
government's efforts is complete nonsense."

Is Mr. Peake a liar or mistaken, or is it possible that you have been misinformed?

I'd also like to point out that your own statistics are faulty. For instance, your assertion that "12 children per day" are killed with guns in the U.S. The usual claim is 13, but no matter. 12 is still several times the actual number. You don't cite a source for your claim, so I used the Centers for Disease Control, the foremost American authority on mortality. You may also be aware that the CDC is also an outspoken proponent of gun control, so waving away the statistics as slanted to the pro-freedom side won't work. The CDC states that for the most recent year available, 1997, firearms deaths by age group were:
0-4= 84 (down from 88 in 1996, down from105 in 1995, down from 107 in 1994)
5-9= 107 (up from 95 in 1996, down from 107 in 1995, up from 105 in 1994)
10-14= 439 (down from 510 in 1996, down from 641 in 1995, down from 660 in 1994)

If we add these totals, we get 630 deaths involving firearms for children from age 0-14 in the most recent available year. Dividing by 365, we get 1.7 deaths per day. Now, I admit that this is not a good thing, but in a nation of 280 MILLION people, it's a tiny blip in statistical terms. It would be interesting, I think, to compare the daily number of deaths involving automobiles.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, I CAN explain where your inflated figure comes from. You see, the deaths for 15-19 year olds numbered 3,593. If we add this to the 630 deaths suffered by children, we get 4223 deaths. If we divide 4223 by 365, we get 11.57 deaths per day. Of course, you might have noticed that the only way to reach your claimed number of deaths for "children" was to add in a much larger number of deaths for people too old to be called children with much honesty. In fact, deaths by teenagers older than 15 years account for 85% of the death rate you claim for "children." Keep in mind that we're now counting teen suicides (which Japan has so ably proved can occur at twice the U.S. rate in a "gunless society") and justifiable homicides by police and citizens. If a cop shoots a gangbanger who tried to kill him, the gangbanger is one of your "12 children a day killed by guns." If a homeowner shoots a 19-year old burglar who attacks him with a hammer, the attacker is one of your dead "children." If a college coed kills an 18-year-old would-be rapist, he becomes one of your dead "children." You may want to correct your implication that innocent children are dying in large numbers; that is not the case. As Mr. LaPierre told Mr. Clinton, you now know that what you wrote was not true. If you wrote it with good intentions, not knowing you were spreading untruths, that was a mistake. If you now refuse to correct your mistake at least as largely as you made it, that will make you a liar. If it matters, I will be disappointed.

Don Gwinn
 
I have accepted the fact I'll probably be banned, fine go ahead.
But after reading the thread on British socialists I was slightly annoyed and I guess overreacted with the monkeybrain bit. But the ignorant part still stands.
My email has changed so that one will bounce. If you have something to say, say it here or just go ahead and ban me.
 
Rabbit, enlighten me. What part of Monkeylegs' post is ignorant?

The only part of the post that I find to be relevant to Australia is this:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Didn't Australia begin as a British penal colony? Seems things haven't changed much.[/quote]

Now the first half of that clip is about Australia initially being a British penal colony. Is that not true? Or were the rumours I heard about Botany Bay untrue?

The second part is a comparison, which may border on hyperbole, but was probably added for impact. That does not necessarily make it ignorant....

So, which part do you find to be ignorant?

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited March 28, 2000).]
 
Rabbit assasin: the British arrived in what we now call Australia in 1688, but it was not until Captain James Cook's voyage in 1770 that Great Britain claimed possession of the vast island, calling it New South Wales. A British penal colony was set up at Port Jackson (what is now Sydney) in 1788, and about 161,000 transported English convicts were settled there until the system was suspended in 1839.

You got a problem with that?

As for my monicker, "Monkeyleg:" it is a nickname I gave to myself back in my teens because I had/have a cosmetic deformity that made me the subject of some ridicule. I use it now as a form of self-deprecating humor and, as such, no bastardization of that name can really offend me.

Try again.

Dick
 
Robert T Crook wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert T Crook
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 9:50 AM
> Subject: NRA charges confirmed Australia
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty/20000326_xnjdo_kangaroo_c.shtml
> Kangaroo court
> condemns gun ads
> Australian government's own stats
> on crime confirm NRA charges
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> By Jon E. Dougherty
> © 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
>
> The controversy over whether or not the National Rifle Association
> used misleading crime statistics in an advertisement decrying
> Australia's restrictive gun laws has largely been settled by figures
> provided by the Australian government itself.
>
> It appears the government officials in the island continent who
> charged the NRA with distorting the country's crime figures for
> political gain owe the gun-rights group an apology.
>
> The government has based its refutation of the NRA ads -- which say
> crime has increased Down Under since Australia's major gun ban took
> effect in 1996 -- mainly on the drop in the murder rate. According to
> the Australian Bureau of Statistics website, murders have fallen from
> 312 in 1996 to 284 murders in 1998, after experiencing a slight
> increase in 1997, from 312 to 321.
>
> However, almost every other form of crime in Australia has increased,
> sometimes dramatically, in the same time period:
>
> For instance, since the introduction of Australia's sweeping gun bans,
> armed robberies rose a whopping 70 percent, from 6,256 in 1996 to
> 10,850 just two years later.
>
> Unarmed robberies also rose by about 20 percent, from just over 10,100
> to nearly 13,000 incidents.
>
> In addition:
>
> * Attempted murders rose from 335 in 1996 to 382 in 1998
>
> * Manslaughter rose from 38 to 49
>
> * Assaults were up from 114,156 to 132,967
>
> * Sexual assaults rose slightly, from 14,542 to 14,568
>
> * Kidnapping and abductions climbed dramatically, from 480 in 1996
> to 662 in 1998
>
> Some other highlights from the 1998 Australian government crime
> statistics report:
>
> * Blackmail and extortion went from 268 cases a year to 298
>
> * "Unlawful entry with intent (breaking into a home or business)
> involving the taking of property" rose by 30,000 cases, from
> 313,902 shortly after the ban was passed to 343,256 cases in 1998
>
> * Other "unlawful entry" cases increased during the two-year period
> from 88,177 to 92,414
>
> * "Motor vehicle theft" increased by 8,658 reported cases, and
> "other theft" rose to 565,214 from 521,762
>
> On Friday, the Sydney Morning Herald said Australian Prime Minister
> John Howard, who helped usher in the country's restrictive gun laws,
> leapt into the fray against the NRA, calling the gun rights group's
> advertisement a collection of "lies" and "distortions."
>
> "I think it disturbs me in the sense that it is beyond belief that an
> organization can get it so wrong," Howard said.
>
> Howard added that "Australia introduced tough gun laws after the Port
> Arthur massacre because it did not want to end up with a gun culture
> like the U.S.," said the Herald, which also quoted the prime minister
> as saying that the "appalling" U.S. homicide rate was because America
> is "awash in guns."
>
> "The NRA said wrongly that armed robbery in Australia had risen 69 per
> cent, assaults involving guns were up 28 per cent, gun murders 19 per
> cent and home invasions 21 per cent," the paper said.
>
> The Australian Bureau of Statistics site was last updated on Jan. 1,
> 2000, according to a notice posted there.
>
> According to the bureau, crimes involving firearms fell between 1997
> and 1998, but critics have said that is meaningless when compared to
> the overall increases in violent crime, noting that the overall
> increases might in fact be due to the lack of availability of firearms
> for protection.
>
> Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, pointedly
> said it was "apparent" that many Australians were "obviously more at
> risk" since the gun ban took effect.
>
> Brian Puckett, founder of Citizens of America, agreed, and said
> Australian officials were "fooling themselves if they think this ban
> is going to be good for their people in the long run."
>
> ------------
>
> Previous story:
> Australia shoots back at NRA
>
> ------------
>
> Jon E. Dougherty is a staff reporter for WorldNetDaily.


------------------
GUN CONTROL puts THE CONTROL
in the hands of THE CRIMINALS.

--------------------------------
You all have my permision to
use any of these"signatures"
here, if you like!
---------------------------

-They call 'em POLUTE-TICIANS because they POLUTE the MINDS
of OUR CHILDERN with their ANTI civil/firearms RIGHTS SOCIALIST
political agendas. We of the older generations know B.S.
when we hear it.
-----------------------------------------------
In 2000, we must become politically active in
support of gun rights or we WILL LOSE the right
& the freedom.
-------------------------
NO FATE BUT WHAT WE MAKE!!!
----------------------
Every year,over 2 million Americans use firearms
not to take live but to preserve life,....limb & family
.Gun Control Democrats would prefer that they are all disarmed
and helpless and die victims of felony violence,instead.

Protect your gun rights, go to:
http://home.xnet.com/~gizmonic/TheMarch.html
and sign up as a helper or attendee or state organizer.
ernest2, Conn. CAN opp. "Do What You Can"!
http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html
 
Back
Top