It Can Get Strange When Atheists & Christians Argue

You could fill the Grand Canyon a 1000 times over with all the A4 Pages you could write about some of the absurdity that pops up when Atheists & Christians argue. Part of the problem is there's quite a few on both sides who maybe don't understand Scripture as well as they should before they start arguing for it or against it.

Really it should be easy. There's a reference document, go there and read then quote but the trouble is reading & quoting without proper study & understanding will trip both sides up very quickly.
I notice in the recent SSM argument it gets similarly messy and the thing both sides need to employ when using Scripture is "proper in context exegesis", or in other words, saying what it says in the way that it means what its supposed to mean. Fact is, anyone can twist Scripture to mean something outside its intent. Need examples just go look at the famous and incredibly rich TV Evangelists. Sorry but there's nothing that says a person is to become a pastor in order to amass an obscene amount of personal wealth from the congregation.

Here's a snippet from a Twitter stoush which was over Fr Rod Bower's comment that "Dutton is a Sodomite"

 So its Twitter, there's a handful of characters available to rail against one another, hard to get much meat out of a stoush on Twitter at the best of times but there's 2 faults here. Yes the drawing has what appears to be 2 male lions entering an ark, lost point the pair of deer in front are the same gender too if you know your deer...but no that's not it. Point one, its not from the Bible, the 40 authors who wrote the 66 books did not have an illustrator. It is what it is, its a sloppy and lazy cheap shot. It happens, it is what it is...irrelevant to the debate but that's life.

The big point the tweeter made was about people wearing clothes made of 2 different fibres. Now that's been put up to show the absurdity of Christians today who want SSM disallowed & still oppose homosexual relations yet they don't wear clothes of one fibre. Its to highlight that Christians are hypocrites and therefore you can dismiss everything from them.

Now there's a couple of answers here..."Father" Rod Bowers presumably wears clothes of 2 fibres so with that logic he's a hypocrite to the atheist protesting and therefore we should dismiss everything he says too stands to reason. But that doesn't happen because the atheist in this case is employing an intellectually bankrupt technique that Edward De Bono referred to as "arrogance arguing" where you never ever make a point that your opposition hasn't seen which could diminish your own argument. Its one of the many barriers to finding the best result for fairness...its also why I'm not a total fan of debating in school.

Thing is the 2 fibres thing is a part of Mosaic Law.
The temple was destroyed in 70AD so Mosiac Law cannot be practiced anymore, indeed Christ said he came to fulfil the law so Mosaic Law is gone. Add to that, it only ever applied to the Hebrews of Pre 70AD. In the days prior there were plenty of Gentiles or non Jews worshipping the same God as the Jews, yes even in the Temple of Jerusalem but only certain things applied to them and they actually had restrictions and could not go past the "Court of the Gentiles". In any case Mosaic Law did not apply to them. Add to that no one in that time who could keep the Mosaic Law was sin free...otherwise they would not have to have a blood sacrifice in the temple would they? Indeed the purpose of Mosaic Law was to show the Law couldn't save you, only a blood sacrifice could and it was a foreshadow of the real blood sacrifice of a "kinsman redeemer" to come (also foreshadowed in the Book of Ruth) who we know today as Jesus.

So with Christ's coming and crucifixion the Law & indeed the sacrifices practiced at the temple were fulfilled & done. So too Mosaic Law was fulfilled and can't really be followed by Jews today if they read & realised.

Then there's another lost point, Rod Bowers calls himself "Father" and the Scriptures are pretty clear on that...you never call anyone in regards to faith "Father" except God the Father. That and a number of other (non Mosaic Law) passages point out the qualifications for the office of pastor.
Rod fails.

So there are some athiests who don't believe in the Christian God, who use Scripture they don't believe in, entirely the wrong way to argue again, against the God they don't believe in as a form of support for a "pastor" who isn't technically qualified to be in the job...that is the job he doesn't do properly.

Rod Bowers job is (among other things) is to go out into the world and make disciples of people. That's what Scripture says. He's supposed to be Berean like using the Scripture properly as it is intended...he doesn't. He's supposed to help people see & understand and get them to choose to repent and turn away from their sins and accept Christ as saviour...as Scripture very very clearly instructs.

He doesn't. What he does is reduce the number of sins, draw close to Islam which is a completely different God that opposes Christian Scripture completely all to allow more people to come into his doors. He's singing from a hymn sheet that scratches itching ears but has no depth nor truth.

As a result he becomes the faux "Christian" priest that's acceptable to atheists and he deliberately twists or omits Scripture to allow sinners of different stripes to continue their sins that are clearly labelled as sins in the Bible.

Its not long and his supporters pull this often repeated beauty. Its meant as an outflanking argument for Christians who follow Christ's Word.

Here's the angle employed. The idea is get the Christian to quote exactly where Christ Himself said something against homosexuality. They are keen to cite Christ's Word on Love forgiveness, Love Thy Neighbour etc...

The idea is to show Christ is all about Love and Never Ever was against homosexuality.

Here's where it crumbles and it centres on the Atheist again wrongly using the Scripture they don't believe in to try & outfox the God they don't follow & gazump the believer they don't like so as to make anything they want to do acceptable. Its as odd as a $3 note and it implodes quickly or rather would if BOTH sides of the debate knew & understood the Bible properly. They often don't so its a stand off.

Here's the thing, both sides could do a proper in context exegesis of Scripture and find the Words of the Gospel are God breathed. It says that in no uncertain terms. Therefore what John, Peter, Mark, Luke, Paul are saying is actually the Word of God. And who does the Bible say the Word is? Christ.

So when Paul goes on about the practice of homosexuality being sin etc its not his opinion. Its the Word of Christ. Its what Christ said...and its pretty clear.

And the reply to that will be silence or mockery.

You don't have to believe in the Word of the Bible and most people won't believe it but if you're going to use it, you should use it properly. Its not easy though and it takes some effort of perhaps some guidance but Scripture says you're to be Berean like, listen to what the pastor says then "search the Scriptures daily to see if it is so"

So in other words...go to the Reference Document and use proper in context exegesis...maybe you're twisting it falsely. If you don't read & digest it properly as it's meant to be then you've made up your own mind to go pre-suppositional. You've attained a stance without research.

To do that you need to be very determined in your stance despite no research & realise the atheist relies on their faith.

It's at this point you have to admit it takes lots more faith to be an atheist.


Workplace Gender Equality. What actually is it? What's it look like?

I think it'll be a lot clearer in about 10 years time, but at present it's a little fluid like, a bit like smoke in the wind. Looking at one workplace, BHP its very well worth a look. It has to be said that at the coal face, morale in BHP is not good, in some areas its pretty bad.

On top of this, BHP now has a policy that some mine management & project management has to be 30% women. Its a noble idea, an understandable ideal and over 10 years or more it will probably turn into something beneficial for most if not all in the work place but at present its not helping and possibly adding to the already poor level of morale on sites.

At present there are some positions where its thought that preference was given to women because they are women. Debatable, possible who knows but there's more than a few people who weren't vying for those positions who believe it's difficult on any given day to find both (REPEAT BOTH) QUALIFIED & EXEPERIENCED applicants who also happen to be female.

As a result, some projects haven't, in some people's minds got the best person for the job. Now time will fix that. If the person isn't suitably qualified or experienced they'll either get training & experience as they go and will have suitably trained & experienced people around them in the meantime.

Time will fix this problem.

Sadly in the meantime some women may get labelled fairly or unfairly as Quota Queens or Merit Deserts. I understand the timeline imperative they have pencilled in & with staff turnover and the passage of time those women will get up to speed and be vital team members. Some however will be experienced, trained qualified and the right choice for a given job & there's a chance (hopefully diminished) of unfair sledges of "jobs for the girls"

We do need to ramp the effort in encouraging women that if there's a particular career they're after it is achievable. And yes, they need to navigate how marriage and child birth is factored in, (if they want those things) in such a way that they're not disadvantaged in their career pathway. That protective structure isn't there yet. It shouldn't be viewed as a free kick at goal, but a simple matter of equality & the goal should be the lack of inequality/penalty.

I do notice the Aust Institute of Company Directors (AICD) is still pushing hard for equal numbers of men & women in company boards & it is a nice ideal. However there just isn't one woman for every man seeking a corporate career at CEO level let alone board level. It also stands out that there's no similar push by them for women truck drivers, plumbers, brick layers, welders, train drivers, fishing boat skippers, labourers, sheet metal workers, crane operators and a 50:50 ratio. At present its high paying white collar jobs not blue collar that gets the focus. That's going to pop up and cause angst the ranks as we try to get women into jobs they really want.

It is a thing that there are many financially successful tradies of either gender who never went to University. I think the lost focus is all honest work is noble and noble work should be everyone's aim. Having a sole desire of very high paid work, that's high in status & public eye isn't all its cracked up to be...that and not everyone will make it there.

I seriously think women may need more mentoring than men in some fields as many still see the glass ceiling in front of them. In earlier days when I wore a younger man's clothes the women who excelled longer were the ones who were first into the boardroom & then set about installing their own glass ceiling to build a position of personal advantage. I asked 3 women who are successful company directors & 2 admitted that's exactly what they did and were along the lines of you gotta do what you gotta do if you want to be your best. The 3rd said it cost her 8 years of proper progress. She was on the end of another woman's glass ceiling. Its not class traitorhood, most people male or female in those particular boards at that particular level are equally capable of pulling the same trick.

Workplace Gender Equality should be the best person for the job irrespective of their gender, gets the job & then gets ongoing training and support to improve in their field. Simple.

Now its going to get more complex in years to come as some people fear the other gender activists who believe there are actually in excess of 200 genders and that wrongly only male & female are accepted at present.

Goal posts in gender equality appear to be made of thick smoke in a swirling breeze. I think workplaces should be busy encouraging supporting and even if possible mentoring. I think the political parties all have a role to play. It may be as simple as pushing people, groups, schools, companies to take a lead role facilitating mentoring programmes and open advice channels.

It should ideally get to a point where the best person gets the job, irrespective of their gender. Its going to get even more confusing where we see activist groups telling us there are actually more than 200 genders and no one is confined to the traditional male & female genders. Apparently we are no longer "constrained by the traditional, outdated & oppressive 2 gender system".
I wish I was kidding, more so I wish the people telling me this were kidding.

I was gobsmacked to hear this, now we need another 200+ genders spread out over the board rooms.

And after all this, activists and well meaning corporate Australia forgot a vital part of AICD training (unless its been dropped). You represent the share holders, that's who you owe the fiduciary duty to.
You are not Nominee Directors representing a chosen group among society's demographic and indeed if you are a Nominee Director you're put there by a stakeholder group but your primary fiduciary duty is not to your Nominators, its to the shareholders and perpetuity of the company.

That point is lost in the twirling smoke. That and directors for example are performance driven positions, not social benchmarks. Worth reminding as it'll be forgotten by some quite quickly and often.

We are in an age of rampant protest, many rebels without a clue, many people who are very keen to fight for a principle but probably won't be content if it is afforded to them as they wish.

Its this social warrior set that may have once pushed hard for gender equality but now that set has evolved into a more unreasonable crowd where the battle any battle is more important than the improved social change.
If this is the case, these people can (and have in the past) made things worse for young women with aspirations, plans and the guts to work hard. We owe it to them to ensure they find good mentors they're comfortable with so they can be all they can be.
Its what is right, but its not a fight of revolutionary proportions and we as a society need no unnecessary backlashes blocking the path.

How to talk Firearms without looking like a right Goose

There is this thing, where some folk will try to talk the talk of the folk they're around on a subject they're not really up to speed on. Its then that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing or perhaps the perception you have enough knowledge leads you onto being viewed as a right pretentious nong.

If you're learning about firearms tell the firearms person you're talking to you're learning about firearms. Honesty goes a long way...who knew?

But here's some useful dot points...

1. Weapons. They're not weapons, they're firearms or guns. A weapon is something you use to threaten, injure or kill another person. A weapon is an object of intent. Target shooters, sporting shooters, clay target shooters...they use firearms not weapons. Soon as you use the word weapon in relation to the use by a sporting shooter, a primary producer or a recreational hunter, you've lost them and you've attained idiot status. Never call them weapons unless you're talking about killing people.
2. Rifles & Shotguns. 2 different things, neither is the other. Shotguns fire "shot" or small lead balls sometimes a solid slug. The balls have measurements and each is designed for slightly different purposes.
   Rifles fire a projectile, that's the lead bit on the end of the bullet. The word rifle comes from the fact a rifle barrel has "rifling" or a twisting lathed in set of grooves that make the project twist & spin & therefore make it much more stable in flight. Shotguns do not have rifling. The rifle's "rate of twist" refers to how many inches in length it takes for the rifling to do a full revolution, it varies depending on the rifle the calibre etc.
3. Sniper rifle. Bit of a twisted term. Really isn't a true "sniper" only rifle. Snipers in WW1 etc were marksmen who cold hit a target from a longer distance. In those days & even during the second world war it wasn't uncommon for some marksmen to use civilian hunting rifles. You really should not call any rifle a "sniper" rifle unless the owner & user is a "sniper" who legally shoots people from a long distance...police military. Any person calling themselves a sniper when they're a member of the public would be consider by most sporting shooters to be a right royal idiot & probably should play golf only.
4. Assault rifle. Again a bit of odd one. Unless you're going into battle you have a gun, not a battle rifle. In quite a few countries hunters use semi automatic centrefire rifles for hunting. In fact the AR-15 in civilian hands is often referred to as being a "semi auto sporting rifle". They can be used for hunting and are used I a number of competitive shooting sporters in many overseas countries. In Australia they're Cat D firearms which means a special "Ag permit" is required for vermin control or in the case of W.A. completely prohibited unless you're Police, Military.
5. Speaking "assault rifles" quite a few people think the "AR" in AR-15 (or AR-10) stands for Assault rifle. It doesn't it stands for "Armalite Rifle" the predominant producer of the AR-15 at one time, it was their model designation for that particular semi automatic and it stuck.
6. Appearance laws. There's a section in the (Aust states) firearm's legislation that says police can ban a firearm because it merely has the "appearance" of being military. It has caused some bolt action firearms being banned. Oddly you can buy a Remington 700 in any calibre you like and you'll be legal, but drop the barrel & trigger action into a black stock with picatinny rail for mounting accessories & a pistol grip you'll have a hard time getting it licenced in some states. Why? Apparently it looks more dangerous. Appearance laws are also odd in that they rely on subjective approach. Notable example of a dumb result of subjective judgement was the eastern states police commissioner holding up a black firearm that was seized that he stated was an "automatic of some sort". It was of course a bolt action rifle. Idiot level high.
7. Silencers - If you want to look smart don't call them silencers because well they don't silence like in the movies. Most people in firearms call them suppressors or moderators, some still call them silencers but less and less these days. Slang term is a "can".
   Supposedly invented by the same person who invented the car muffler. True or not, the concept is identical. It lessons the noise and if you have a suppressor that reduces you're shot noise to below 140dB you have a shot (due to the long barrel & forward projection of the sound) that is safe without hearing protection.
   Reject Hollywood. they do not work of revolvers as they have a gap between the cylinder & the forcing cone. Work better in semi Auto rifles but work extremely well in bolt action rifles. 100% legal with no fuss in NZ and some countries there are areas where you MUST use them. Why they're not used in all rifles ranges I'll never know.
   They have disadvantages, they need to be properly cleaned regularly & they can reduce the muzzle velocity a little (the power of the bullet).
   They are illegal in Australia although I'm told there is provision in Victorian regulations to allow them with a permit. I'd imagine if that's the case its a difficult permit to get. Yes they'd be fairly easy to make, but few if any firearms owners would make one as it means big fins possible jail time and complete loss of licence.
   Where they really come into their own is hunting. It allows the hunter to hunt without ear muffs and having full situational awareness for dangerous prey like pigs and still being about to take the shot without damage.
8. Odd banned guns. Remington make several pump action rifles. One is a .223 the other a .308.
   In WA you'll have to own 2000+ acres or permission from the land owner of 2000+ acres to own one in .308. The .223 would be easy to get without 2000 acres but its Cat D, completely banned in WA unlike other states. Why?
   The manufacturer decided to make the firearm more affordable by using existing designs for a the magazine. It uses a magazine that will fit the Cat D AR-15.
   That's it. No other reason than the shape of the magazine. You can get the more powerful .308 pump action with a 10 shot magazine, but it doesn't fit the AR anything.
9. WA is by far the dearest state in Australia to pay firearms licencing. How dear?
   Imagine this scenario. You've never had a firearms licence. You apply for your licence, you end up paying for 5 years of licencing and say on year 2 or 3 you apply for an additional firearm. How much in Government fees will you have forked out?
   In WA $780 but just across the border into the Northern Territory under $150.
   No one in WA Licencing can explain why & no one in the NT wants to comment at all.
10. Rapid Fire. Term used in the Adler debacle. Its a relative term and not terribly useful. Certainly is a highly twistable notion. For example if you put the 5 shot Lever Action up against the double barrel shotgun here's the result.
    
    2 shots the double barrel wins because most double barrels can fire 2 shots at once.
    5 shots the lever action is faster.
    10 shots its toss of the coin but if its an under/over shotgun with shell ejectors then the double barrel wins every time.
    
    The whole claim gets weirder though when you consider most semi auto shot guns only hold 5 rounds, but you can have 5 speed loaders hanging off your belt.
11. High Capacity Magazine - Very odd term that makes firearms owner scratch their head. Think about it what exactly is "high capacity"? But before you answer with what you think is the answer let us know what low capacity, medium capacity and normal capacity is. With some firearms wrongly called high capacity when they only hold 8 you wonder about other firearms that hold 6, 8 or 10 quite legally are. Its a term used to demonise more often than not perhaps
12. "No one needs guns" is an interesting claim. No one needs cars that go 200km/h but here we are. Interesting how there's a meme getting around showing the armed guards taking in the voting slips for the Brownlow in a locked box with the caption "Can't defend your family with a firearm but armed guards are needed to carry voting slips for the Brownlow" - Tis an odd world. Firearms are used for sport & carrying out business for some people controlling vermin or recreational hunting. Bit like saying "Don't want a SSM don't get one" - Don't want a gun don't get one, or go out with hunters or pest controllers nor visit a gun range. Fact is less than 3% of all firearms used in crime are stolen or sourced from lawful owners. Most are home made or smuggled into the country.

WA Police Pay Dispute

Very discouraging to see a group that has limited ability to engage in industrial action be left hanging as WA Police are. Made even more uncomfortable for those of us watching is the WAPolice have a routinely high hazard job. As far as the pay dispute goes they're limited to what they can do legitimately due to public safety.

Then it gets even more weird and frankly wrong.
THE party of the worker WALabor is the main roadblock to a fair industrial agreement.
If Philip Collier & Albert Hawke were alive today they'd be as wild as hell & utterly unimpressed.
And yes I have said it before, they may even consider joining up with the NationalsWA on this issue because goodness knows they're the only alternative to the Labor/Liberal Duopoly.

I am glad the Natonals have sided up & spoke at a WAPolice rally on the issue. Emergency Services  need to know there's a political voice for them whether they vote for them or not. There needs to be a political party who stands for first responders even if there's no votes in it. It should be the case because its ethically right & then put in a full stop.
My personal view is the WAPolice should get the promised 1.5% pay rise but even at the risk of putting a dent in the budget they should get so much more. There should have been one party that has sorted out a proper full coverage Workers Comp for Police.

But wait there's more. They should have full family health insurance paid for by the government, by us. When I say full, I mean full medical dental & ancillaries. It should be something our professional first responders from Police, Fire Ambos should never ever have to worry about.
They go into the danger zones, with heightened training, risk assessment skills, protective gear because they're high risk so it only stands to reason as simple logic they get the full suite of coverage from us.

Yes, I'd push it further. I think all Police, Ambos & Fire fighters should, along with top shelf counselling services also have family membership to the Paraplegic Benefits Fund in the event of serious spinal injury either at work or whilst off duty.

Why? Because there is absolutely no viable reason why not.

Some folk claim the Emergency Services get paid handsomely but I don't. I think for what they do its close to reasonable, but not yet reasonable. I think its highly unreasonable they don't get full family medical insurance, full family dental insurance, full worker's compensation coverage and full family PBF membership. The peace of mind it would generate, the genuine good will it would offer is deserved and baseline bare minimum if we are to protect those who protect us.

I think Emergency Services & the Teaching profession should be in a perfect world, the hardest professions to get into but the most highly paid and recompensed. THAT is proper future proofing for the state of WA.

In the meantime, whilst we're a long way from that grand ideal I have to dip my hat to the NationalsWA for taking more of an interest in the WAPolice pay dispute.

If I was to use a hashtag #ProtectThoseWhoProtectUs.

It makes sense and its fair. I'm deeply concerned that both halves of the Labor/Liberal Duopoly don't currently have those as core attributes to their political culture.

Mr McGowan Mr Wyatt...did your parents not teach you to never lie to the Police?

WALabor - What are they thinking?

Probably not a lot some might argue they certainly have the numbers in the Lower House of the WA Parliament, but its hard to think that without counting.

Which such a huge number of WALabor MPs in the Lower House barely half of them need to actually show up for a vote to get a bill passed in the Lower House.

Quite often many are absent.

Well that's their own advantage so they should use it as they see fit. Especially good if those absent are doing other work for the state's benefit then it's not such a bad thing in principle.

What WALabor still hasn't got its head around nor onto is that it's not in opposition anymore.

There's a number who have very little social media presence but when they do pipe up it's attacking the opposition. There's a few that have a very large social media presence and the bulk of their own work is attacking the opposition MPs individually or the previous Government as a whole. When they're not doing that they're retweeting nice stuff. You know stuff that really has no connection with their work at all football results, things about dead rock stars like David Bowie.
You know, stuff that universally is either supported or provokes staggering indifference but no opposition. Its general "safe" fluff.
Smack the opposition or post powder puff.

I always thought when in Government you sell the Government decisions & policies. Its happening, but gee there's not much of it. WALabor have twice as many Lower House MPs as they need to get things passed in the Lower House yet most of their MPs do very little to sell the Government position and the loudest MPs are the one who've forgotten they're in Government and play for political points.

There's at least 5 Labor MPs who still think its 2016. There war is over, the Japanese surrendered in 1945come out of the jungle...learn your new role. Stop attacking the Barnett Government because as bad as it was, it's "was" ala past tense, gone, no longer, finished, exited, finito...capiche?

To some extent its because some are marooned in the past and selling the Government policy isn't something they've realised let alone used to yet. Perhaps for a few, sledging is all they know, all they can do.

Sadly most parties are barren wastelands if you're looking for people with reputations as great legislators or statesman-like traits. Such is the lot of WALabor too, they're clearly no exception.

It could be however that the Government line is so hard to find or so hard to sell its just easier to be pseudo opposition in government and play the man.

WALabor has a lot problematic structure. It heralds its great feat of having more regional MPs than any other party a total of 13...or 15 depending on which Labor MP you ask. This is promoted as a great victory over conservatives who don't deliver to rural & regional WA and have been punished by the voters.

Interesting though it was a conservative government that brought in Royalties for Regionals which is now being stripped via cost shifting and straight exporting reserved regional funds to Perth.

Funny too is there are 12 (to 15) regional Labor MPs yet none are in Cabinet.

Funny again also that whilst she's a capable minister we look at the Minister For Agriculture...who did WALabor put in that key pivotal rural portfolio? A MP who is a Perth based lawyer who has routinely expressed that Live Export can "never be humane" and it needs to be closed.

Their extra Greens type voters than jumped over are bound to be very peeved. The WALabor coded policy of shutting down Live Export by sinking funds into "transitioning" all Live Export animals into domestic slaughter & processing for chilled/frozen export was never ever going to happen.

Never. The investment that WALabor hinted at was never costed and it would have been billions of dollars without finding all the staff that currently don't exist in our country, let alone state.

Economically it didn't stack up and it would need to make chilled/frozen at the very worst the same farm gate price for producers but ideally a better farm gate price. Ideally it would mean that all the Live Export numbers of sheep & cattle (millions) would have to find new markets.

It was a village idiot rant that seduced the simpletons from Vegan La-La Land.

WALabor's strategic plan however seems to be to either only sell a policy prior to the 6pm news and ride it through the following news cycle and deliberately deliver no strategic vision for the state and no plans.

Just get a few MPs photographed on the train, sledge the Liberal Government that doesn't exist anymore, light a few diversionary scrub fires and ride the news cycle as best they can.

Meanwhile the rich foreign owned mining plutocracy with the best turnover & margins...iron ore (that we own) still pay a 1963 rate Special Rental Fee (it is NOT a Mining Tax) whist the junior gold miners with a slightly different business model with lower turnover & tighter margins are set to get a new Gold Tax that will cost some jobs.

No new taxes. Remember that?

WALabor is in government, the Lower House is obscenely theirs. The Upper House will be a utter minefield full of asbestos & sharp sticks but for the WALabor party their next smart move is honesty.

Be a real government & quickly deliver the very overdue full strategic vision for WA.
Stop being an opposition going on the attack find a vision, share it and actually aim for it.
And for real honesty change their name from WALabor to PerthLabor.

* (Labor Claims 13 to 15 Regional MPs depending who's speaking. In the Upper House there are 6. In the Lower House there are 6 but one is the Speaker so he's a political Eunuch. That really give us 11 effectively. To get their "13" they'd have to include the Speaker Peter Watson MLA Member for Albany & David Templeton MLA the member for Mandurah).

Adler Disallowance Motion Cracked Open

Yep, I copped a little flak or rather a bit of questioning from Shooter friends on why I'm fine with the SFFPs recent Lever Action Disallowance Motion failing. Why it is I supported the NationalsWA on this and didn't go in hard for Rick Mazza MLC. Well I'm not an MP so my position doesn't matter at all, its just an opinion.
From now on I'm just going to direct shooters to this page :-)

Its actually not such a big thing, but I'll explain here as I explained it to several shooter friends.
I thought the Disallowance Motion should have been opposed & lost and it was. To which my friends in a group replied that it was total BS. Fair enough, but why?
And here's how it went condensed. Them in Black Bold and me in Red.
(By the way when they say Adler, they mean "Lever Action 12 gauge shotgun" of which there's quite a few brands now)

Its BS because some are claiming its a Semi Automatic and its not is it?
No its not, you're correct. Its a 12 Gauge Lever Action Repeater. What else?

Well anti gun nuts are saying its got a high capacity magazine and it isn't
No its not high capacity, most A class can run up to 25 rounds, most other rifles 10 rounds, all pistols have 5 to 10 rounds. No if there's no low capacity, normal capacity there can't be any High Capacity when its not even the highest legal capacity. What else?

Well anti gun nuts call it high powered, but its 12 gauge so the lever action doesn't make any changes to its "power". A 12 gauge is a 12 gauge is a 12 gauge.
100% correct, no argument from me. What else, what's next?

They also say its rapid fire, compared to what? What's slow fire, middle fire? My double barrel can fire 10 shots quicker than the Adler.
Yep, I watched the video on Youtube where 2 guys tested that and it wasn't faked. 2 shots the double barrel is faster, 5 shots the Adlers faster and 10 shots mostly its the Double Barrel. Be the double barrel every time if it had shell ejection like a clay target shotgun. What else?

Why do we need anything else, isn't that enough?
Well while you're on a roll you can add that the WA Police have no records of any crime ever being committed with a Lever Action Shotgun, nor have the Police over east so its hard to say it poses an elevated risk to members of society. You can add its not very easy to conceal, you can't turn it to a pistol grip nor sawn off barrel without making it less effective than a double barrel.

Well then why do you support its reclassification with all these facts?
Well simple. A 12 Gauge 5 shot pump action and a 5 shot 12 Gauge Semi Auto have different actions but same capacities, different firing rates and both the same powerfulness. There's one thing they have in common with the 12 Gauge Lever Action. They're all 5 Shot 12 Gauge Repeaters. All of them. Its hard to explain why they should be in different categories.

Yeah they should all be in Cat A.
Maybe, maybe not. Thing is no one has put legislation forward to put all 5 shot 12 Gauge Repeaters into Cat A. Nor tried to pass a Bill taking all 12 Gauge Repeaters over 5 shots out of Cat D into Cat A where the Adler of any capacity is...for now that is.

Only me making assumptions, but for the sake of legislative consistency the Nats had little choice but to support the Bill and oppose the Disallowance Motion. I'm pro Shooter and I would have done the same.

I still think its BS
May well be, but if you want something changed you have to push for the change and come up with supporting evidence and support. There's some folk who want all guns including kid's toy guns banned. Its the way of the world these days.

Now I mentioned to these folk that I haven't actually spoken to any MPs on this. I had though looked closely at the Bill and the Disallowance motion. The reason it was lost was it would have prevented one particular type of 12 Gauge 5 Shot Repeater going into the same Cat C as all the other similar capacity 12 Gauge 5 Shot repeaters. Its consistency, like it or not, that's where they belong even if its only for now. Acts of Parliament are living documents, they can be amended or repealed. No one has been able to get a Bill passed putting Cat C and Cat D Shotguns into Cat A so it'd be pretty inconsistent to see a Disallowance Motion passed allowing one & not the others. Could happen technically but pretty unlikely.

The resulting backlash were that to happen would be swift, enormous and actually benefit no one at all. Least of all Law Abiding Firearms Owners.
SUMMARY - As it is, my assumption is the NatsWA opposed the Disallowance Motion for one reason. Supporting the Disallowance Motion would allow the inconsistency of one 12 Gauge 5 Shot Repeater into Cat A leaving the others in Cat C.

My guess is it was nothing to do with 100% correct but 100% irrelevant points like Rapid Fire, High Capacity, High Powered, Semi Automatic or criminal use.

Its simply the Semi Auto 5 Shot 12 Gauge, the Pump Action 5 Gauge & the Lever Action 5 Shot 12 Gauge are...
ALL 5 SHOT 12 GAUGE REPEATERS.
If there were a 12 Gauge Shotgun with 5 barrels & triggers, it would have to go to the Higher Category too.

That's it. Now if you want that changed, the legislation once its passed will have to be repealed. To be honest, having used 7 & even 12 shot semi auto shotguns in the USA...well I think they were fun in the paddock with clay targets but the weight is going to get massive once you go scrub hunting with more than 5 rounds. I firmly believe the Adler is the poster boy for dissent. There's where most of its popularity rests. I just think some of the dissent is misplaced and the pathway for change we see is not the proper path.

So far, out of 15 cranky people, 11 eventually agreed (some reluctantly), 3 said they genuinely weren't sure any more and one thinks I'm a useless anti gun apologist for the Australian Greens Party.

Law of averages that's not bad going.

Stack the facts, test them hard with others, present them to your local MP and work out what to do if it doesn't go your way. Something's won't change. That's life.

Adler Shotgun Comes Again...the Latest

The Adler Shotgun Issue is, was and if we're not careful always will be a total debacle. There's been a decidedly poor lack of facts from both pro & anti gun groups which has skewed and faltered the likelihood of a good legislative outcome.

As it is, there has been attempts to try & get some sort of cross border legislative harmony on firearms but its still hodge-podge in places and nothing in the agreement is actually binding on any state.

With the Adler itself, well if you've fired one you might know a little about them. They are indeed an old design. Yes its an improved version but its not steam engine to current model Bugatti Veyron type improvements. If you've ever seen one pulled apart, well I guess its just not for me. Some earlier ones (possibly the current ones) had some plastic followers that, well I can't see them becoming a heirloom firearm based on performance. Icon status yes, performance & versatility no, not even close.

In fact although its a better built version of a 100+ Year Old Design, they're still an antiquated design with limited uses. These days lever actions (rifles at least) are either held by those who compete in Western Action, a highly competitive shooters sport or by recreational hunters/farmers who'd use them mainly for scrub hunting. Yes there are those that adapt them to whatever primary producer role quite adequately and those who chose them maybe did so because they like a nostalgic older looking firearm. There is nothing wrong with that. If you needed a 5 shot scatter gun & lever actions were placed in the same Category as pump actions or semi autos, most of the Lever Action Shotguns would disappear.

They're not the best shotgun, they're not the most versatile, they're not the most compact and they're not really all they're cracked up to be but they're not all bad either. Add to that list that there is no record of a firearms related crime ever been committed in the state of WA or this country by a criminal armed with a lever action anything...well its still to be proven they pose an elevated risk to public safety either.

Did I say debacle enough yet?

What they definitely have become is the poster boy & rallying point for dissent against the National Firearms Agreement by the Law Abiding Fire Owners. A non binding agreement which is viewed as being new restrictions that come down harder on Law Abiding Firearms Owners than they do upon criminals. When the Adler came out Noia torture tested 2 of them putting 5000 rounds through each them. Non stop to see what broke. Nothing. They filmed it, put it on Youtube and the rest is history. A less than great firearm was postered as the Cat A legal 8 shot 12 gauge. That's 7 in the tube magazine & one in the chamber. Cat A being the easiest to get. So yes Noia pre sold thousands before they were even in actual production.
A lesson for the ABC show Gruen if ever there was. How to package a 100+ year designed thing and make it desirable.

Then the import ban came & that meant they were legal to own, just couldn't import them.
They became the point of contention between Law Abiding Firearms Owners (LAFO) and the government & seen as a last ditch battleground.

The preferred firearms of criminals? Well there's a short list. Mostly it will be hand guns and sawn off double barrel shotguns due to their ease of concealment. Probably next on the list is back yard manufactured fully automatic centre fire guns, not much larger than a hand gun. In the case of most handguns, they're smuggled in from other countries. WA Police some years ago seized a "Street Sweeper" which is a large 12 gauge fully automatic shotgun with a large rotary magazine. Designed and built in South Africa they weren't built long as they were very unreliable and inaccurate. Seized in Perth, yet they have never been ordered nor sold in Australia. Its huge so however it was smuggled in it took effort. Picture gets clearer perhaps? Police raided several associates of outlaw motorcycles gangs and have found home made 9mm semi auto firearms. One seizure had over 30. No lever actions.

People worry about 3D printed guns. Don't be that alarmed, it'll be some time before you can 3D print a fully metal firearm and when you can such a firearm will probably be THE most expensive firearm in Australian history. In the meantime, anyone with the right hand tools can make one. You don't need expensive milling machines and lathes but that helps.

In any case, a lever action firearm is not easy to conceal. If you cut off the butt stock to make a pistol grip you won't be able to cycle the lever properly. Sounds odd but you just physically can't do it easily so any concerns about it being "rapid fire" are gone. If you saw off the barrel, it comes down to being a single shot or 3 shots at the most. At 28" or 711mm long, they're not a viable option for a concealable firearm.

Rapid fire? Not really. 2 experienced shooters have tested it and a 5 shot Adler versus a double barrel shotgun? Check youtube. Lots of people try the test.

2 shots, the Double barrel wins - Pull 2 triggers at once, fires 2 shots at once
5 shots, the Lever action wins
10 shots, its toss of a coin 50/50 who wins but if the double barrel has shell ejection when opening, the double barrel wins every time.

There's enough twisted facts from both sides and ignored facts from both sides to keep the to-ing & fro-ing going for some time. Thing is, its become a icon gun for Law Abiding Gun Owners, many of who went and bought one before the law was changed to "stick it up' em". The Lindt Café siege is often pointed to as a reasoning for strengthening gun laws & reclassifying lever action shotguns. That gunman was a deranged individual who'd never held a car licence nor a gun licence and was able to purchase an illegal pump action firearm & ammunition despite his long list of criminal offences. Yes bought on the black market. Gun laws were strengthened post Port Arthur and it didn't prevent the Lindt Cafe.

Some of the restrictions that came in as a result of the Port Arthur Massacre were needed and overdue however John Howard missed the mark there and then when it came to identifying the problem and then the solutions. That gun man was a deranged psychopath who had difficulty discerning reality from fantasy, according to his prison's mental health professional (a professor no less). Again he never had a driver's licence nor a gun licence and was able to easily buy 2 semi auto rifles and a shotgun.

In both cases there was a lot of very valid angst and fear in the community. In the case of the Port Arthur Massacre a huge firearms buy back campaign was implemented costing a reputed $500 Million. Sadly no extra money was pumped into mental health at all nor extra money & resources poured into combatting smugglers or the illegal gun trade.

Most recently the SFFP MP in WA's Upper House, Rick Mazza MLC put forward a disallowance motion regarding the move to put the Lever Action Shotguns into different Categories. Only 2 people in WA have the then legal modification to make the Adler a 7 shot. They'll be allowed to keep them as that under a grandfathering arrangement. As for everyone else that bought the modification parts and either haven't fitted them or haven't bothered telling anyone they've modified their Adler, well if they're caught they'll be in trouble. There's also the owners of other Lever Action Shotguns that have emerged in the last few years. Pardus, Uzkon, IAC, Chiappa, Winchester are just some although I doubt Winchester makes them anymore.

Sad part is, lot of legislative arguing and time spent re-categorising a firearm that hasn't been proven to cause any elevated risk to society nor been sought after by shooters on actual merit as a great firearm.

The 7 shot Adler or any other shotgun now, because of those 2 extra shots goes into the same category as a fully automatic machine gun and any other military firearm. Will it matter to shooters in WA? As the years roll by I doubt it. Life will go on. Will society be safer because of it. No evidence to suggest that at all & I can safely assume those wishing to commit armed crime will continue to do so. It does remain a fact that the vast majority of violent gun crime involve illegal guns, not stolen firearms.

In the case of some other jurisdictions farmers and pest controllers can obtain an Ag Permit to own and use (with restrictions) semi auto centrefire rifles. In WA that cannot happen because in WA a Cat D is prohibited except by Police or military. That exclusion includes Army, Navy, Air Force, Australian Customs, Federal Police, State police and Special Protective Services who protect federal politicians & foreign dignitaries. Need helicopter contract shooters with semi autos on your station country to control vermin?

Bad luck, they cannot enter the state.

To be honest & blunt I saw a lever action shotgun in a Terminator film once and I was stunned because I've never seen one before. Many American shooters wouldn't have either. So why did Arnie's character have one? So it could "Hollywood style" be fired whilst riding a motorcycle and then cycled for the next shot one handed.

Makes it seem more dangerous than any other shotgun. Biggest danger is actually trying to do that.
What Hollywood depicts rarely happens in real life.

So if you're pretty peeved about the disallowance motion being struck down, you should read all the speakers comments. I have.
I'm an SSAA member and to be honest I didn't think some of the things spoken in favour nor against the Disallowance were of much merit either. I'm not surprised to be honest and its not that it doesn't affect me that drives my indifference, its that its a big bun fight over a very ordinary firearm that isn't the least bit glorious nor going to elevate the threat level to society.

That tells me the Adler Debacle is not really that important when you look at that firearm. What is important is the other dud regulations that aren't easily sorted out to get the balance right. You know the balance?

Safety of society and the needs of LAFOs

Well its only my 2c worth so perhaps I deserve some change ;-)

Having said all that there are definitely some concessions that Law Abiding Firearm Owners SHOULD have...another day.

The Real Cross Bench Oddity in the WA Parliament

The structure of the WA Lower & Upper Houses have a unique glitch that some don't realise or deliberately omit.
There's the obvious cross bench seats such as there are now, a SFFP member, three PHON members and a Liberal Democrat. Obvious no doubt, but what about the other cross bench or perhaps, the other bench altogether, the one that's occupied by the WA Nationals.

Theirs certainly is a unique space. In the lower house it was noticeable the WALabor line along the lines of 'you were in office for 8 years, why now' when trying to shut down the WANats efforts to start an inquiry into Legacy or State Agreements.

Couple of things here, the push for revising the Mining Rental Fee came long before the last state election. So the Nats were aligned with that stance well before leaving government.

Next is, Nats should give up the Rental Fee because Brandon Grylls is gone. Well yes, but it was passed as a stance still to be pursued at the Nats State Conference, where Brendon Grylls was not a delegate.

But return for a moment to the "you were in office for 8 years, why now" angle.
Whilst in opposition the Nats are opposition, in government they're in government but not the government. They're more like a formally annexed cross bench. In recent times the formal coalition arrangement was replaced with a "partnership" model which did allow Nationals to cross the floor if they deemed fit. And they did.

It is the thing, they're in a unique space between part of the government and the cross bench. Not isolated entirely, but not the tail wagging the dog either. They're quite able to cop 100% blame for every government decision whilst in Government & later whilst in opposition. When they cross the floor or provide a blocking mechanism they're heralded by the Labor Party, or rather not heralded at all. They're used by Labor as a point score to claim disunity in Liberal/National Government.

Its a difficult space for the WANats. They need to join in coalition or partnership to avoid a Labor Government most elections as Labor is less than kind to rural & regional electorates. At the same time, they need to balance the best results for the bush whilst maintaining a coalition/partnership which will cause them quite often to agree to outcomes they wouldn't push for if it were a majority Nationals government.

Some call it the game of ethical blindness others call it garden variety give & take horse trading. In any case, its a very odd space. The best position they can attain is a position of compromised effectiveness in government or opposition.

But it is funny, with the factions within WALabor, they're not so different. They're said to have 2 factions. The left & the progressives. The space they occupy is somewhat different in that they usually have more behind closed doors argy-bargy and they cannot under any circumstances cross the floor & vote against their party without a conscience vote. The conscience vote is an odd thing. It means on selected few issues one will not be told which way to vote. For the most part, the left & the progressives not so much work together, rather they have a coalition government no different to the Lib/National Government except the left & progressives are not different separate entities in opposition.

The real difference is Nats can & do go their own way when they can or have to.

Left & Progressives cannot go separate, or its expulsion from the party and the illusion of the true believer system is still holding well despite the illusion.

So its actually quite accurate to refer to the WA Labor Government as a Coalition government, a coalition of the left and the progressives. Strangely they're not too bold or rather the left will bow to the progressives who may be in bigger numbers.

A $25Million sewerage project for country towns gets cancelled whilst announcing a $125 Million Marina Playground in Joondalup. How is it that the Left faction can support that decision?

Easy, because they have to. They'll suffer the contradiction for any time at all than do the right thing. To them, opposing the Party is the only wrong thing.
How long will the coalition Labor government last?
Who knows, but they cuddle the big end of town as often as the Liberal party. They just won't be seen cuddling Chamber of Commerce & Industry, captains of industry or big business...well not in public.

Labor's ethical blindness is possibly far greater and more deeply entrenched than the consequences, minor in comparison that the WA Nats endure.

Remember, its a WA Labor Coalition Government and the left has sold its backside out to the rich foreign owned mining corporations. The big end of town.
March on Brother Comrade, but no raise in Rio/BHP's 1960s Special Rental Fee (its not a tax)...its easier to make families pay extra for everything.

Where Nats can cross the floor for the people of the bush, WALabor's 13 rural MPs cannot or they're expelled from party. They represent LABOR IN THE ELECTORATE, they don't represent the electorate in parliament.

2 imperfect coalition government models, but the WALabor one is the least helpful to WA Citizens.