|
12/6/96 Prime Minister John Howard Parliament House Canberra ACT Dear sir, I am compelled to write to you about the recent events that I feel are eroding the freedom of my rights to defend myself against the growing number of criminals in this country. Criminals that constantly go unpunished encouraging more and more crime every day. For you to ignore this problem can only mean that you live in an area that is totally safe and unlike the real world out here where the general public is constantly forced to spend a great deal of time, effort and money on security and personal protection. Our last defense is the weapon we hold in our hands when we are assaulted by those of our society that your government refuses to impose tougher penalties upon. You are so out of touch with the public that you must actually believe the media's obvious deceptions. Those statistics that say 80% of Australians are for your new gun laws is just an outright lie and the more you call us rednecks, gun nuts and other derogatory names the more people like me get our back up and renounce your party. I am outraged at the media hype, misinformation, editing of speeches, and ongoing drama surrounding the shootings at Port Arthur. The government and the media have built a bush fire out of this incident at the expense of Tasmania's tourist industry for the sake of their own greed, where the media is concerned, and to push a barrow against the gun lobby, where the government is concerned. I would like to know why murder by a gunshot is more dramatic and tragic than murder by stabbing, bashing, drugs, bombs or any other easily obtained weapon. To me the most horrific recent deaths were not those at Port Arthur but the brutal rape and murder of two little girls on the Gold Coast who must have suffered horribly before being beaten to death with a lump of wood. However we have had none of the same outcry over this crime because the murder weapon used wasn't a gun. We do not live in a perfect society and while ever guns are available either legally or illegally, we must make sure that there is an even distribution of power between those who would forcibly dictate to us and those who would stand their ground against criminals. I live in the country and if I was to depend on the police for my protection it would take them at least thirty minutes to come to my rescue by which time my gun could well have saved my life. The argument is that if we do away with guns, people won't get shot anymore. It is hard to believe, and beyond my comprehension, how intelligent people in our society can think that this disarming is even remotely possible. It will only serve to make criminals out of people who are not criminals today because the human instinct to protect ones family is stronger than the will to succumb to bad laws. The laws presently in place that outlaw substances and weapons capable of killing are constantly being broken. Heroin is illegal - heroin is a killer - heroin is banned, yet it is freely available on the black market, promoting criminal activity. Speeding is illegal - car accidents are responsible for most deaths besides drugs - yet almost nothing is done to limit a vehicle's velocity. Molotov cocktails are illegal - they kill even more swiftly than any rifle, bombs are banned, yet they are so simple to make and just one can wipe out a whole night- club full of people in minutes if the inclination is there. (Whiskey Au Go Go.) Various other activities that were banned and consequently sent underground to become criminal activity:- Pornography - illegal - banned - flourishing - hardly any punishment. Prostitution - illegal - banned - flourishing - hardly any punishment. Smoking marijuana - illegal - banned - every second person does it. More dangerous banned activities that are even more likely to take lives. Speeding - illegal - banned - daily pastime. Drink driving - illegal - banned - can't be stamped out. If the statistics are accurate and speeding is the prime killer on the road then why haven't cars had limiters fitted so that they can't speed. If life is so important and the government is really concerned about saving lives, why haven't limiters been introduced? This measure of safety is one that could be imposed, would reduce deaths on the road and would without doubt save more lives than a thousand maniacs going crazy with automatic guns. Is anyone this interested in saving lives? Speed kills more people than guns. If speed is so deadly, why not ban it from the car and save hundreds of lives a year, not just a few from isolated gun incidents. Why isn't the government as angry about the selling of vehicles that are capable of killing more people than guns? What about the man who used martial arts to kill his girlfriend's unborn child. Ban kick-boxing? Surely it's obvious that people kill people not the weapons that secure our safety against these monsters. Thousands of people are stabbed to death - ban the knife? Dozens are savaged to death by dogs - ban the dog? Thousands die from lung cancer - ban smoking? I'd like to see that. It is ironic that the single most effective killer of human life is actually a legal substance. Alcohol is responsible for more deaths, accidents, broken homes and court appearances than any other lethal substance and yet we do nothing to educate people about it's abuse. We could save thousands of lives with the money used to buy guns if it was injected into more worthy programs:- Hospitals? Drug awareness programs? Law and order? Better roads? More efficient and deterring punishments for crimes? Institutions for mentally ill people? Better education programs for our wayward children? Jim Waley's Sunday program 2/6/96 made us aware of a government department that is responsible for more deaths of children through sheer neglect than are killed with guns in this country. What is this fixation that the government and the media have with gun ownership? At least explain to us why death by gun is more deadly than any other method. It has been my experience that my gun has saved my life more times than it has ever been deadly to me. Doesn't my life count for something? If we're so interested in protecting one another is the answer really in the notion to deprive us of all implements that might kill us? Can we really legislate to protect us from ourselves? A gun secures protection. If it was not for the gun we would be prisoners of oppressing nations now. Without guns to protect us, criminals take advantage of our vulnerability. Without guns we are helpless. The epitome of a helpless society was the tragedy at Port Arthur. If only one gun had been available to protect those people, dozens of lives could have been saved. Because only the lunatic had a gun the unarmed became victims and they died because they were helpless. I have information that the assassin calmly and methodically killed those people one at a time at a rate that could have been done with a bolt action rifle. From first hand reports I have been told that he actually reloaded in the shop full of people which meant that he would have paused long enough for anyone to have stopped him if there was a weapon available to do so. Why hasn't the media reported these important facts? In an unarmed society people like unconfined lunatics and criminals who seek to force their will upon others, are the only ones who will be armed. The law abiding will have given up their arms and exposed themselves to the violence of theft, rape, mugging, murder and assaults of all kinds. In the same way that heroin, bomb ingredients, pornography and hand guns are freely available, a lunatic or potential killer will always be able to get a means to kill if that is his intent. In domestic situations, if a gun is not available for violence other means of killing are found, it is the intent that causes the action not the weapon. Where there is no one armed to stop violence we give ourselves up to attack, we become helpless. Statistics show that in domestic situations more people, especially children, are beaten to death. Taking weapons off people won't diminish violence. At the moment a crook might think twice about breaking into a home for fear of getting shot but the less opposition he has the more these cowards are in control. At least while a society is armed there is a certain stand off between the criminal and the threat of being met with equal opposition. Even a household that is not armed is deemed to be by a home invader who can never be sure about his opposition. An armed society is also less threatened by invasion of foreign armies. History has proved that it is easier to defeat an army than an underground resistance. The real facts are that, as well intentioned as some people think they are, there is not a hope in hell of getting rid of guns of any kind. The attempt will only shift the ownership of these weapons and ultimately cause a detrimental imbalance. I live on the land with a shotgun for the maintenance of my animals and the protection of my life because the law sees fit not to allow me to own a pistol for self protection. Pistols are only issued to those who have money to protect, not lives. It has always seemed strange to me how the government legislates to protect money better than people. The signs on my gate leave no doubt, to the intruder, that I am armed and able to protect the inhabitants of my home. Since I erected these signs I am one of the few people in my area who has not been robbed or trespassed upon. The other day I heard two dogs attacking my goat. I grabbed my shotgun and fired it in the direction of these dogs. The noise of the 12 gauge gun frightened them off and they left my goat with only minor injuries. If I had no gun and had tried to get those dogs off my animal single handily before they killed her there is every chance that they would have turned on me and killed me too. This is just one instance where my gun could have saved my life. It seems that the gun debate is in the hands of people who know nothing about guns and have no use for them. These same people cry for the victims of massacres but their arguments are hypocritical when they talk about banning the very object that could have saved those people if only someone there was armed. In a sensibly armed society the helpless at least have a chance. Germany has the most stringent laws against the ownership of guns and it has the highest murder rate in the world. Switzerland has the most armed society and they have the lowest rate of crime in the world. This killing spree in Tasmania has sparked of the same tired old gun debate but the arguments are not any different. Whenever we have some lunatic go off the deep end the anti-gun do-gooders want to disarm everyone. I didn't hear anyone wanting to have a referendum to ask if we should tightened up laws on mentally ill people. It is far easier to blame an inanimate object than the person pulling the trigger. A gun is only a weapon like any other and certainly not one that puts fear into my heart. I am far more afraid of knives and fists. My gun is there to serve and protect me and if a naive' person asks what I need protection from then they must be unaware of the growing instance of violence and theft in this country due to the absence of proper punishment. While the do-gooders are pleading for the rights of the wrong-doers, people like me are wondering how long it will be before it's my home that is broken into next. If I had no gun and no reputation I would fall into the category of the helpless and it is the naive' and helpless in this world who get hurt all the time. I would rather trust my neighbour with his semi-automatic than a government who tries to take it off him. Those people in Tasmania were helpless, if only one person who saw this madman had a gun on them to shoot back they could have saved a lot of lives that day. It amazes me that the shop keeper didn't have one. Instead of calling for tighter gun control we should be condemning the system for not allowing more of us to carry weapons to protect ourselves and others. Port Arthur is a perfect example of what happens to a society when it is disarmed. Not one person at Port Arthur was experienced in combat enough to stop 35 people from being killed. Being defenseless is stupid and deadly. Only naive' people think that they can get rid of guns and the bullet ration theory is ridiculous. It only takes one gun and thirty five bullets to kill thirty five people. You could dump millions of weapons, ration billions of bullets and not get the one that killed those people. You'd just succeed in leaving good people unarmed. Even without guns a mentally deranged person would find other ways of doing what they are compelled to do? There have been mass murderers before who didn't use guns. Most murders are stabbings. We don't hear anyone crying out for knife control, because knives don't kill people - people kill people. Do we hear anyone wanting to have a referendum to lock up lunatics? Civil libertarians have a lot to answer for in this country. For one thing, the closure of mental institutions allowing the more capable patients to fend for themselves usually to their own detriment if not that of others, and discarding the rest into already overloaded nursing homes. When people talk about taking my guns off me I get sick in my stomach. If I had no gun I would be constantly living in fear of a society that jails only 10% of it's criminals. When the government cleans up their act and proves to me that they are capable of protecting me I might change my mind but until then I have an inbuilt instinct to protect me and mine from a growing menace that is getting out of control. No one is going to force me to be helpless. Another matter of concern to me is the bias of the media in this debate. With the exception of Sporting Shooters we don't hear the other side of the story. People who know nothing about the usefulness of guns and are completely ignorant of their purpose are entering the debate with no knowledge of what they're talking about. The many polls that I witnessed are corrupt. In Brisbane on Channel Seven they ran a poll to ask if we were for or against the gun laws and I rang the "no" number continuously until the poll closed and still couldn't get through to vote. Yet when the results came in they were 60 / 40 in favour of the gun laws. How could more people have voted "yes"? Were there more operators to take the "yes" calls? Or was the anti-gun lobby bias at work not answering the "no" vote lines? Whatever happened it was not honest reporting and it's typical of the reasons that thinking people like me have for not trusting a media and government that dictates its will upon others. On This Day Tonight the lady commentator unashamedly ridiculed a gun lobbyist who questioned these statistics convincing me further that the gun lobby is not getting a fair hearing in the media. John Laws continually mentions the 90% of Australians in favour of new gun laws. This is an outright lie from someone that I have previously admired greatly. The poll that I took in my area and amongst my friends and acquaintances would be closer to 90% against the laws with the 10% for them not really knowing why except that they think guns kill people (they forget how many lives they save). This is the only argument they can come up with and this mentality clearly shows the ignorance of the anti-gun lobby. If the media thinks that the general public is unaware of how the government has been waiting for an excuse like Port Arthur to disarm its citizens, it underestimates our intelligence. If the media thinks that taking guns from people who have strong instincts to protect themselves and their own is more important than locking away lunatics they must think Australians are ill informed. If the media thinks that a weapon made illegal will just disappear because it is illegal then they are naive'. If the media thinks that the real story of the Port Arthur massacre will not emerge eventually they are very wrong. I am not the only one who knows that one of the weapons used was previously handed in to police on an amnesty collection, yet it managed to find itself back out in the general public in the hands of a lunatic. (Jim Waley's Sunday 9/6/96 - reported by Lorry Oakes.) The deaths of thirty five people, to me, are just as tragic as the deaths of thirty five others killed in violent circumstances. It doesn't matter how you die - you finish up just as dead. The pain of losing a loved one is a very private one, not the business of the media who have gone out of their way to dramatize this whole tragedy for their own gain, the detriment of gun owners and the expense of a whole tourist industry in Tasmania. I don't know how they can live with themselves. If these gun laws go through it will be the beginning of a very serious division in this country. The difference in the numbers at the rallies should be proof of that. John Howard could go down in history as the Prime Minister who ripped this country apart with a decision that could threaten our very freedom. The government began with making the ownership of a hand gun almost impossible, now they want the semi autos and automatics - what's next - bolt actions and single shots? How about we give up our shotguns and rifles and have them replaced with hand guns. One hand gun at Port Arthur could have saved dozens of lives. Guns protect more people than they kill. The disarmament of this very vulnerable nation will have countries like Indonesia wringing their hands with glee at the stupidity of the idea. The safest countries in the world are those with the most armed civilians. In conclusion. It might be worth noting that a John Law's listener did a survey of several gun shops on the north coast and found that they had sold out of ammunition for the potentially banned weapons and it has already been reported that there has been a huge upsurge in the sales of these weapons. I hardly think that people are buying up these guns so that they can hand them back in again. The stockpiles for the black markets have already begun. N. Wood (Full-time carer for invalid mother) LETTER TO QUEENSLAND GOVERNORHer Excellency Mrs. Leneen FordeDear Mrs. Forde, With decisions looming about the gun issue I would like to remind you of some facts that should help you decide why Queenslanders remain reluctant to part with their weapons. 1 Civilians feel vulnerable and insecure without equal force against criminals. Disarmament of civilians is a travesty against human rights. 2 Civilians should not be punished for the crimes of individuals like the Port Arthur murderer who could have killed as many people by throwing a Molotov cocktail into a full bus. 3 Guns are tools as much as a chainsaw, slasher, carving knife or any other object that is capable of killing. They are incapable of doing any harm without the use of the hand that operates them for good or bad. People have to be made accountable for their actions with tougher penalties for crimes. 4 Banning weapons of any kind will only make them more valuable and more available to those who are more likely to hurt someone. The black market in guns will flourish while innocent disarmed citizens become helpless. Port Arthur was the epitome of a defenseless society. 5 Regardless of the media's attempt to keep certain facts about Port Arthur from the public we know that the gun used by the killer had already been handed in at a previous amnesty. We know that the killer methodically shot people one by one at a rate that could have been done with a weapon not on the banned list. We know that he reloaded at least once in the shop and had time to reload many times. We know about the law enforcement officer who followed the killer around helplessly watching him kill people because he didn't have a gun to stop him with. 6 If the gun amendment bill goes through I will be forced to lock up my weapon rendering it useless in the event of an emergency. My animals could suffer or my life could be in grave danger if my only defense is locked up inside a cabinet. 7 We feel that the bad eggs in society should be cleaned up before penalising those who need weapons to defend ourselves against them. Without my shotgun I would not feel safe living on my own. 8 If these laws go through, politicians will be responsible for many good people following their natural instincts for survival. When we are shown that we can be safe within our own walls we might think differently but until crime is under control in this country our inbuilt instinct to protect and guard our loved ones will outweigh any wish to remain law abiding. People will stick to their guns and it will cost you a lot more than a buy back scheme to keep spying into living rooms looking for gun racks on the wall. 9 Queensland is on the front line in the event of any northern invasion and, historically, armed civilians are better equipped to defend their country in an underground movement than any small military might such as ours. 10 The government should realise that the statistics have been cooked. We are not a loud, vocal minority, we are a very disillusioned silent majority who will voice our anger at the ballot box. Yours sincerely N Wood |