Just one of the submissions to the Firearm Reform Consultation Paper

There have been many submission to the Firearm Reform Consultation Paper. I gather some are short, some long. Here's one of the long ones...

Submission to Firearm Reform Consultation Paper

I am a primary producer, a recreational hunter & a competition shooter & I write this as input regarding the Consultation Paper.
I have a number of points to make, some that are outside the consultation paper & should have been included the Government's "reforms"

I am in favour of any Legislative Reforms but by virtue of being "Reforms" they must be needed, fit for purpose, deliver a positive benefit, fair &/or remove some that is unfair, negative or failing in its purpose.

With that in mind below are just some of the issues that need resolution by Reform

1. Restricting numbers of firearms owned.
   Restrictions on the number of guns MUST be removed from the reforms. We're yet to see the evidential research that a) points out the specific & verifiable fault in the current arrangements & b) there is no evidential research to definitively show the restricted number will solve the unshown problem or deliver a beneficial gain. Until that is done, this is NOT by definition a "reform" but an unnecessary, untested change based on someone's gut instinct.
   I am fine with any reform that is by definition a reform, that is a verifiable improvement or removal of an unfair or unworkable rule. This is still not shown to be a reform.
   
   Currently to gain ownership of a firearm there are the 2 Primary Tests. A person must be deemed to be a fit & proper person AND the applicant must be able to demonstrate they have a genuine need. By introducing a limited number of firearms amongst owners it goes against & makes a mockery of the National Firearms Agreement & the Law Reform Commission report from 2016. Altering the number of firearms in the community may seem a good idea to reduce gun crime however there's no evidential research proving that conclusion. To be honest I'm unsure its expected to make any difference when there are little or no statistics shown in support of this and there is a distinct lack of stats.
   We're also seeing culture, societal health & regulation has more impact. Pure numbers of firearms does not. For example...
   Gun Ownership
   Australia -  14.5  Firearms per 100,000 people   ( #45 in the world)
   Mexico    -   12.9 Firearms per 100,000 people   ( # 53 in the world)
   
   Gun Deaths 
   Australia -   0.10 deaths per 100,000 people       ( #156 in the world)
   
   Mexico -      15.55 deaths per 100,000 people       ( # 10 in the world)
   
   
   Australia has more firearms per capita than Mexico & yet Mexico is #10 for murder & Australia is #158.
   
   As for the number of firearms in the community being excessive, by what measure and what is the appropriate number?
   At present if the 2 primary tests are satisfied (and there is no other way to obtain a legal gun) then we're already at the appropriate number. Also when the stat of guns in the community is mentioned is it correct that that total number includes air rifles, paintball buns, tranquiliser guns, carnival shooting galleries and others that are not lethal & have never been used in a single crime?
   
   I'm only scratching the surface on Limiting Ownership of Numbers but already this is failing to be described as a "Reform" as it is not needed, isn't fit for purpose, deliver no positive benefit, fair...it has to be removed from the legislation as it is an odd change not at all a reform.
   
   
2. Fees. 
   
   Compare initial firearms licence fees between WA & NT.
   
   Its lot dearer here & no one wants to explain why.
   
   NT - Cat A/B $229
   WA - Cat A/B $246
   Only $17 difference, so no big deal???
   
   I would agree EXCEPT the NT fee is $229 for 10 years whereas WA's $246 is for the initial application & doesn't include the $51.80 annual renewal
   So 10 years is...
   NT -  A/B $229
   WA - A/B $246 plus $510 for a total of $756.
   $229 vs $756!
   
   Also how is it we can justify the fee rises?
   2021 fee increases in WA...
   Original Applications               12.8%   increase
   Additions                                    15%    increase
   Yearly Fee                                     7%    increase
   Dealers Licence Renewals        96.7% increase
   Repairers Licence Renewals   139.4% increase
   We're supposed to uphold our state's rights but there must be some attempt at interstate legislative harmonisation & fees in WA should reflect the average of all the other states, not be excessive powering through the roof.
   
   
3. Appearance Clause -
   Any firearm merely having the appearance of a military firearm is banned. That appearance clause has no criteria, no prescription. It is purely a subjective OPINION. For example a Ruger 10/22 with its wooden factory stock, 100% legal. Replacing it with a Pro Mag ArchAngel stock though renders the firearm illegal. They are banned in WA due to their "appearance". The benefits of the aftermarket stock is it has an adjustable length of pull, a pistol grip, integrated picatinny rail & fore end is covered in M-Lock holes. This means its more ergonomic, easier & safer to handle & unlike the factory wooden stock if you need to mount a sling, a red dot or a scope you do not need a gunsmith drill & tapping the firearm, selling you & fitting a rail. PLUS with the wooden stock you cannot adjust the length of pull to get the correct eye relief with a red dot or scope. This varies if you're shooting ferals laying down, standing up or thru the window of a farm ute. Length of pull on those 3 situation varies so adjusting for eye relief is essential. You have banned a stock that does not alter the calibre, the rate of fire, the power or the capacity of the firearm. A stock that makes it a better safer firearm is banned because someone thinks it looks pretty army.
   If these are truly meant to be reforms, the Appearance Clause has to be removed.
   
   
4. Like for Like trade in without fee or application.
   If I trade in firearm & it's one calibre for an identical calibre, basically an old for new, perhaps a different make & model but same Category firearm then it should be done by the dealer without Licence Fees, just held by the dealer until Firearms Branch alters the serial number from the old to the new. If it's a different calibre then it should be a normal application process.
   
   
5. Co-Licensing/Co-ownership amongst family members, spouses should be a simple process. In the event of the death of a farmer who is the only owner it becomes a painful mess during an already tramatic time. By simple co-owership the family member/s or spouse should complete the firearms test the same as every applicant except they already are licenced firearms owners. This way a family isn't several 100kms from a dealer & go through a messy burden laden process. The surviving member can later advise the Firearms Branch that a co-owner has passed away & not need to transport to police or a dealer. This is a valuable reform.
   
   
6. Property Letters
   Remove them completely. Any non primary producer shooter should join a Hunting/Shooting club. The club should help them get places to shoot, organise insurance & other practical help. This works well in other jurisdictions & property letters are a bizarre idea that didn't provide any help or benefit to anyone even before some decided to start selling them.
   
   
7. The "Very Powerful Firearm" (VPF) List & Criteria - The VPF is a very concerning matter. Those calibres that were banned were regarded as VPF firearms when the very clear fact is the calibre is merely the size of the projectile, not anything to do with the power. The power comes from the load & even then, its where you measure the power that needs to be sorted out. Is it muzzle velocity or striking energy. These are as varied as they are complicated within one single calibre & to date we're still coming up with no explained, data based criteria for this list or calibres included on it.
8. 
   Distance, accuracy & lethal energy can vary wildly due to weather conditions, projectiles, powder loads, muzzle velocity, retained velocity on impact & of course a deep bag of other variables not least being retained velocity of any number of distances. Most of these so called VPF calibres are higher end firearms & usually owned by serious shooters who are serious about proper performance & safety.
   
   The minister pursued these calibres & the words used were "direct threat" and yet we had no mention of exactly what he meant by "direct threat". These were a small number of owners so taking those firearms away to reduce the "direct threat" seems to infer that those small number of shooters posed a threat to police and/or the general public or the theft of their firearms posed a "direct threat"
   
   I don't believe either is the case but I would be happy to be proven wrong with evidential research.
   There is none.
   
   We're still waiting. I think the fact that a collectible but unshootable Word War 2 firearm like the 55 Baby was on the list indicated that whoever put the list together had a rather random ad hoc vibe for calibre selection & inclusion. I'm glad that the Museum Collectible was removed from the list but it was of no risk to WA Police or the WA General public before it was wrongly put on that "VPF" list. My understanding is we're the only state in Australia that operates with this very new category & I can see why. It makes no sense & there's been no effort to explain it with proper evidential research.
9. 
   
10. Major Firearm Parts
    
    Needs proper clarification & reform ASAP. Barrels, trigger groups, upper receivers, magazines and other parts are fine being called Major Firearms Parts but rifle stocks are wrongly included. At present a person cannot have an addition rifle stock on the shelf without Police Commissioner Permission...its illegal.
    
    
    So if you own a SMLE .303 (a World War 2 rifle) you cannot have a spare stock & fore end furniture without Police Commissioner Permission. You can however own another .303 that is 100% complete but deactivated & you can do so without a licence. In effect instead of illegally having a spare stock on the shelf, you legally have one without required permission or addition to the licence by having an identical but deactivated rifle. Rifle stocks need to be removed from "major firearms parts", spare stocks or chassis need to have no permission required from the Police Commissioner/Firearms Branch and if the Manufacturer is ok with non gunsmiths replacing gun stocks then so should our legislation. In the case of many rifles its merely a matter of undoing 2 screws, swapping over, replacing the screws. It is more difficult to replace a door in a house but the safety aspects are similarly zero.
    
    
    In the case of many remote owners, if their rifle stock is damaged they have to go to a gun repairer, a gunsmith to get a rifle stock replaced. Even though many foreign rifle manufacturers & aftermarket stock manufacturers have videos showing people in some cases how to undo 2 screws, take the barrelled action out of one stock, put it in the others, then do up 2 screws WITHOUT being a gunsmith, its illegal here for us to do that. Remote owners of course cannot put the firearm in the mail not get a courier in WA. They can legally but Aust Post & couriers refuse to do it due to the higher legal requirements. That remote owner, pastoralist has to drive 100s & in one case 1000kms one way to get a firearm legally repaired that in any other jurisdiction he/she is allowed to undo/swap/do up 2 screws.
    
    
    

Summary - I believe strongly we have made a grave mistake running to changes that are no actually reforms at all & that consultation is beginning to look to many as a necessary evil bureaucrats & legislators have to suffer in delivering what they want upon citizens.

The wrongful pursuit of number restrictions is just one glaring example of imposing non working & retrograde changes that cannot possibly be defined nor regarded as actual reforms.
I personally believe the currently working system agreed to under the NFA the best system in the world & I note many foreign countries currently point to it as being the best balance of safety & regulation that allows the greatest chance of use by lawful owners & protection of the general public.

if a person is a fit & proper person (WAPol approve that) & they can demonstrate a Genuine Need then whatever non Cat D should be approved in accordance with the National Firearms Agreement & the recommendations of the 2016 Law Reform Commission report. I refer you to Recommendation 53 on page 55 of that report which states...

" Recommendation 54: There should be no upper limit on the number of firearms a single Firearm Licence holder may possess. "

It is clearly evident that the number of legal firearms does not automatically mean an increase or decrease in the level of gun crime. 
I repeat this point as its central to the largest fault of the so called reforms...

Point in fact, Australia has more guns per capita than Mexico.

For Gun Ownership we as a nation are ranked 45th in the world whilst Mexico is lower at 53^rd 
Our gun deaths must be higher than Mexico's & yet...

Australia 0.10 deaths per 100,000 people ranking us 156^th in the world for gun deaths
Mexico 15.55 deaths per 100,000 people ranking them in the 10 ten in the world for gun deaths.

Notably, Mexico only has one gun shop in the entire nation & regulation is quite strict.

We need reforms in the very sense of the word. That is the idea, that the aim is the reasoned pursuit of a reform being fair, fit for purpose, delivering a better working outcome & removing an unfair impediments.

Another ministerial claim was about Armour Piercing rounds & this raises more questions than answers.
Who has these? They've never been available to the public so the only source of them in WA is the black market but there's still been no announcements on elevated attention or raised penalties on the black market. Where does the black market get armour piercing rounds? There's only 3 places.

1. Smuggled in. 
2. Stolen from the Australian Defence Forces
3. Stolen WA Police Force.
   

So which is it & why is there not extra penalties for possessing armour piercing rounds?
Which leads us to speculate are they really in the community at all & who is it that's saying they do exist?
Which again returns us to a lack of evidential research shared with the public.

Another is apparently the glaring problem the "too many" firearms on the streets claim.
We're now discovering that the quoted number includes air rifles that are not used in crimes at all, paintball guns, tranquiliser guns & any firearms used in side show alley. Also includes all firearms that are inventory of Firearms Dealers & repairers. Much worse is the possibility that co-licenced/co-owned firearms are not counted once. If 4 family members co-licence one firearm it is included in the Statistics as 4 firearms. Is this true & if so what else is wrongfully misleading lawful owners & the general public. If true, this is intellectually bankrupt use of a deliberately bloated statistic & appears wilfully deceptive. Its never delivered with a citation & explanation...just weaponised & used as an argumentative bludgeon. We need clear, specific, unambiguous facts & statistics. We cannot even compare Crime statistics over the last 30 years as "homicide" appears to have changed to include events of manslaughter & attempted manslaughter.

Again its as if there is no attempt to remove the "devil is in the lack of detail" and thus for everyone trying to evaluate proposed legislation & regulations properly, things remain PROFOUNDLY VAGUE & misconstrued as somehow being VAGUELY PROFOUND. A decision is made on this horribly cloudy tap water that's hopefully regarded as pure distilled liquid. IT IS NOT. We have witnessed the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act become the worst legislative disaster in WA history, since federation & now we have a set of Firearm Reforms that are set to challenge the A.C.T. Act for its grotesque title.
 
We need to make good, effective & wise reforms and not wing it on the details and wing it on the amendments and keep squirting "public safety" out the side of one's mouth. We need clear, concise valid facts & statistics.

The entire saga of this so called "reform" process clearly indicates that the process within Parliament must changed to better serve TRUTH & IMPROVEMENT OF BENEFIT TO WESTERN AUSTRALIANS. WE NEED TO HAVE A BETTER SYSTEM OF CIBSTRUCTING LEGISLATION. LEGISLATORS MUST PUT TOGETHER WHITE PAPERS TO GENERATE THOUGHT & COMMENT IN SOCIETY. THEN CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS. THEN BUILD THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION FOR WA & THE LEGISLATORS TO CONSIDER. TABLE THE FINISHED BILL & ENSURE IT STAYS TABLED FOR 4-6 WEEKS TO ALLOW EVERYONE TO GET ACROSS IT & FOR ALL MPs TO GATHER & GAUGE FEEDBACK FROM THEIR ELECTORATE. ONLY EMERGENCY LEGISLATION SHOULD BE TABLED & DEBATED THE SAME DAY. THE CURRENT ABILITY TO DO THIS IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS & HAS PROVEN TO FAIL WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Another point, earlier this year (23 Feb 2023) The Police minister said in a press release

"Last year, 20 people were shot dead in WA. Subsequent Police investigations found evidence suggesting mental health played a role in almost 50 per cent of those 20 firearm deaths."

That claim by the minister inferred "police investigations" should include a citation, where is the report on that "investigation"?

The comment "suggesting mental health played a role" in half those deaths remains a SUGGESTION, where is the credible report from a group of mental health professionals we can view as evidential research that clearly points to mental health as a factor in those 10 deaths out of a population of 2,660,026(*) Western Australian citizens? (By the way those ten deaths, that's 0.00037594% of the WA Population)

We also need it clarified, exactly how many of those suggested mental health involved gun deaths were suicides & how many were serving police officers using their own service firearms. I'll wait.

(* https://abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/5 )

We're still trying to ascertain the accuracy of a claim that over ½ of those 10 gun deaths suggested to have had mental health playing a role were actually Police Officers using their own service firearms to commit suicide. We do know mental health issues have peaked in the WA Police force in the last few years. (**)

The stats according to the Police union are very clear. Police Officer Suicides EXCEEDS the deaths of police officers whilst on duty. If the push from the police minister to reduce firearms is to keep police officers safe he's ignoring the greater threat which is suicide of Police Officers & is using a degrading deflect & distract tactic. It's not helping anyone, not the public nor the serving police officers who work to keep us safe but are at serious risk. We need to support those who protect us and ignoring the real risk & threat to police officers has to stop & those doing it & why need to step up and give an account of themselves.
 (** https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-23/wa-police-union-research-uncovers-rising-suicide-rates-in-force/101882154 )

Thank you for taking my submission to the consultation paper
Best regards

Israel Under Attack & Declared At War

Shocking news of a very vile attack on Israel that not only includes blanket rocket attacks but also incudes kidnapping of women & children. If there aren't a countless number of crimes against humanity in the Hamas inclusions I'd be very surprised.

When drawing conclusions it pays to seperate the general public of "Palestine" and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) & the Hamas fighters that rule the area called Palestine. I pray from all involved, especially civilians on both sides and that the attackers withdraw & seek peace but it would seem unlikely. If you invade over 20km+ into another country, attack cities, take civilian hostages & target civilians then Israel has no alternative but to declare war.

If a foreign country did that to Australia, we'd rightly declare war also.

I see some parallels with the Yom Kippur War of 1973 often referred to as the Valley of Tears Battle.
Israel on on front was out numbered with tanks 5:1
The battle began during the beginning of a Holy Day, a holiday when many service men & women were home from service for the weekend.
Israel was caught off guard and sadly a long and very bloody battle followed that created needless loss of life on all sides. However Israel triumphed.

A friend pointed out a very interesting point about the closing days of Word War 2. Usually when a war between nations is coming to an end, the nation losing will retreat a large section of its fighting force closer to headquarters. People & resources are split between the front & protecting their leadership. It's just something that always happens & 1000s of years of military history shows that often the last front is closest to the headquarters of the losing side. However in WW2 things were a little different. You'd expect any Nazi military in the Jewish Death Camps would be pulled away to the front or near headquarters. You'd expect the camps to be abandoned when in fact most of them ramped the killing of innocent Jewish people who were no military threat at all. As my friend put it, it points to a very dark reason. 
Evil. Beyond a bent & sadistic ideology of hate, but something more like a driven satanic hate.

The current invasion of Israel has some very similar parallels. Would you think its normal to invade a country & kidnap civilians, women & children. Do you think it's acceptable military practice to spend decades sending in suicide bombers into civilian shops & cafes? The military force Hamas is very clear, their charter from 1988 makes no bones that their aim is the Destruction of Israel & many of its supporters support the hunting down & destruction of all Jewish people everywhere.

They want not just to destroy the state of Israel but to destroy all traces of Jewish people.
I think the leader of Palestine was democratically elected & somehow he's in his 15th or 16th(?) year of a 4 year term. Yes, elected then all elections were suspended ever since.

I cannot fathom how anyone can support an Anti Israel position given this few short facts.
I cannot fathom how the colours of Israel were to be projected onto the sails of the Sydney Opera House & a massive anti Israel rally immediately started & it got to the point where the NSW Police advised Jewish people to avoid the area for their own safety. In any other situation the approaching deminstrators would be allowed to march but there'd be a line in the sand drawn & their parade/march would not cross it to keep a sensible distance between 2 opposing sides. Seems this did not happen.

It really comes down to whether or not you think people of Israel, Jewish people, people of Jewish descent have the right to actually live or whether you think they should be all executed. It also comes down to whether or not you think the State of Israel has the right to exist or not.
For Hamas, those two points are not able to be seperated. They want the state & the entire race of people destroyed. The Jews have only have a history there as their nation, Jeruselum their capital going back 1000s of years only removed by the Ottoman Empire & returned in 1948.

Israel must be defended & allowed to progress however there's been many attempts, with the offer of land surrendered by Israel to allow talks to achieve the 2 State Solution. At least 5 times talks for the 2 State Solution have nearly gone ahead but always the "Palestinian" side has walked away, several times saying there can be no 2 seperate states.

Sorry, but if Israel goes after Hamas & is able to destroy Hamas, it's hardly unpredictable nor unreasonable. If Israel has the right to defend itself & its invaded, cities attacked & civilians are taken hostage...destroying Hamas is quite legitimate. 

Live Export & Veganist Ideology Explained

Sorry, deceptive title perhaps, re-read it with a lens thick with irony maybe.
Lot of it cannot be explained & when it is...it possesses huge gaps.

Up front, if you're an omnivore, carnivore, vegetarian or vegan no one cares. Some of you thought that anyway & some of you would be very annoyed were that true but why would you care that no one else does? Must be very close to your heart, must be an ideology you possess & live and it might even border on being the basis of a cult.

Sorry again, but for most rational, reasonable people its straight forward, eat whatever you want, its up to you. Its your choice & your responsibility. If you smoke 2 packs of cigarettes & your nutrition only comes from neat vodka & rich chocolate, unless you are forced to live live that, no one cares. Ask people what they think & some might say you're a bloody idiot or more softly its very unwise & will longer term reduce your quality of life, reduce your length of life or create health issues...but you know what, it's your choice. If you know the risks & you still don't care, thats on you. It may well be better on your friends & family if you got you act together & abandoned a spiralling descent but you hopefully you have enough solid data, facts, reasoned argument to make a wise decision. If you choose the less wise path, that's on you & all the best.

With Live Export there are those who...
1) Hate The Trade Because They Believe It To Be Cruel 
2) Hate The Trade Because They Believe Eating Meat Is Wrong

Good luck spotting the difference because one can be reasoned with (in most cases) and the other is coming directly from a strict philosophical/ideological premise which can often be seen to be a cult dogma.

Lets seperate them going with the 1) group first.

Many of those who believe the trade to be cruel overlook several points. They're not researching the state of the trade at all. Often the picutures & footage shown are dated & outdated. Some even were taken before ESCAS was running. If that forms part of your belief, you're wrong & very much in the wrong.

That footage that is current like the unacceptable treatment of a middle eastern leakage trade uncovered "in a covert sting" by an Animals Australia activist miss several points. Its unacceptable but it happens & yes we must do what we can to rain that in. BANNING THE TRADE is the absolute worst option for those wanting red meat at an affordable price AND those genuinely wanting good AW outcomes.
For starters that leakage is too large but no effort was taken to show how big or large it was. My assumption is that it is not the majority of the sheep delivered, its an outlier. THAT its an outlier MUST be determined & taken into account. The people form group 2) who can often include ideological driven people will oppose that flat out.
Outliers are unacceptable, all must be banned.

With that approach I'm contemplating their actions on banning all pet ownership in WA. (See article **1** linked below) 
Albany is a relatively small seaside city in Southern WA. According to the RSPCA Report into the number of reports, prosecutions & convictions of animal cruelty, it rates fouth worst in regional WA. Their data is based on pets & companion animals. Farm Livestock is not included as the RSPCA spokesperson has said on radio that reports with farm animals come under seperate reporting under the WA Ag Dept.

There were 6444 reports of cruelty across WA with 146 in Albany.
That's an area of 4312 square kilometres & has a population of 36,000 people. Now that number reflects what is reported & perhaps there are unreported acts of cruelty but we should assume that number of 146 probably wouldn't increase all that much...hopefully. 
We don't know many pets there are in Albany but if there's 1.5 per household that's around 22,000 pets. And yes that might include birds in a cage of fish in a fish tank its just a ball park. (**2**)

At that rate those creatures would be safer, that is have standard or above standard AW conditions were they on a Live Export Ship. If Live Export of Sheep is to be banned, so to must pet ownership. One comment I got was 146 out of potentially 22,000 is quite low. Straight away the point being made is, its an outlier, its not enough to ban Pet Ownership. Perhaps there is a level that is so high that all pets should be banned but no one knows what that is but with Live Export there is no level for activists, if its just one unfortunate sick,  dying or dead animal...the trade must stop. 

The illogical nature of that hypocrisy is pretty breath taking & highlights those of an ideology driven passion. Cruelty in WA is an outlier at 6444 reports & not enough to ban pet ownership & yet the comparatively small leakage in Live Export will always be too high & even at zero it must be banned. 

So whenever we're taking with people who want to ban Live Export they need to be very honest & explain if they're from group 1) or from group 2).

Enter the problem when some of group 2) are hiding in amongst group 1)
The Ideology driven opponents have used (very recent twitter exchange) words like violence, murder, reprehensible & wrong.
Things went like this, it was explained that eating meat was not violence or murder. Those are clearly defined within the Criminal Code. There is no reasoned sense in using "violence" or "murder" in relation to animals destined to become food. You may hate the idea intensely (and thats fine) but you cannot with any intellectual integrity use those words in relation to animal derived food. I note the word slavery & rape also gets used as well referring to Artificial Insemination & Dairy Cows.
In regards reprehensible & wrong, well not applied by them to companion animals and to say something is so very wrong you have to cite the rule source you're using to make the claim.

Here's where it unravels for the activist. They know it very well & they will try to deflect, attack another unrelated point or point to savagery, uncaring, cruel etc to avoid being honest & citing their moral code.

A recent reply to what is this moral code, who wrote this moral code, how does it have binding authority upon all others was met with the reply "Everyone who opposes violence" 
Of course I oppose violence, but sometimes it is necessary, hence we have armed police & defence forces but I don't oppose eating meat because its not illegal, immoral and isn't violence.

Following reply was "I wasn't talking about eating meat" and yet they were.

Oddly we were then told that in a survival situation yes, you can eat meat from an animal but otherwise, unlike other animals we've evolved to know we have a choice & therefore we should not judge the lion eating the zebra and we should eat plant based food. We have this gift of choice.

Doesn't seem like a choice when we're being told not to eat meat because its evil. Seems like ugly coercion.
Who says we have this gift of choice, who specifically?
Who says is it therefore wrong to continue to eat meat?  
Who is this person or moral code & who is it that has the authority to impose it on others who don't believe it?
This gift of choice, does it have a giver of the gift or is it evolved?
If its evolution, which evolutionary expert is it who can prove its existence because if we're just a blob of cells & chemicals living random life, where did the moral code evolve from & where can it be demonstrated.

I'd have to say this most recent experience did not involve the phrases about eating meat would give me cancer nor as has happened before a "lonely, slow and painful death" wasn't wished upon me. But one chap kept going with go to Job Seeker & keeping digging your own hole.

We never got any closer to finding out how or why eating meat is immoral but its morally ok in a survival situation. We never got close to that Moral Code that makes that Moral Judgement.

It bleed off into its not the eating of meat thats immoral, its the killing of the animal. 
Now at this point the temptation was to say "Do you prefer we eat them alive?" but it would only enrage them. It does show them though "Bob kills the animal & I eat it. Bob is immoral & wrong, I'm no problem at all"
Odd paradox there & again there's no moral code cited as the source for that rule.

In reality the bottom line is, if there's a moral judgement you must cite the moral code or its just a personal opinion that has no binding authority over anyone. Even if a moral code were involved and was cited they face their next dilemma...why is it binding upon all others?
Where does it get its authority to impose its decrees upon others who do not agree?
Its at this point the activist is (hopefully) begining to recognise they're championing a premise that is logically flawed & can't be rationally defended. It should be regarded as being intellectually corrupt/bankrupt. By all means hate the eating of meat and animal slaughter but you can't force others to follow your worldview. Forcing people to do that might be described as thought violence or more accurately Cultural Marxism.

The eating of meat is either ok or it isn't. It's either moral or immoral but really for most of us it is not a moral issue at all, its is neither moral nor immoral. The Moral Code I use does not see it as a moral issue. Its here were the activist will want to know what moral code I'm using, but I'm not advocating for change. The Change Advocate must prove their point, not disprove another to make theirs magically valid.

It seems they will argue til the cows come home, some will get abusive others stay in the ring & do whatever they can to not reveal the Moral Code behind them. Probably because there isn't one beyond Vegan Ideology. You can live by that if you want to, be my guest but there is no reasoned argument why it must be imposed upon all others.

Why do I use the word cult?

Some have the cult traits. They are right, they can't explain logically why. They have the superior knowledge & moral high ground but won't talk about the moral code they're using. They use emotive language, label evil upon others & won't give up & they won't touch any leads towards revealing their moral code, its higher authority or why its binding upon all others.

Meanwhile Pet Ownership Cruelty is higher than Australian Live Export. Livex has outliers but a system to try & stop them and once Australian Live Export stops, all compliance & efforts to improve the trade, keep standards ARE gone. Sheep from Brazil will spend an extra 4-5 weeks at sea, no curfew months if they don't want to. No reporting, no audits, no training, no need to spend money on AW improvements. One ship recently left Sudan for a nearby Middle East port. Around 15,500 sheep on board. Nearly all died.
Not one peep from Activists because if they did "thats a ship without ESCAS, thats what can happen"

When Australian Live Export stops, AW standards no longer exist & the problems not only ballon out of control, they're exported to foreign countries where no standards will ever be introduced.

Banning Live Export Will Cause More Animal Deaths At Sea & At The Destination. Banning Australia's World Best Standard Practice Due To Outliers That Can, Should & Will Be Addressed Is Madness.

**1** https://www.albanyadvertiser.com.au/news/albany-advertiser/albany-ranks-fourth-worst-regional-local-government-for-animal-cruelty-in-new-rspca-wa-data-c-7663638

**2** https://abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/LGA50080

WA Firearms, We Must Not Get Like The USA...

Yes the comment was along those lines...WA Firearms, We Must Not Get Like The USA...

That was the sentiment of the then WA Premier Mark McGowan when the WA Police Minister made several announcements about Firearms Reforms in WA. 
But its a sentiment that is actually very unhelpful & possibly only driven by party politics.
Putting aside the USA has a different regulatory framework around firearms & a constitutional section allowing them to do things we do not do, we still cannot become like America.
Horribly misleading word stunt, we cannot become like the USA insert full stop. 

Firstly Mr Papalia decided to make a Firearms Reform Announcement on a SUNDAY of all days. It was the media equivlent of stealing a home run...he thought.
The WA Liberal Party was having a very successful State Conference. Libby Mettam was Political Party Leader, Caroline Di Russo was elected State President. The "Clan" was on the lie low back foot, big gains were made. That was the Saturday & then Mr Papalia tried to heighten the scare value of firearms ownership & said he'd be bringing in "Ongoing Mental Health Checks" on all firearms owners. He stole the media attention.

Of course, even ardent anti-gun campaigners say that won't help. Clinical Psycologists pointed out you need at least 10-20 hours with a patient to properly establish a baseline for a diagnosis & to even begin to map treatment. 
Even if its only 10 hours, multiply that by 90,000 licenced firearms owners that 900,000 hours of clinical diagnosis that we don't know who pays for & there certainly isn't the staff for in WA's already under staffed, under funded, under resourced mental health sector.
He soon baulked & walked back from that within weeks & it went to undescribed "health checks"
There is currently no mental health test that can predict future acts of violence or murder.

Not helped by the then Premier saying we don't want to get like America.

Well, good news for him. We can't. Try as some might, you cannot make a case for that being even remotely possible and if you can, you need to make sure you know what it is that America is like.
Try this fact...

Which types of firearms are most commonly used in gun murders in the U.S.?

In 2020, the most recent year for which the FBI has published data, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (36%) involved other kinds of firearms or those classified as “type not stated.” (*)

So 59% of firearms used in US murder are handguns. They're banned in WA. You can only get them after going through a highly regulated process & they can only be used at specific club ranges in competitions.
Rifles constitute only 3% of gun murders. We have rifles in WA.

What is the most used type of firearm used in Western Australia? Well these are older figures based on firearm categories but best we can find (**)

 

So we can already see a glaringly fact, most gun homicides are from Prohibited Class firearms. 
2nd Highest Class is Handguns. 

Class C  is the very interesting one even with these older stats. Not even one Cat C firearm & yet the odd "VPF List" of Firearms that the Government recently banned were all fitting Class C criteria. So either there was a massive jump in Cat C Type Gun Homicides in WA recently or...or what? Fearmongering for some reason?

On top of that, those are by firearm types. In the Cat H or Handguns, it doesn't specify how many were lawful club firearms, how many were home made, illegally smuggled in or other blackmarket handguns & how many were police service firearms. 

THAT MAKES SENSE TO KNOW. 

I hope Police Minister Papalia informs the House (Legislative Assembly)

In 2020-21 by the WA Police Statistics there were 23 Murders in WA. 

17 were in the Metro Area & 6 were in Regional WA.

Murders by WA Police Districts.

Esperance Goldfields District                 3
Pilbara District                                      2
South West District                               1
Great Southern District                          0
Kimberley District                                 0
Mid West District                                  0

Some take home points

• 1) So the Regional Police Districts with the most number of people & the most number of firearms is the South West District & the Great Southern District & they had a total of 3 murders.
  
  
• We don't know how many, if any involved firearms
  
  
• If they did involve firearms we don't know if they were legal or illegal firearms
  
  
• If they did involve firearms we don't know what type of firearm category nor what calibres
  
  
• We don't know how many involved firearms on the new VPF List that were recently outlawed. 
  
  
• If any murders did involve firearms we don't know if any involved or were caused by mental illness
  
  
• We do know that because of 3 murders using unknown weapons or perhaps no weapons at all, there are calls from the Minister to not only outlaw firearms that may not be involved in any crimes, there is a push to restrict the number of firearms amongst regional people, farmers, station owners, pest controllers, competition shooters & recreational hunters. This makes no sense but might attract political capital.
  
  
• We know reforms are supposed to be legislative changes that help or protect but always actually work to achieve a better set of outcomes than previous Acts of Parliament deliver. I'm not seeing that.
  
  

Now whether or not this places a scary context for you or not is a personal thing but perhaps look at some comparisons & wonder why there's been so much attention & legislative change on Lawful Firearms Owners & not other sectors of WA.

Across WA...
Recent (as opposed to Historical) Sexual Assaults    -    4160 
Assault (Non Sexual, Family)                                  -  23,792

Assault (Non Sexual, Non Family)                          -  13,298
Drug Offences                                                          -  25,713
Breaches of Violence Restraining Orders                 -  12,046
Total                                                                          - 79,009

Priorities might be tilted towards the visual news grab on the TV.

Those crimes & the WA Police Minister & the WA Cabinet response is to set out firearms reforms to ban lawful firearms that haven't been shown to have been involved in any crime but according theofficial like pose a "direct threat" that has never been demonstrated to anyone.

Banning or restricting the number of firearms amongst anyone, especially regional Western Australians or even farmers will have no effect at all.

Again this is like banning non drinkers from having a car licence so there's a reduction in deaths via drink driving. It makes no sense but allows sight of an effort to build brand...illogical as it is. 

So no. We cannot become like the USA. 
When you look up the amount of gun crime they have, look up the percentage thats Drug &/or Gang related.
Most is committed with handguns & other guns that cannot be owned in WA. Rifles make a very small percentage of the guns involved in US Crime. If you're in a gang or have been convicted of a crime AND you own or carry a gun...it will be an illegal gun. You won't be a fit & proper person with a genuine need like the requirement is in WA.

People seem to be very happy to get rounded up.
And another angle where the round up is easy for the lazy thinkers.
That increased guns automatically means increased threat of gun violence & death.
No, not automatically otherwise the person owning just one firearm is far less likely to commit gun violence owning one firearm but would be more likely to shoot someone if they owned 50 guns (I don't think anyone in WA owns 50 guns apart form gun dealers)
Sounds illogical? Well it's certianly not automcatically true
Compare Australia with Mexico, a country with far more stringent & slower application processes and it has ONE GUN SHOP IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. 
YES ONLY HAS ONE LEGALLY APPROVED FIREARMS DEALER

Gun Ownership.

Australia -  14.5  Firearms per 100,000 people   ( #45 in the world)
Mexico    -   12.9 Firearms per 100,000 people   ( # 53 in the world)


Gun Deaths.

Australia -   0.10 deaths per 100,000 people       ( #156 in the world)
Mexico -      15.55 deaths per 100,000 people      ( # 10 in the world)

Mexico has less firearms per capita & yet their deaths by gun is 155 times greater than Australias
Restricting the number of guns does not automatically decrease the risk of gun deaths, ensuring who ever is a fit & proper person with genuine need & adequate storage limits gun death. 
Papalia has stated publicly he intents to get more guns off the streets.

He means legal guns owned by law abiding people...pity he wasn't more concerned with the nearly 80,000 offences involving Assault, Sexual Assault, Breaches of Violence Restraining Orders & Drug Offences.

To be fair, he's a MP under political pressure, who's struggling & beleagured minister fighting for his ministerial life, fighting for his political future so he needs sleight of hand reforms.

Not real reforms that help & protect the weak and vulnerable in WA from serious crimes.
Don't get rounded up. He wants you to get rounded up & thank him. 

We should point out Minister Papalia recently announced he'd make it impossible for Domestic Violence offenders to possess firearms. If someone is even accused & charged with Domestic Violence their firearms will be seized until they are cleared or charges are dropped.
Great idea.
Great idea.
Great idea except that's already the case now so not sure how he'll introduce something already in place.