Don't Shoot Yourself in the Foot

Comments on Gun Control




January 9, 2011
Holly Deyo

The terrible Tucson shootings yesterday may well serve as a prime opportunity to put forth anti-gun legislation. While handing over weapons willingly is unthinkable for most 2nd Amendment advocates, it only takes a tragedy like this to convert gun control fence-sitters and spur on those who would leave citizens without personal protection. Perhaps it's not so much that fellow citizens want us defenceless, but is more in line with wrong thinking that if no one has a gun, no one gets hurt.

When the Aussie gun buyback program began I told Stan, "This isn't going to solve anything. If people don't have guns, they'll use knives. If they don't have knives they'll use a baseball bat or a lead pipe. Anyone who really wants a gun will find a way to get it, ban or not, but law-abiding citizens will have no means of protection."

This is exactly what happened in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Stan and I were still living in Australia at both the time of the Port Arthur Massacre, as it's aptly named, as well as the ensuing gun seizure. It was sold as a good idea for seemingly right reasons that went terribly wrong.

In that massacre, 28-year-old Martin Bryant shot 35 people and injured another 21 at an outdoor cafe. Why Bryant did this was highly debated, but it's not really the point. The outcome is. This killing spree took place on April 28, 1996 and by Sept. 30 1997, the mandatory gun recall commenced.

Most Aussies willing handed over their weapons. A few balked, but the socialist mentality had them fall in line quickly. Americans are too independent, or so we think. In one month, more than 643,000 guns were handed in during the buyback. Buyback you say? Yes, the people paid for their own disarmament. "The Government raised $490 million through a one-off rise in the Medicare levy. The buyback cost almost $459 million, including compensation to dealers and firearms owners and administration payments to the States." 1

What the Labour Party (liberals) hoped to achieve – less crime – boomeranged with a vengeance. According to statistics kept by Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia, crime shot up. Way up.

This is a news article printed in the Sierra Times in 2001 by retired Coos County, Wash. Sheriff Michael E. Cook.

It seems that we still have some anti-gun types in the world who just don't get the picture yet. Not only is it the right of every free person to bear arms, it is a must for continued freedom from oppression and crime. I just don't know how it can be stated any simpler. You can not remove firearms from the hands of everyone. Criminals do not obey the law; if they did, we would not have a drug problem in this country. All one has to do is look at England, Australia, or Russia to see that. Or you can just look at Washington DC, New York City, or Los Angeles in America.

We all know that those in power who would take our guns from us have no interest in our protection; however, we do know that they want to rule us. History has shown over and over that those who would take our firearms will try to take over the government, and then the world. This is why so many see this as the first step in the one world government. The name of the game is doing away with your freedom and using the power that they gain by taking over you and yours to make you work for them as a slave. Then they can provide for your every need, and if you are a bad slave, they will kill you or remove something from you, like food, until you get back in line. That, my friends, is what it means to surrender your rights to a firearm.

Once they take firearms from the honest citizen, then you will become prey to the criminals, and it will get so bad that you will give up more and more rights in order to have the government take control and get rid of the criminals. The way they do that is by putting the criminals to work for them... controlling you. Now I hope you can see how this works.

Just by way of example, let me give you some information from Police Chief Ed Chenel from Australia. 12 month's after the honest citizens of Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms (at the cost to the tax payer in that country of $500 million dollars I might add), the crime rate went crazy.

In the first year homicides are up 3.2 percent, assaults up 8.6 percent, and robberies are up 44 percent in all of Australia. In the state of Victoria alone homicides with firearms are up 300 percent. This is a drastic swing in crime trends, as the previous 25 years in Australia showed a steady decrease in crime rate.

Now Chief Chenel says, "Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in [successfully ridding Australian society of guns]." The Chief also said, "The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note Americans, before it's to late!"

Sounds like they have some real stupid politicians in that country also. Isn't it funny how stupid they can be, when it serves their purpose to act that way?

The proclamation that we are asking the county commissioners to pass is not only a signal to the world that we are armed and ready to fight crime, it also tells the world and the people we elect that we believe in our rights to bear arms.

Many of those who would try and stop this have said, "Well what about domestic violence and accidental shootings?"

To this I answer, domestic violence is not usually about killing someone. People who do domestic violence are sometimes stopped by victims with firearms. The amount of firearms in a society has no effect what so ever on domestic violence in that society, or the amount of it. As for accidental shootings... we need nothing more than responsible ownership and education to stop accidents.

If this proclamation does pass, and one life is saved or one robbery is stopped because it was passed, it is worth it. I will be happy to see just a 1 percent drop in crime as a result of this proclamation.

We all need to look at this with some degree of common sense. The federal ban on any magazine for a firearm of over 10 rounds has not stopped one crime. The only people who have suffered from this are the honest citizen's who wanted a high capacity weapon for protection. Wasn't it nice to carry a handgun for protection with one magazine with fifteen rounds in it instead of one handgun and three eight round magazines? We must now stop and reload which could cost some innocent person their life.. This and many of the other stupid laws that were passed by those who would say they will stop and help control crime need to be taken off the books and the honest citizens in this nation trusted once more to do the right thing like they have always done. All you law makers out there quit picking on the honest citizens and follow your oaths... and do what you were elected or appointed to do.

Sheriff Michael E. Cook, Retired 2


Strategically, it would be smart for guns to be out of Americans' hands before the coming economic collapse rather than afterward when people are mad as hell. As Gerald Celente stated in his What's in Store for 2011 interview, "When people lose everything and they have nothing left to lose, they lose it." If you missed Celente's recent extended interview on Coast to Coast AM January 5, 2011, it's worth a listen.

Politicians are clever, and it only takes a terrible incident like this combined with the university campus shootings over the last several years to propel anti-gun legislation forward. As tragic as this is, don't be taken in and shoot yourself in the foot.



1 $30m Still Left in Gun Buyback Scheme; The Sunday Telegraph, December 5, 1999; ssaa.org.au/research/1999/1999-12-05_30million-still-left-gun-buyback-scheme.html
2 For Those Who Think Gun Control Is A Good Idea... Sheriff Michael E. Cook, August 14, 2001; sierratimes.com/archive/files/aug/14/sheriff.htm


http://standeyo.com/NEWS/11_USA/110109.gun.control.Holly.html