036496-senator-penny-wright

Reader JH writes:

Australian firearms owners scored a resounding victory in response to a Senate Inquiry that attempted to place blame on them for a perceived increase in firearms crime as we reported last week. The Senate Committee report entitled, “Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun-related violence in the community,” initiated and chaired by Australian Greens Senator Penny Wright last October after a siege in Adelaide, unanimously found that . . .

“1.158 Claims made in the media by the Chair, which The majority of Senators attending the inquiry believe are not substantiated by the evidence, include:
• most illegal guns are not trafficked into Australia, but stolen from registered owners;151 and
• many illicit firearms are actually stolen from legitimate sources or taken from the grey market, including the gun used in the Sydney siege.152
1.159 The hypothesis that illegal guns are mainly stolen from registered gun owners was not supported by the evidence presented to the Committee.”

The report went on:

“1.155 No case was made to the committee for any increased regulation around gun ownership laws. In particular there was no evidence to show that:
• banning semi-automatic handguns would have any material effect on the number of illegally held firearms in Australia;
• stricter storage requirements and the use of electronic alarm systems for guns stored in homes would have any impact on gun-related violence; and
• anomalies in federal, state and territory laws regarding the ownership, sale, storage and transit across state boundaries of legal firearms has any material impact on gun-related violence in the community.”

Of the eight committee members, six agreed to the findings with only Ian McDonald and Senator Wright objecting.

The committee heard evidence from a range of sources including Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, Victoria Police, New South Wales Police, Australian Federal Police, Australian Institute of Criminology, leading Australian criminologist Dr Samara McPhedran, Sporting Shooters Association Australia, John R Lott Jr and the Attorney General’s Department. The committee also received over 400 submissions from the public and numerous organisations, the overwhelming majority from firearms owners.

A day after the final report was released, Senator Wright took to radio to spout the usual claim that the “Senate inquiry had been hijacked by the gun lobby” and made sure to invoke that bogeyman term as much as she could.

Who is this Australian gun lobby? Hardly anyone it seems. Firearms owners in Australia are currently represented by a loose collection of sporting, hunting and collecting organizations, the largest of these being Sporting Shooters Australia, who are funded by their own members. The National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America do not have chapters in Australia last time we checked. Compare this with the monetary and political clout of Gun Control Australia and the bias becomes obvious.

The committee also heard testimony from renowned gun grabber Roland Browne of Gun Control Australia. This organisation, which has never released the records of just who it’s members and donors are, but somehow manage to receive more airtime than pro gun groups, were soundly rebutted by Senator McKenzie in a memorable exchange. Gun Control Australia were also at the center of controversy last year, when it tried to claim that a woman in Sydney who killed her father in 2010 did so by buying an automatic handgun (which are illegal in Australia) without a license at a firearms dealer.

The first ten seconds of their own video release (which was promptly pulled), clearly showed the factually correct account that she stole the semi-automatic pistol from the pistol club she was a member of. A glimpse of the response on their facebook page, (523 members, 522 of them firearms owners) tells the story. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. It’s clear that Gun Control Australia are that bad at lying that even Penny Wright can’t save them.

In perhaps the pick of the action, Wright took to her own facebook page on 10 April and again on 13 April, to try and claim she was never targeting legal gun owners even though the Greens Policy page says otherwise. Wright even tried to individually respond to the Facebook comments, some of her responses have to be seen to be believed for their ridiculousness.

Not surprisingly, the report also churned a number of biased hit pieces in response. The pick of these, being this blatantly misleading effort from “The Saturday Paper” writer Debra Jopson.

Among the most laughable claims:

Ms Jopson also states: “Hundreds of hunters and shooters sent individual missives into the inquiry’s inbox, as their peak bodies urged them to impress with sheer weight of numbers.”

Yes, how dare they exercise their rights to object. Also:

“Wright had to settle for a majority report written with Labor’s Joe Ludwig, Catryna Bilyk and Jacinta Collins, knowing that the two Liberals would produce their own dissenting version.”

Senator Joe Ludwig was the only other Senator to put his name to the report. Because two out of eight equals anmajority, right? A simple Google search of “Debra Jopson Greens” reveals not one but four articles spruiking Greens initiatives and writing for the Green Left weekly. Hardly a conflict of interest.

On a positive note, the report recommended:

1.224 The majority of Senators attending the inquiry recommend the Commonwealth review its contribution to firearms regulation in the context of the Reform of the Federation White Paper.

1.225 The majority of Senators attending the inquiry recommend State and territory governments investigate avenues to decrease regulation of the firearm industry to ease the economic burden on governments, industry and legal firearm users.

Mr David Hawker, who also gave evidence before the committee, suggested Australia move to New Zealand style gun laws. We can only hope this generates momentum for some much needed firearms reform and common sense in Australia.

Our kudos to Senator David Leyonhjelm and Senator Bridget McKenzie, both lifelong shooters and firearms owners, for standing up for Australian firearms owners. And kudos to Australian firearms owners for standing up for their own rights.

And we recommend Senator Penny Wright get some counselling. Or at least some tissues. Or her facts straight.

27 Responses to Latest Australian Gun Grab Effort Defeated

    • The comments are pretty darn good. Its good to see the greenie “nutters” having facts, logic and statistics used against them on facebook.

    • Colin Sanders: When Israel blocked the importation of Ammonia Nitrate (used for explosives) into Gaza, Hamas just switched to Urea Nitrate, what are you going to do, stop people from peeing?

      Senator Penny Wright: We don’t have to make it easy for them!

      Haha. Do we have any chemists here?

  1. Rebecca Peters from the Soros funded group IANSA got the first “gun ban” passed, seems the commonality in attempting to relive those wonderful gun grabbing days is rampant amongst the anti crowd. It seems the
    Senior Senator Dianne “if I had the votes for Mr. & Mrs. America to turn them all in.” Feinstien runs strong Down Under. Glad it was a #FAIL.
    The lesson is,
    The anti’s won’t f-ing ever stop. It’s like Whack A Mole, they are ruthless, lying, manipulating, elitist, ideology driven sicophants. But in this country, what Uncle Ted says is “over the line.” Ted Cruz is too extreme.
    They haven’t seen extreme yet.

    • I’ll never forget the debate she had with Wayne Lapierre in the UK. Among other gems, she stated that no one needs a firearm that can be lethal past 100 meters, and that those who enjoy recreational shooting should “find a different hobby”. She also went on about how Australia’s ‘real Crocodile Dundee’s’ agree with her that no real man needs more than a single shot gun. Her pig ignorance never stopped her from writing a large country’s gun control laws.

  2. Fun Fact: The evil baby eating gun lobby is the direct result of the 1996 and later gun laws, which requires that shooters join a national level or state level body when trying to get licensed based on sporting/recreational reasons.

  3. When it comes to Aussies, Kris Kristofferson was right — freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.

  4. Senator Penny Wright’s behaviour during the “inquiry” was certainly an embarrassment and should have been reprimanded for a breach of parliamentary etiquette. She would constantly cough and clear her throat when the pro-gun groups were giving evidence, especially during the SSAA presentations, and deliberately shortened the available time allocated to these groups to give evidence.

    She would also constantly disagree with the information provided by the state and federal police forces and the regulatory bodies. I think it was obvious the senate inquiry was to rubber stamp the opinions of the greens and the anti-gun journalists, both of whom are now very upset that their beliefs were not confirmed by “facts”.

    Gun Control Australia are a very secretive group, so secretive that it was impossible for several state police and the federal police to contact them for an invitation to comment on proposed legislation, but almost every journalist has them on speed-dial. They say this secrecy is for their own protection. But at the same time they want the names and addresses of all gun owners to be on unrestricted public record. Can anyone see the potential for abuse? The list is more-or-less out there with the NSW Police leaking a copy of the firearms registry database from their unsecured intranet in a “protected” (we are talking Microsoft Office document protection here) MS-Access document.

    It is ironic the greens and media whine about “The Power of the Gun Lobby”. We actually WISH we had the power they say we have. But at least we are a thoroughly grassroots organization as opposed to various astroturf groups. We have a long hard fight ahead of us. A parting shot is a link to an article referring to my range, and how we are presented in the media.

    http://www.sportingshootermag.com.au/news/marcus-blog-anzac-shooters-get-a-hammering

  5. “And we recommend Senator Penny Wright get some counselling. Or at least some tissues. Or her facts straight.”

    That could apply to many male and female sycophants of the Anti-Second Amendment crowd here in “the states.”

  6. As the great H.L. Mencken once famously said about another another progressive worldsaver:

    “…at a ’40s national convention. Looking across the room at a meeting, he spied a political harridan haranguing the crowd and remarked, “Look at that girl, makes you want to burn every bed in the world.”

    https://books.google.com/books?id=v7wnBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT73&dq=makes+you+want+to+burn+every+bed+in+the+world+-+mencken&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bxEzVd2tH4KNNp6UgPgN&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=makes%20you%20want%20to%20burn%20every%20bed%20in%20the%20world%20-%20mencken&f=false
    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2006/12/mencken_on_idio.html

  7. I have pointed out this Aussie situation to several gun ban types this week. They were spouting how banning guns in Australia resulted in a decrease in gun violence and spree shootings went down.

  8. People still think the buyback was a success here. Absolute morons. 3.25 million guns at the time, only 640,000 handed back – barely 20%. The only state to release the records of what exactly was handed in was Victoria and that showed that only 3% were Category D (semi-auto and automatic rifles). Most of those found their way back on to the streets thanks to corrupt cops who were selling them or keeping them for themselves. The firearm of choice for most at the time was the SLR or an AR/SKS and there’s plenty of those lying around which were never handed in. Don’t take us all for idiots, most gun owning Aussies saw it for what it was and didn’t play ball.

    Most of the firearms handed back were bolt or lever action and most gun owners used the money they got to go out and purchase new rifles. Not one criminal turned their guns in. It was a total joke. Furthermore, guns get in so easily through the border here as incoming freight is hardly checked so it was half a billion wasted on a public relations scheme.

    Luckily there seems to be some consensus and momentum in changing the laws to NZ style laws and getting rid of the registries. This bs by the Greens really fired up the firearms community, and also brainwashed Joe-average is finally starting to realise that the whole thing was a disarmament ploy and that he’s been had.

    The fight never stops.

  9. Rowland brown was absolutely humiliated at that inquiry. What usually is politicians dribbling on with boring nonsense turned into a scene from that was pure comedy in it’s worth.
    Here’s a sample
    Senator LEYONHJELM: Mr Browne, I am interested in a couple of points you made in your submission. First of all, can you tell me how many people are in your organisation?
    Mr Browne: I do not see that that question is relevant to the terms of this inquiry, and I object to it.
    Senator McKENZIE: You do not have a right to reject the question.
    CHAIR: You can choose to answer it or not, though, I think. You cannot make someone answer a question if they—
    Senator McKENZIE: On what grounds are you objecting to answering the question?
    Mr Browne: That it is beyond the terms of the inquiry.
    CHAIR: Generally, on the terms of the inquiry, we in the Senate tend to take a broad approach to the terms of reference. ‘And any other matters’ is a standard reference in a committee reference by the Senate. In a sense, I do not think you can be required to answer the question, but it is a question that is appropriate to be asked and can be asked.
    Mr Browne: Well, I am not going to answer the question.
    Senator LEYONHJELM: All right. I am just curious because there seems to be profound ignorance in your organisation. I am just wondering whether it is you or it goes beyond you.

    CHAIR: Is there a question, Senator Leyonhjelm?
    Senator LEYONHJELM: Yes, I am leading to a question. There is a statement that says:
    Virtually all Commonwealth and Olympic pistol shooting competitions allow for participation by people with single shot handguns.
    Could you just explain what you mean by that.
    Mr Browne: It means exactly what it says. If it needs to be explained: participation in virtually all Commonwealth and Olympic events involving handguns involves the shooter being able to choose whether they participate with a semiautomatic handgun or a single-shot handgun.
    Senator LEYONHJELM: So, for the rapid-fire match which involves shooting five shots within six seconds, you can choose to shoot with a single-shot pistol, can you?
    Mr Browne: No.
    Senator LEYONHJELM: How do you opt to shoot that match with a single-shot pistol?
    Mr Browne: You do not. The submission says ‘virtually all’.
    Senator LEYONHJELM: You are excluding that one?
    Mr Browne: It does not say ‘all’. If you read it carefully, it does not say ‘all events’.
    Senator LEYONHJELM: For the 25-metre match, which involves shooting five shots within 10 seconds, I think it is, in the final series, can you shoot with a single-shot pistol?
    Mr Browne: Say it again. What was the match again?
    Senator LEYONHJELM: The 25-metre match.
    Mr Browne: Are you talking about the Olympic or the Commonwealth Games event?
    Senator LEYONHJELM: The same matches. It used to be known as ‘sports pistol’; it is not anymore.
    Mr Browne: Is it an Olympic or a Commonwealth Games event?
    Senator LEYONHJELM: It is certainly Commonwealth. I think it might be Olympic as well.
    Mr Browne: It is not a practical shooting event?
    Senator LEYONHJELM: No.
    Mr Browne: Well, it is the same answer.
    Senator LEYONHJELM: What is the answer?
    Mr Browne: The same as before: it requires a semiautomatic.
    Senator LEYONHJELM: Indeed. Which Commonwealth and/or Olympic matches do not require semiautomatic pistols, Mr Browne?
    Mr Browne: From memory, something like 95 per cent of them. There are a handful that do.
    Senator LEYONHJELM: Can you name any?
    Mr Browne: Not at the moment, no. I can get that information to you if you would like that information.

    CHAIR: You can take that on notice, Mr Browne.
    Senator LEYONHJELM: You can take it on notice if you like, yes. I am just curious to know what these ones are because I am not familiar with them. We will move on. Your argument is that alarm systems ought to be compulsory for firearms in the home. We heard evidence yesterday that a significant proportion of stolen firearms occur in rural areas. How would an alarm system help in a rural area?
    Mr Browne: For the same reason that people in rural areas have alarm systems on their home: they are preventative measures to stop theft. I do not understand how an alarm system in a rural area would fail to prevent theft differently to how it would prevent theft in an urban area. It is exactly the same.
    Senator LEYONHJELM: It is exactly the same, is it? Okay.
    Mr Browne: Well the alarm works the same way. If somebody enters the premises, the alarm goes off and it can then have a variety of consequences. It can lead to a call being put through to the owner’s mobile phone alerting them to the fact that the alarm has gone off or it can be an alarm that sends a message to a security company telling them that the alarm has gone off and they can contact police. It can have, as I say, a variety of consequences.
    Senator LEYONHJELM: Have you actually ever been on a rural property, Mr Browne?
    Mr Browne: Yes, I have.
    Senator LEYONHJELM: And how far away was anybody capable of responding? Let us assume on the property you were on an alarm went off. What would be the potential responses to that alarm?
    Mr Browne: I spend every summer on a beef and cattle farm in central Victoria. The owners of that property have a mobile phone and an alarm system, which when triggered sends a message to the mobile phone. The owner of the property, the farmer, would be either on his motorcycle or in his four-wheel drive feeding his sheep or cattle. If he gets that message, he would be able to drive back to his farmhouse and find out exactly what has triggered the alarm. I have an alarm on my house and I am in pretty much the same situation. If the alarm goes off, I respond to it wherever I am.
    Senator LEYONHJELM: So your friend has mobile phone coverage across his entire farm, does he?
    Mr Browne: He does, yes.
    Senator LEYONHJELM: And how many farms do you think are that lucky?
    Mr Browne: I could not answer that.
    Senator LEYONHJELM: I understand you have rural experience—
    Mr Browne: I thought with the NBN we were going to see large parts of Australia covered with broadband that would facilitate this very sort of thing. Rural areas were going to get wireless coverage.
    Senator McKENZIE: The National Party looks forward to your support at the next election, Mr Browne.
    Senator LEYONHJELM: The other area I am interested in exploring with you is your reference to stock poaching. Based on your obvious rural experience I am curious as to how the misuse of legal guns relates to stock poaching.
    Mr Browne: I am in Tasmania. I am recalling one report of animals being shot in central Tasmania I think about a year ago. In my view, if you use a firearm to shoot somebody else’s property and you steal it, it is an illegal use of the firearm. Just like threatening your spouse with a firearm, shooting out road signs and shooting a person are all illegal uses of a firearm.
    Senator LEYONHJELM: Indeed. But if we shoot our spouse we do not call it spouse poaching, do we? You referred to the term ‘stock poaching’. What was that referring to?
    Mr Browne: Shooting animals and stealing them.
    Senator LEYONHJELM: In which order?
    Mr Browne: You would shoot it and then you would take it away.
    Senator LEYONHJELM: I see. Okay.
    CHAIR: When we have someone on a teleconference if we are going to make jokes and asides we need to make sure that we speak up because all they hear is the laughter and it is not fair if they do not know what the comment has been.
    Senator REYNOLDS: Absolutely. The whole point of the AIC report, which you have quoted, is that increased legislation is not required. It is just a very small percentage of registered gun owners who are not compliant. If more effort were put into compliance, then it would reduce further the rate of guns that are being stolen. The interesting thing from the testimony yesterday that I would like your thoughts on is that at least 90 per cent—the New South Wales and Victoria Police said that the latest figures were even higher—are long-arms and not pistols. The Victoria Police said they had six handguns stolen last year, and there was no evidence that any one of them was actually used in the commission of a crime. In fact, both New South Wales and Victoria Police were talking about organised crime sourcing their semiautomatic pistols from the illegal market and not from theft. Therefore the opinion I came to from their evidence yesterday was very much that the issue is the approximately 260,000 weapons on the black market and the grey market, not the very few that are stolen from registered gun owners.
    Mr Browne: That all went through a bit quickly for me. Surely, you are not saying that there are 260,000 handguns in the black market, are you? Was that guns generally?
    Senator REYNOLDS: No, it is 10,000 handguns and 240,000 to 250,000 long-arms which, as you would be aware, can be modified.
    Mr Browne: Yes. You put that question to me as if there is a disconnect between guns that are stolen and the black market. I do not accept that assumption. In my view, guns that are stolen around Australia move into the black market. That is inevitably where they go.
    Senator McKENZIE: Where is the evidence base for that? Mr Browne, if you could actually review the evidence of the police officers yesterday when Hansard comes out, we would really appreciate your perspective because that evidence really is incongruent with your assertions.

  10. And it gets better
    Senator Mckenzie: thank you so much. In reading your submission I am wondering about the evidentary basis upon which you meant make quite sweeping claims of banning handguns. It is almost as if the more guns we have- pistols or longarms- in the community by licensed, law abiding, sporting shooters, hunters and indeed farmers is automatically going to lead to more gun violence when in fact the evidence that we have heard thus far within our committee and the vast majority of our submissions simply do not back up that. Mr Browne, when I rea your submission it is strong on rhetoric and very short on factual evidence. Could you provide the committee the evidentiary basis on which you make your claims?
    Mr Browne: Firstly, the firearms lobby in Australia is very well resourced. They have their own researches which come to the conclusion that the 1996 reforms have been unsuccessful. The changes in the type of guns available in Australia, it is said has made no difference to the gun death rates, gun suicide rates and the like.
    Bridget Mckenzie: with respect mr browne, it is not any gun lobby evidence that we heard; it was the New South Wales police and victoria police evidence that we heard which backs up what we are saying. Out of 48,000 handguns only six were stolen, and we cannot be sure how many of them were actually used in any gun related violence. So the number is from the police departments, both in new South Wales and victoria, and simply do not back up your claim. It is not the gun lobby. I just wanted to make sure that you are focusing, not on the gun lobby; but on the police forces’ evidence.

  11. just mention Penny Wright & you have bias against gun ownership
    Couldn’t ask for a more loaded senate enquiry
    Greens actively seeked bias material & got squat
    Roland Browne writes his reports on top of his own reports & has for years, recently he shut down his research & website due to lack of donations
    Because of this senate inquiry I open carry more, yes that’s right in Australia you can carry a firearm in public, be it on a road to where you hunt, to the gun shop in the middle of town, crown land; as long as it isn’t loaded.
    Smoke me Penny Wright & the cloud you road in on

    • Probably not. It wasn’t like they had gun laws like Indiana before 1996.

      Concealed or open carry were just as restrictive. And owning a firearm for self defense wasn’t a good reason.

      To put it in perspective, the gun groups hope to move towards New Zealand style laws….. And they are worse than Canada!

    • We’re working on it but if it were that easy we would have done it years ago. It’s an uphill battle and we have both won and lost ground and we should also mention that our government has secretly ratified the un arms trade treaty. With Almost no one to trust down here makes it really difficult.

  12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjPEdEaS8eY

    Senate inquiry where Australian Federal police assistant commissioner Julian Slater refute leftists claims….especially the theft from gun owners BS…..Nov 1 2014….

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P3Etjp_WK0

    Man, thought gun owners were so irresponsible, yet only 6 guns stolen out of 48,000 in Victoria…..

    Hilariously they admit 68% of incidents that the guns were locked up

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-big-sting/2007/02/09/1170524303995.html?page=fullpage

    Aw, government agent sold the turned in guns to gangs, another leeland yee eh….
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/no-sign-of-stolen-rocket-launchers/story-e6frg6o6-1225787746734

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-30/navy-base-security-breach-larrakeyah-darwin/4400646

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html

    Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence, by Samara McPhedran and Jeanine Baker, published in the Justice Policy Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2011

  13. https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf

    http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/24D4F763D69B9C0ECA256BDC00122407?opendocument

    You all realize australia only reports crimes solved just like mother england eh….

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4510.0main+features82013
    http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4510.02011?OpenDocument

    http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/F/F/B/%7bFFB9E49F-160F-43FC-B98D-6BC510DC2AFD%7dmr01.pdf

    More links on the failure of australian gun control…..

    http://news.yahoo.com/8-children-killed-home-northern-australia-055027435.html

    8 killed by stabbing, thought this couldn’t occur because law abiding subjects were disarmed!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GPPxGX8pdA

    Amazing how full autos, home made, are showing up in criminals hands these days!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUTdtXE4Rj8

    Hells Angels, Outlaws went to war in the 1990’s in Australia also

    http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1888288,00.html

    Bikie gang killings 2009

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MMzKEXW48Q

    Bike gang wars

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO5Eh0QBGTQ

    More bikie gang violence

    http://news.motorbiker.org/blogs.nsf/dx/australia-escalating-biker-gang-war.htm
    Imagine that, fighting over turf to sell drugs!

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/05/11/idUSSYD1644

    Bikie gangs 2007, violence escalating again, imagine that, thought you mateys took all the law abiding subjects guns, oh wait, you didn’t take the criminals, what morons!

    http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/some-notes-on-claims-about-australias.html?m=1

    http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-gun-crime

    http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/two-men-blasted-by-shotguns-in-driveby-attack-in-bankstown-three-arrested/story-fnii5s3x-1226754623560

    http://www.ballinaadvocate.com.au/news/new-plan-unveil-tackle-out-of-control-gun-violence/1992835/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

    http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/3/2/A/%7B32A6FD1D-AF18-432E-9A46-76E42EEA9755%7Dcfi176.pdf

    http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2013/06/14/381425_tasmania-news.html
    “A Transcript of the Police Interview With Martin Bryant” http://loveforlife.com.au/content /07/10/30/transcript-police-interview-martin-bryant

    http://aic.gov.au/documents/8/9/D/ %7b89DEDC2D-3349-457C-9B3A-9AD9DAFA7256%7dmr13_004.pdf

    National homicide report identifies the vast majoirty of guns used in crimes, werent registered……hmmmmmm…LOL

    http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2008_10/suicide/submissions/sub42_pdf.ashx
    On Australian drug overdose deaths which NIH researchers believe cause a 20% to 40% undercount in suicide see

    
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/overdose-deaths-pass-national-road-toll-for-first-time/story-fni0fee2-1226705302834

    On top of that, Australia’s probative burdens on suicide rulings by coroners were made stricter about 15 years ago, which caused an immediate false and sustained lowering of suicide statistics rates simply due to policy changes.


    https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2010/192/8/achieving-standardised-reporting-suicide-australia-rationale-and-program-change

    By the way not only are drug overdose suicides undercounted by 20% to 40% within drug overdose deaths, drug overdose deaths themselves are undercounted in western countries


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8447863

    It is a slam dunk Australia’s suicide rate is substantially up, with the rise starting in about 1998, about the same time as the statistical undercount was created by the changes in probative burdens created by the Australian Health ministry – as noted in dozens of peer reviewed papers on the substantial undercount

    Isnt it hilarious how australia, canada and england for strates have the same victimization reports like the US, they show the same result, over 70% of all violent crimes committed are never reported….

    http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/bcs1011tech1?view=Binary


    http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/arti
    http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts/1-20/2012/3_victimisation.html

    http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/facts/2012/facts12.pdf

  14. How Edward physically handles her is like a mere child.
    32 probability value (or 32% probabilty) falls short of
    qualifying, and hence the picnic will have to be cancelled.

    This means that it can be used in any number of productions; common uses for stock footage are documentaries,
    television programmes, news items, sports reviews, independent films, commercials,
    and movies.

  15. For Australia and England/Great Britain: Basic concept IMO is that IF you cannot guarantee that you can protect every citizen from violence then you have no right to take away their tools of protection. If you do, then you need to be sued every time that someone is injured or killed because they did not have access to the protective tools to defend themselves. Even without the 2nd Amendment in those countries, it is morally and ethically WRONG to take the tools of defense away from your citizens. Worse yet, in England, if you are attacked you can be sent to jail if you even use a butcher knife to defend yourself. Rise up citizens and get back your rights. Don’t let the oppressors enslave you. Change your laws NOW.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *