Truth in politics

I read an article - I don't remember where - that stated that the new NSW Senator from the Liberal Democrats believed that citizens of Australia should be allowed to carry guns.

Yes, yes, I now what you are thinking. I didn't believe that he said it either, so I checked.

From this ABC report, it appears to be true.

Of course, the report elicited all the standard strawmen, hyperbole, and false equivalences in the comments, along with the "I can't believe this guy was elected legitimately" BS.

I want to comment on ONLY one class of comments. It's MY blog, I'll post whatever I like.

"This appeals only to those neanderthals that want to kill someone".

This is a fallacious statement stemming from gross ignorance and preconception. I don't want to ever have to shoot someone, but I would carry a gun if the price for being caught doing so was not so high as "go to jail - for a LONG time".

My refutation is this:

Many people carry a fire extinguisher in their car. It's not that they WANT to have to put out a fire.

Many people also carry a first aid kit. It's not that they WANT to have to treat an injury.

How many cars come with a spare tyre, and related tools? Are you telling me that they WANT to have a flat tyre while on the way to the restaurant and dressed for dinner?

Many people have smoke detectors in their homes (more now that the .gov has made it compulsory). That doesn't mean that they WANT the house to catch fire while they sleep.

Those same houses all have RCDs (Residual Current Devices aka Safety Switches) installed. They certainly don't WANT someone to try and electrocute themselves.

Just about everyone has insurance. They are betting that a disaster will happen (just as the insurance company is betting that it won't). They don't expect to lose their possessions to a fire or flood or theft, let alone WANT a disaster to happen.

Sane people don't WANT to face possible disasters, but they DO want to be ready if it happens anyway. Insurance, extinguishers, fire blankets, first-aid kits, spare tyres, seat-belt cutters on the key-ring, the torch in the glove box - they are simply useful things to have in the event of an emergency or a disaster.

Why is a gun on your hip, that you likely never need to use, any different?

... and don' try the "but it's dangerous" inanity. Have you never heard of the number of people killed by cars every year?

ABC - Australian Bureau of Communists?

I just heard a report on the ABC radio program "AM" that was compiled by their "North American correspondent" - I think it was Alison Fan.

The item was about "Gun crime in Philadelphia". Why this is news in Australia, I have no idea, but the entire report was either a deliberate falsehood or the worst case of journalistic ignorance that I have ever heard.

The report started out with the standard "{some big number} of Americans are murdered every year, and 75% of these deaths involve firearms", followed by the perennial favourite "{some other big number} of those murdered are children".

The news "reporter" then interviewed a member of some organisation, members of which walk the streets of certain districts in Philadelphia in an effort to reduce crime among the young of a particular ethnic group.

In this interview, the following question was posed:
"Are handguns easy to get in Philadelphia?"

The answer (predictably):
"Too easy. Every kid in this neighbourhood knows where to go, or who to ask to get a handgun."

From that point the reporter states: "In Pennsylvania, all anyone has to do to buy a handgun is pass a criminal background check and a mental health check, pay the processing fee, and buy the gun".

Does anybody else see the elephant in the room? The elephant that everyone is ignoring, while the reporter is installing a SEP field generator (think Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy).

No?

Well, I'll explain.

The reporters question seems almost reasonable, but the response is about ILLEGAL guns, while the reporters next comment is about LEGAL guns, AND SHE DOES NOT MENTION THIS DIFFERENCE.

Not a single one of the "kids" in the neighbourhood could POSSIBLY pass a NICS check (the criminal background check mentioned) as they are either too young (must be 21 to buy a handgun), or already has a criminal record.

The whole piece is decrying kids having easy ILLEGAL access to guns, while doing a hatchet job on the LEGAL process.

I remain absolutely convinced that this was a deliberate attack on lawful gun ownership, but I can't figure out why. What on earth is the benefit to the ABC of this activity?