What's Missing In WA Firearms Discussions

Firearms Reforms are important, so important that it needs to be done properly without any political fear mongering. Legislative Reforms must improve what is there & remove what is not working or is unfair or was wrongly legislated. It's not clear that's the focus in WA at present. Things are missing.

In fac a lot is missing, here is just some of it & it needs focused answers.

1) COVID Shut Downs - Gun shops were shut down during the COVID lockdowns. That has never actually been explained. If the media or the opposition can get some answers that'd be great. Lots of people are waiting.
In the case of any small family owned & operated business in a small country town that legally sold a few boxes of bullets per year as a service, their whole business had to close doors. They could not continue to trade even if they stopped selling ammunition. They lost income.
Why gunshops, small traders & even repairers had to close has never been explained.
This should have been focused on by the opposition & the media.

2) Armour Peircing Bullets - In pursuing further restrictions on lawful, licenced firearms owners Premier McGowan & Minister Papalia complained about "armour peircing bullets" 
Such bullets have never been made available to the public EVER. If there are such rounds in the state they are only available from 3 possible sources & no more. Just the three, 2 are in lawful possession, one is not. The Minister has not explained how many armour peircing rounds he thinks are out there or which source is breaking the law & providing them to criminals. Those sources?

• WA Police
• Australian Defence Forces
• Illegal gun/ammunition smugglers.

Who's providing them to who exactly? If he keeps mentioning "armour peircing rounds" that are capable of penetrating WA Police armour, who are these people & what Intel does he have that this is now a serious imminent threat? 
This should have been focused on by the opposition & the media.

3) Ongoing Mental Health Checks - There is no research that even suggests mental health screening can prevent crimes. In fact even anti gun activists have cited that such testing is unreliable & is possibly dangerous as it cannot (quite rightly) predict future serious criminal behaviour. SOme clinical Psycologists have also pointed out they would need 10-20 clinical hours with a patient to establish a baseline understandign of a person before they would be able to make a professional diagnosis of a mental illness. Working on mid point of 15 hours & there being around 90,000 licenced firearms owners in WA thats over 1.3 million clinical hours ANNUALLY that will be required to detect serious mental illness. With those mental health professionals working an average 38 hour week, an additional 35,526 qualified mental health professionals will be required to join the workforce.
Forget the 35,526, where will the minister find an additional 526 staff qualified to make a full diagnosis?
This should have been focused on by the opposition & the media.

4) Ongoing Health Checks - The minister has since pushed the fade but & at last mention it was ongoing "health checks" which suggests GPs will perhaps be involved in identifying who needs to go onto a qualified clinical Psychologist/Psychiatrist.
The original reason for the Ongoing Mental Health Tests? The minister made a clear pronounced claim, well clear as a minister might make. The minister cited that of the 20 deaths by firearms in WA, 10 were "suggested" to have mental health issues. Yes, "suggested" is the words the minister used. 10 deaths out of 90,000 licenced firearms owners in WA was pushing for an additional 1.3 million mental health Professional's hours. We're since learning that of those 10 very tragic deaths half of them were serving Police Officers who took their own lives with their service firearms. I'm loathe to fact check this & frankly not sure where to look but if that's true then that does not affect nor should it be connected to the 90,000 licenced firearms owners who are not suicidal Police Officers. 
This is not legislative reform. This is not fit for purpose. This is either rank incompetence at the legislative level or its some other weird agenda built on the blood of dead WAPolice.
This should have been focused on by the opposition & the media.

5) Very Powerful Firearms (VPF) - This refers to the list of firearms now suddenly banned in WA. This one that has perplexed professional shooters, sporting/recreational shooters & the competition shooters. WA is the only jurisdiction that uses the VPF description and what's made even worse, there has been no criteria laid down at all. All attempts to find the actual technical specifications for a VPF are met with a stonewall. It would be better if not only the specs were made available but who was responsible for putting the list together.
First it was high calibre. Once it was pointed out that a "calibre" only refers to a projectiles diameter it was switched to power. Once it was pointed out that power needs to be defined, was it muzzle velocity or energy on impact because both can vary massively depending on the amount of powder used, the length of the barrel, the twist rate of the rifling, weather conditions like wind, the type of projectile, its ballistic coefficient. You can have a big calibre that is not all that powerful...but we don't know what the "power level" is that's the scary cut off.
Then most recently it was changed to being rounds that can be fired at police from a much greater distance, with much greater accuracy with much greater deadly effect.

Who are these people likely to shoot upon police from great but unspecified distances???
Where is the intel reports that this is now a much elevated risk factor for police all of a sudden???
Most are used for feral control or competition use. Others are purely collectibles. One that was on the list but later removed was the "55 Baby". It is a World War 2 firearm that is sought after by collectors because it wasn't very successful & as a result they're very rare. You cannot, nor could you ever purchase the ammuniton for it. If any did survive WW2 it'd be incredibly rare & wouldn't use gunpowder, it would use the highly corrosive cordite. Anyone who's spent $12,000+ buying a 55 Baby (there's one possibly 2 in WA, definitely one for sure) you sure wouldn't devalue it by firing it.
Its clear it was placed on the list without knowledge or research. It was just BIG to whoever the unanmed person or persons were who made the list. Probably from searching the list of licenced WA Firearms Owners.
That's not a good example of legislative reform
This should have been focused on by the opposition & the media.

6) Very Powerful Firearms (VPF) Pt 2 - Also on the banned list was the .50 BMG. It is a huge round. It is a large diameter & is very long range. Its also a favourite from Hollywood. I'm not sure if their expert research comes from Hollywood but I think anyone could be forgiven for thinking so.
They were used by civilians in WA in competitions & I believe (might be wrong) on only ONE club run rifle range in WA that is over 100kms east of Carnavon. This is elite level in both skill & cost. These rifles regularly start at $15,000.00
The ammunition is can cost anywhere from a cheap $15 a shot to $30 & rising fast. These are people with a lot of money & time invested in competing...in just travel & accomadation alone. I'm told they all have over the top secure storage with most having monitored alarms & videos. These are not crime figures.
They're now banned. They have never been used in ANY armed crime in WA ever. In fact we've been trying to find out but to date we haven't found one single crime committed with any of the VPFs in WA & possibly only one over in the eastern states. And that one was not a 50 BMG, it was one of the smaller rifles & even then I'm told it was unlicenced. So again, we have no idea why these are suddenly an elevated threat to the WA Public. No intel or statistics have been presented.
This should have been focused on by the opposition & the media.

7) Very Powerful Firearms (VPF) Pt 3 - In the demonising of the .50BMG again, armour peircing rounds were mentioned. That the .50 BMG is capable of firing these rounds. That is 100% correct. However the only place these will exist in Australia are in the Australian Defence Forces. Are they failing their security & ending up on the black market? We need to know what this is all based upon, what is the recent elevated threat?
Do WA Police have .50 BMG armour peircing rounds?
Until recently WA Police did not have a .50 BMG. I thought their largest was either a .338 Lapua or a 300WinMag & only then held by marksmen in the Tactical Response Group (I have no problem with that).
WA Police did recently purchase a .50 BMG & ammunition & its only ever been fired at a Press Conference attended by the then Premier Mark McGowan, Police Minsiter Paul Papalia & the then WA Police Commissioner (now WA Governor) Chris Dawson. All WA media in attendence it was fired at the Pinjar Rifle Range that is not rated for the .50 BMG. I was told (oppositon & media should check) that the club people running that range did not know a .50 BMG would be fired. It barely squeezes into the 6km safety envelope back ground that I'm told is required behind whatever target is fired at. Having said that, they were firing north and about the 6km mark out is the Pinjar Power Station & add on to that, the RAAF were advised to not fly whilst they were shooting. Yes, the RAAF were grounded whilst these politicians held this press conference showing the "50 cal" firing.
That's no less than $15,000 worth of rifle PLUS several thousands of dollars of rifle scope, special scope rings, bipod & an unknown amount of ammunition. 
Apparently WAPolice still have the firearm that really can only be fired in a regional/rural setting.
We're not sure who or what they expect to be shooting at, whether they have armour peircing rounds or whether all officers with access to it are under going regular ongoing mental health tests seeing the high level of WA Police Officers committing suicide. There was in the news the reported higher reporting of mental issues by police officers. The minsiter claimed that the higher levels was a result of reporting being less shameful & was just more people coming forward. He didn't say its no higher than normal or that the amount of people under stress & suffering mental issues was normal, but that was the inference.
This should have been focused on by the opposition & the media.

8) Limiting Guns Per Licenced Person - This is apparently to lessen the amount of crime. This has not come in yet but its been pointed to by the minister.
There is no research to suggest that restricting gun numbers per licenced owner will reduce crime let alone specifically which crimes.

As mentioned months ago, there is no automatic connection between the number of guns & the amount of gun crime. It might seem easy to accept, more guns, more crime but many countries have guns outlawed & they still have gun crime.
Mexico in fact only has 2 gun shops in the entire country (actually I think its only one now).
It has a very regulated gun industry & highly regulated access for the general public & they have less guns per capita than Australia or Western Australia. How do they rate for gun crime then?


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)

When I mentioned this to a person who wants all guns banned they accepted the statistic but said "You can't compare Mexico with here, they have many other factors like poverty & organised crime which are huge players in the death rates"

I pointed out, that is EXACTLY my point. There are other factors driving the gun crime rate here & in Mexico, its not automatically the amount of guns per capita. That is an entirely flawed argument by the WA Minister of Police.
This should have been focused on by the opposition & the media.

9) Public & Stakeholder Consultation - At present there is very little. The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (WA) is being excluded from input. Also excluded is the WA Firearms Traders Association.
Also excluded is WA Grain Growers. Also excluded is the WA Firearms Community Alliance (WAFCA) which the SSAA(WA), the WAFTA & WAGG among many others are members of.
This makes no sense at all.
This should have been focused on by the opposition & the media.

Should point out in the past groups have been able to forward reform initiatives & they have been accepted & implemented. However many have not and since the McGowan Government won control of both houses of Parliament the doors are not opening. Those groups that have been invited to meet with the minister are invited & attend one at a time with the usual result of being a formal information session of what is to happen, not about seeking views & input from stakeholders.
This is not going to bode well for wise legislation or sensible fit for purpose reforms that deliver a decent outcome
This should have been focused on by the opposition & the media.

We should point out that the minister makes mention of the now banned VPF listed rifles & said in other countries they're used to shoot large animals like bears or rhinos, that we don't have those animals in WA. He should be asked which of those firearms are used to shoot those large animals...some are collector firearms & shoot nothing at all. Others are competition rifles & the ones remaining are used for pest control in WA. He needs to be fully open, honest & transperant and point that out. Instead he linked a suggestion of a threat to police. Who exactly is thought to be likely shooting police in WA with these firearms? These lawful owners or criminals who have illegal possession of these same types of firearms?
It really doesn't make sense but it makes for a great political optic in the news.
This should have been focused on by the opposition & the media

9) See whats missing from reforms & what wise advocates have asked for thats still missing. You still cannot post firearms & parts throughout WA & courier services are extremely limited. One Dealer had couriered a firearm over 1000kims because Aust Post won't touch them in WA...only WA. The courier sent parcel had to be returned to Perth then resent. so it travelled 3000+kms before the owner could pick it up. Posted, it'd wait in storage until picked up, fraction of the price.
Your .22 rifle is worn or you just want a newer better one...you have to sell your old one THEN apply for a new one with the full application process, wait time fr approval & processing plus fees. No simple cheap, like for like trade in process over the counter exchange. These are just some of things the WA Firearms Community Alliance is pushing for but other lesser equipped advocates are not. 

 Here's how good (not good) the local MP for Albany is. Good with the spin & the pamphlets but it's devilish dire when you look at the devil in the lack of her detail. I don't blame her personally, she's a socialist in the WA Labor Party. She cannot & will not cross the floor on a vote in the best interests of the electorate because she'd be in th eouter within the Party. That would mean she'd also lose her Deputy Speaker role which adds to the salary & at the next election she'd be targetted. Its not just a matter of her risking her pre-selection at the next election, if she crosses the floor or exhibits independent thinking out loud she would be automatically expelled from the party. 

This flyer she's sent out, well I'd be very surprised if she was across much of the detail.

The Premier was clear (before jumping ship) that coal would be needed until 2030. Sadly though the Premier had to import coal from NSW for the Collie Coal Fired Power Station...despite the coal mine next door getting a huge taxpayer cash injection.

How much? We still don't know but Griffin Coal had debts around $1.4 Billion to investors, the undisclosed cash injection still stands out as completely bizarre
From the ABC report...

The cash — which would effectively act as a loan — would "stabilise its Collie operations and provide certainty for the workforce and community," the government said in a statement. 

Rebecca would probably prefer you to focus on Labor giving households $400 & that the power bill assistence now totals $1400 over 3 years. It was not gift. Its our money. The money paid to Griffin Coal, also our money. Proper management might have prevented the need for the importing coal. Proper consideration about how much a shortfall renewables deliver might have seen us spend money on fixing & upgrading the power station or building a nuclear.

The idea they stopped privatising energy assets, which, where, when?
Sure not managed well by the Labor Government.

Regional Air Cap...good luck getting that because you have to pre book 30 days in advance. 2 recent emeergency trips to Perth, out of luck. I await Rebecca explaining how many seats total are on those flights since its introduction & show exactly how many capped seats were on offer, how many were taken up & how many vacant seats were on each flight. That means proper data to show the real truth...so no chance

The training one was intriguing. All sounds great. Employment Rate is intriuging with as little as 2 hours a week work is classed as "employed" whilst in Albany the TAFE Training Course for nursing was cancelled.

The big numbers to help EDs & reduce ramping...no actual definitive number on what is going into Albany.

4000 houses promised & 1200 delivered...where???
There are more empty houses through lack of maintanece then the number of new ones being brought online. She's done, or rather the governments done a shifty. We're worse off & we're told to be happy & encouraged. Housing minister is a total failure.

Royalty for Regions spending...there's no indication what, where & how much after a continued run of R4R paying for normal items in ministries, general expenditure to cost shift the funds to other projects elsewhere. This is smoke & mirrors.

"Whether its funding for cost of living relief, health, houding or specific initiatives like agriculture and national parks - we're supporting regional WA."

That claim is patently false. Its also the only reference to Agriculture. Labor said it supported Live Export & yet transitioning away from it still remains in the Party's platform & no Labor MP has pushed for it to be removed. No Labor MP attended ANY of the Live Export Transition Meetings...none. Even when one meeting was less that 400 metres from Rebecca's office. The Ag Minister Jackie Jarvis said she didn't attend because she wasn't made aware of the meetings...only latter to say she didn't attend because she didn't want it to be all about her. How does that work, what's "about her" mean? Does she mean she'd actually have to be very clear & very public about what she's doing or where she stands? Also not present was Jane Kelsbie, Sally Talbot all from this region.

Then there was rthe Foot & Mouth Disease emergency public meetings. No Labor MPs. NeitherRebecca Stephens nor then Ag Minister Alannah McTiernan, nor then upcoming Ag Minsiter Jackie Jarvis, Sally Talbot or Jane Kelsbie...the meeting was in Mt Barker which is Jane Kelsbie's electorate.

And of course there's the other big one...

Alannah McTiernan revealed she made a deal with then Premier Mark McGowan that being she gave in and said she would run in the last election but only serve 2 years of her 4 year term. Something she never told ANY electors during her campaign. Her replacement, another quality Labor Pre-selection pick ended up with the seat but was expelled after months of indecison over who would step up. The person did & then was in court with many charges of breaching restrainign orders. Labor expelled him & if we had any possible representation in the Labor Party we now have less. In fact as Alannah was a minister we in theory had representation in cabinet. As it turns out it won't make any difference as McTiernan was not representing the electors.

Like all Labor MPs including Rebecca Stephens they do not represent the electorate in parliament, they only represent their Socialist party in the electorate. 
But good luck getting them to a public meeting.
They do not go.

When People In The West Praise Socialism, It's a Bit Like...

...when children play wars, jump in holes with sticks they pretend are guns, throw pretend grenades & say they love war versus the real thing kids their age may have to witness, live through & suffer in actual war zones. Its not real, its not fun & whether its kids or westerners it is extolling the virtues of something and ignoring the messy bad bits.

Socialism vs Communism is another argument itself but seems a lot thing Socialism is the first step to communism.

First, don't forget the book people refer to "The Communist Manifesto" was jointly written between Marx & Engels & that was released in 1848. So now, in 2023 that book is 175 years. We're still yet to see a sovereign government anywhere now or since then that ran its nation, its economy, its society like that successfully & without mass theft, economic disaster, loss of normal human and individual rights, wide spread corruption, widespread false imprisonment (often without charge), abolition of the right to worship/religion and the big one...outright government sanctioned genocide. 

So Socialism vs Communism seems a point of conjecture for most but seems kind more than likely Socialism is the transition phase where capitalism still exists, personal ownership exists to a very limited extents and the government is (in theory at least) controlled not so much by the people, but specifically by the working class. Some might warm to a watered down version of that, some might want full communism, but even with that transitional socialist model the means of production & the ownership of that which we might consider to be a wealth creator...that's not owned by an individual taking risk or a group of individuals (called a company). Its owned, managed & controlled by the government. (We need to return to this point, jus tmarking it)

Its also worth remembering that The Communist Manifesto is considered, even by its critics to be "not all wrong" but that that doesn't mean there's enough kernals of good to outweigh the pesky parts of it that are diabolical & manifestly wrong. It means if you could delete all the bad & very bad & that which would lead to evil the 23 page book/pamphlet might be reduced to a very short half page brochure.

The other part worth remembering is The Communsit Manifesto is considered by some to be a philosphical work & by others to be a political work. Maybe. It's pretty clear when you read it & remember it was in the middle of the 19th century.
It was a call to revolution. They had decided what was needed & it wasn't going to be achieved in that age without armed struggle.
Was the accepted establishment at the time completely good?
Pick a country in the mid 1800s & the answer would likely be no. 
Was Communism likely to be the bright, good & fair replacement?
No and that's no as in never, not then, not now & not anytime in human history.

One other thing...its very badly written then & I think they as writers are very much like many of those who are its fans. Deeply committed, deeply passionate for that type of change, many willing to kill & die for a society model that they would learn to hate were they actually required to live under it. Its deeply anti-establishment & when the youthful angry, especially those attending higher learning come into contact with it as they're looking to form a mode of rebellious identity...yes it has appeal at the front door.
Many academics lean towards some sort of version of socialism. Outside unversities (lecturers & students) many working class on the tools have over the decades leaned its way. Irony being many people suffer under socialism & communism...especially the academics, the students & the working class.
The greatest advantage goes to the leaders of the military & police & those in political ruling class.
When there's a revolution all fighting for Marxist offshoot must think they're going to end up with a really sweet life at the top of the society heirachy. The bad news is, those most influential, those able to rouse fools to slaughter, those able to teach people to think a particular way have two paths. A very very small percentage are quickly brought into the ruling class the rest are rounded up, reeducated until they're broken and/or destroyed, imprisoned until they're broken and/or destroyed and don't forget, destroyed means murdered.

So there's that.

Then in the West it will eventually come, the claim that "If it weren't for Socialism you wouldn't have..."
In Australia I have heard the obvious one Medicare, but I have also heard old age & disability pensions, free university education, better wage out comes & sometimes (I kid you not) the wild ones pop up. The defence of the nation & society by the military & police and fire fighters, nurses...

None of these things are within the writings of Marx. Hospitals, soldiers, nurses pre-dated Marx.
Have government managing fire fighting is smart, not socialist. Medicare is not Marxist or we'd see incredible healthcare in non Western non capitalist nations. 

Here, hospitals are not built by government builders, fitted out with government plumbers, painters, electricians. Its not socialist.

The other big one that comes up is the Norwegian Fund.
To correct the most common lie, Norway is not a socialist country. Its a market based economy.
Government Pension Fund of Norway or Statens pensjonsfond is actually 2 funds but never mind that.
Its actually very non socialist in principle in that it is one of the largest investment funds in the world.
Yes. It invests its money in non Marxist things, like property & listed companies to earn an ongoing profit for their nation...although in 2023 it made a multi million dollar loss. Without capitalism no one would buy their oil reserves & they would not be able to invest any money earned of it if they did.
It being socialism stacks up like say a fat stack of dead cats is actually a chocolate powered device for mass transportation to the moon.

Its banged on about that we should do the same, that we bow to OPEC blah blah.

Norway - The Satens pensjonsfond has been going since 1967. Its a simple 55% Special tax on resource profits PLUS their 20% Corporate Tax. 

Simple as that is their share of the oil & gas returns will probably amount to a $209Billion of a 63% cut of the industry's revenue.

Australia - In the late 80s The Hawke Labor Government created the PRRT (Petroleum Resource Rent Tax)
It taxes oil extraction with a 40% tax and a 30% company tax rate that in theory at least turns out to be a 58% return.
So we have a sort of similar thing...in 2021/22 the PRRT generated a record low $900 Million & "continues to deliver only a circa-1 percent royalty - despite $11 Billion spent on fossil fuel subsidies"

So the very poor outcome in the Australian version, it looks like it is run by socialists or by those paying the taxes...

The Shock (?) McGowan Exit

Shocked? Yes.

Suprised? No. In fact last year I said many things & changed my mind now & then but one thing I did say out loud was as a result of discussion with other conservatives & non conservatives re Mr McGowan. I thought last year that he'd leave politics completely sometime between March & June of 2023.

I thought i had good reasons thinking that but some of the things I thought (and didn't think/know of) were probably bigger in size, weight & number than I thought. Time will tell. 

I figured we were on the cusp of a recession 18 months ago. I went by the Economic Clock & the dire state of the US Economy & knew interest rates were going to rise, money would begin to lose value (inflation), people would be under greater pressure from mortgage stress, energy costs would rise fast as we pushed away from fossil fuel generated electricity & went into renewables that weren't quite a reliable and or cheaper/parity cost replacement. 

If ever there was a time for steady economic pause, wise reeling in of some types of spending & paying down debt it was then. It wasn't to be & we soon got federal Labor & Labor state governments everywhere excpet Tasmania.

With the economic storm clouds gathering & possible the worst we've seen since the Keating Recession era it was clear that, as they say in the classics (not the Shakespeare, Chekov or Tennesee Williams, more like the classic formula action movies)... "Shits about to get real"

McGowan also made all sorts of deals with all sorts of people all along his rise & rise but made some very powerful enemies within his own party which was on full display when a large contigent of Labor Party delegates at the 2019 Labor State Conference walked out on McGowan's speech with yells of "Shame" and "Bullshit"

McGowan had a target painted on his back but his saving grace was his ability both in the Parliament on his feet & outside with his strategic helicopter view that out witted both his political opponents & his opponents within the Labor Party. He won the 2021 State Election in such a compelling & crushing manner that compelling & crushing are words that fall short. He won his own seat WITHOUT preferences by nearly 83% & the closest contender collected less than 13% WITH preferences. Landslide doesn't describe it. He was still a dead man walking from with his own party but he was pretty much untouchable.

It was clear though, he needed to leave politics on his own terms & certainly jump before he heard the bus start because there were many in his party & in his party room that would be some of the hands pushing him.

He's been touting surpluses for ages & the recent budget predicts a $3.3 Billion surplus for 2023/24 but that's a forecasr & it won't have been the only one & its not like a sitting government to use a more favourable forecast amongst the many from Treasury to beef up the media optic.

The Economic Clock has us on the downward lunge & like that for sometime. Remember much of the surplus we have is not prudent economic management of MetroNet would not be MetroDebt, balloning with out of control budget largesse. It may yet turn out to be the biggest infrastructure cost blow out in WA History. 
The surplus also is a result of favourable exchange rates, increases fees & charges, a previously record high Iron Ore price (and therefore high royalties) and the very favourable GST deal.

Whilst Iron Ore is currently sitting on $102 today, its long term average price is $60/tonne. It's fallen $30 a tonne since March. Its highest point in the last 12 months was $146/tonne. 

For comparison, the last years of the previous Lib/Nat Government... 

2015 - 2017 its was always between $73 and $83 with the lowest point diving to $52
Yes neither Labor nor Liberal would have done a credible job.

2019 onwards its always been above $80, most of it over $105 and it peaked at $220.
Yes both Labor & Liberal would have done a credible economic job.

But China's construction era is over. Iron Ore has been falling off since the paek in July 2021, in fact its halved. Plus interest rates are still rising, inflation is still a huge factor, theres huge cost of living pressures, mortgage stress & we could be on the cusp of a world wide recession if not certianly one for Australia.

If ever the Premier was going to jump ship before his Labor party enemies its about now.
How could anyone have access to economic forecasts...you'd have to be, well I dunno a State Treasurer.

Not sure why he's retiring right now. Exhausted? Possibly. However, why would you not take 3 weeks leave, hand treasurer portfolio over to someone else, coast to the next election & become the longest serving Premier in WA's history? More likely as the economy worsens his prospects worsen.
Add in as I type its Tuesday May 30th, the day after his announcement. Friday is his very last day at work, then he's gone from the Premier's office, gone from Parliament altogether. Next sitting of Parliament is June 13th. He's not casting off duties to others & hanging around for that one week of Parliament to give a farewell speech as is customary & get all the glowing & gushing best wishes speeches as is customary.

He's not not just getting out of the sallon, he's getting out of Dodge & the wild territory as fast as he can.
Yes there's a lot of unseen stuff to unpack & we may not see it ever...but it doesn't add up & the state's economic future as one that is soaring doesn't add up nor stack up.

Then comes the By-election. 
Vince Catania won his seat by the smallest margin, Labor nearly won. He resigned & a by-election came but Labor did not run a candidate. When asked the Premier said its not unusual, it happens from time to time. All he did was explain the frequency of that happening, not why it did. For some reason WA Labor decided not to try & have one of the MPs representing that electorate in Cabinet & the Parliament. Leave it to the Libs & the Nats to fight it out and the electors have no (in theory) input directly to the government.

Mr McGowan won his seat by a gigantuan landslide. Thats the only difference. You can bet they'll run a candidate but the logic comparison between Rockingham & North West Central will require an explantion of epic level mental gymnastics 

McGowan was unaligned, the left will want to win it. The Left was not interested in North West Central, not interested in regional WA. 

Odds are 100 will win you 101 that Labor will stand out as hypocrites & run a candidate in the Rockingham by-election and have immense difficulty explaining the weird juxaposition.

Kinda seems clear.

LABOR HAS NO TIME NOR REGARD FOR RURAL & REGIONAL WA.

LABOR IS STUCK IN A PERPETUAL LOOP OF THUG PAYBACK ON THE REGIONS
AND McGOWAN JUMPED BEFORE HE WAS PUSHED AND BEFORE THE ECONOMY TURNS AND HE LOSES THE THIN & LESS THAN SOLID PERCEPTION OF BEING A GREAT FINANCIAL MANAGER. HE'S GOT A CORPORATE LIFE TO GO TO.

Premier McGowan, Minister Papalia & Recent Gun Offences

No I'm not in anyway going to defend any crime, especially any crime involving a legal or illegal firearm whether it was a fool's mistake, a genuine planned threat or resulted in death or injury.  Never.

So this week there were 2 incidents. One was a gun shop was robbed at gun point, the other a young person is alleged to have returned to the school he was expelled from in an unregistered vehicle & discharged a rifle in the car park & the rifles he had were not registered to him. That's the broadbrush description because until these matters go to court we're not going to know what the hell every detail is. Having said that, it is alleged the young person discharged the firearms but not at any person, then put them down & called police. Police arrived, nothign escalated & the shooter was calmly arrested without any struggle. I say calmly but I'll wait & see what is reported, calmly as in no likelihood of struggle or "death by cop", I'll wait & see but scuttle butt says a young lad might have been distressed in the extreme realising what he'd done in order to possible get attention & help. That's guessing & unconfirmed but Col Blanch's media speech was very calm & professional.

In contrast the Premier wrongly compared this to USA school shootings & fanned the flames most likely for theatrical effect & political drama points. He should have been far more professional, showed some statesmanaship. He should have said...

 "We're still gathering details on the entire incident & everything that led up to it. We'll be providing support for all involved should they need it. Children, teachers, their families, WA Police, the alleged shooter & his family. We ask people to remain calm & allow the professional people involved to go about their business & everyone can go about their lives safely & normally. There is now no threat to the public or police & we ask that the public refrain from social media theorising & allow the in place process to take its unfettered course. Soon as we're able to make further comment we will, but for now there is no threat to the public from that incident. In a seperate unrelated incident there was a robbery at a WA Gun shop and that incident is still live so I won't comment on that at all but will return to the WA Police Commissioner to comment on what he can but I remind you this is an operational matter at the WAPolice are only able to comment so far as they pursue that person" 

And yet he didn't. He fanned the flames & said the government's aim was to reduce the number of firearms in the community. Sadly there is no evidential research to say reducing legal firearms in the community reduces gun crime. Sounds bizarre & counter intuitive.

Australia has more guns per capita than Mexico. 
Mexico has more homicides & more gun related homicides than Australia per capita.
Its quite clear, the amount of guns isn't the peak cause of homicides or violent crime.
Mexico has very rigourous processing of applications for a gun licence...although so say it's just slow & ineffective with some applications taking between 3 & 6 months to process.


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)


So in that comparison, its not the number of firearms in the community that is the key driver to gun deaths & gun crime. Now the dismissive answer is "Oh but Mexico is country with greater crime, drugs, drug & people smugglers, cartels..." and I agree. Its not the number of guns that's causing crime, its other factors otherwise we'd have greater crime here...so even the rebuttal proves the point. The number of guns doesn't push the amount of crime, the culture of the society does. 
If Mr Papalia & Mr McGowan's idea had merit then there must be a magical number that stops gun crime. If a person owns what 10 guns they'll be fine, but if they own eleven or more they'll be more likely to grab a firearm they own & kill or rob someone? Or is the magic danger number 2 firearms or 23?

Creating a threat, demonising, then loudly & unrelentlessly pounding the media about that demon & saying WA's only hope & champion is their government who'll fight the threat & save WA is a well worn, well playing trick.
It was Clive Palmer, Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs, COVID, Firearms...oddly didn't go all out on Foot & Mouth Disease like the other threats. Re Palmer & $30 Billion law suit...you go to court THEN you win the case THEN the Judge decides if damages are required THEN the judge decides how much is to be paid. You don't go to court & lodge an invoice for the amount you think you are battling for.
The $30 Billion that would have bankrupted the state was a fictional number...probably by Palmer to get more prestige & attention, possibly an out of court settlement (?) & by McGowan to build a demon that only he could save WA from. The legislation he passed to removed the ability of an Australian citizen taking legal action that the government was likely to lose...it was worked on for months in secret with a law firm & just a couple of people from cabinet & them dropped in the parliament without any notice. The opposition was summoned & informed about it as the Attorney General was on his feet putting the bill to parliament whilst the Premier put the wind up opposing party's leaders to pass it fast or WA suffers. They were out flanked & out foxed and a veyr dubious bill was passed.

That is the hallmark of the current government.

I'll wait to hear more but police en route to the school car park incident had not classified the young person as an "active shooter"
That doesn't mean no threat, but it means at that point, the person is not seeking people to shoot, he isn't holding the guns, he's given up before Police arrive. 
This was not anything like the Premier's horrible political smash n grab effort calling it a south/southern American style event in any way.

He was determined to build the worst demon he possibly could so he can fight the demon he wants, that he knows he can defeat to grab "we're keeping you safe" even though the demon is invented.

Col Blanch's comments were more reserved & precise, the Government's were flame fanning & political motivated.

Appalling. 

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Side Note - Late 1950s early 1960s my uncle was a a young lad, a school kid in a small country town & was a member of the local rifle club. Like most kids he had a gun for shooting rabbits etc. In the rifle club he had an ex WW2 Lithgow .303.
He used to go to the rifle club on the weekend to learn & compete. No big deal. 

Difference was, he rode his single speed push bike from home, down the main street with his rife over his back & sometimes he even stopped in the main street to buy sweets. I asked did it freak everyone out. He said no. No one batted an eyelid, it was the same reaction if he was carrying a hockey stick or a cricket bat.

As he suggested, times have changed a lot & oddly there's probably less firearms in the community now, there's been amnesties, buy backs, calibre restrictions, some guns banned altogether, actual requirements to have a gun licence. Its not the number of guns that have changed, something in society has changed & somehow we're not feeling safer unless we're heavily regulated or perhaps over regulated. It might be because that is to make up from parentling that nowadays lacks strong strict boundaries & kids are being taught to be good citizens obedienat to the government instead of being taught how to be good adults in the old days.
Its not really the number of guns in society that is the prime driver of gun crime. It jsut isn't. Its something in society itself. Time to be honest.

Minister Papalia & WAPolice Bureaucrat Changes to WA Firearms Laws

Yes deaths from firearms are topical, serious & unacceptable. No argument there but any changes to firearms laws must be based in verifiable facts & data AND NOT EMOTIONAL SENTIMENT.

I say this because I got into a discussion & it was very one sided, well no, two sided...strongly, definitively 2 immovable sides but one side had a few facts the other didn't. So no, it did not go well. No one was hurt or abused or anything like that, it didn't go well because despite the introduction of facts, no minds were changed.

It started with the Firearms Laws in WA have to be updated, that updates were way overdue. I said "Yup 100% probably should be reviewed every 5 years regardless"
(I should say I didn't point out I was a legal firearms owner, that I put a submission into the Govt before & after the Law Reform Commission report was handed down, 2017 I think?)

Ongoing mental health checks for all firearms owners being brought in was a good idea & what did I think?
I said if it helps bring a positive outcome I'm for any reform.
(I should say I didn't point out that I didn't think the introduction of mental health checks would serve any positive outcome, would add immense cost & would not be able to predict any future criminal behaviour)

Next I got hit up with the idea that limiting the number of firearms to 5 was also a good idea & make the public safer.
I said again, if it helps bring a positive outcome any reform is a good idea.
(I should point out I didn't point out that I didn't think there was a magical number of firearms that was safer for the public and a magical number that automatically increased gun crime or gun deaths. If a person is a fit & proper person with genuine need for 2-5 guns & not committing crime it is no logical or plausible to say the same person with more than 5 firearms would suddenly, automatically be likley to commit a gun crime or cause a more crime. Its just not true) 

Next I got told these changes ought to come in now & the gun fanatics should be shut down & probably should be banned from owning firearms.
OK, now I thought it was time to say something more aligned with facts & less polite fence sitting, this is where things went from real friendly to real prickly.

All I said was, if someone is any sort of fanatic then we should look if they're the type of person who should be able to get a firearm. If they're a known member or supporter of known terrorist group, drug cartel then I don't think they'd be able to get a firearms licence, or shouldn't perhaps background checks aren't thorough enough but if the firearms are all legal, there's a proven genuine need, they're used, maintained & stored safely and securely and the applicant is a fit & proper person...I don't think there's any provable possible problem with owning 5 guns or 50 guns.

Well it went like an internet argument that eventually winds up with some obscure reference to Nazis (Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies). Adolf Hitler & his followers weren't mentioned but the other person straight away went to "We don't want to be like the US is".
Why? Well because it's apparently the Gun Death Capital of the World.

Now yes, I knew some obscure (to most others) facts. Because I'd heard this argument before & I went and checked what was what just a few days earlier.

This is not word verbatim quote but it's pretty close to what I said off the top of my head.

Lets look at the facts & go to a year that's Pre-Covid so its without any massive non firearm event impact across a society that pushes any numbers in the statistics up or down.
Take 2019.
In 2019 the US Population was 328 million with roughly 40% of Americans being gun owners.
There were more guns than people, as in 120 guns for every 100 people.
Also in 2019 there were 6 million Americans legally carrying guns daily.
There were 33-34,000 gun deaths in the USA that year.

63% were suicides.
15% were justified police deaths

5% were accidental as in accidental discharge with a person killing themself or another.
That leaves 17% of which we don't know very much at all to make enough valid conclusions to make a plan to reduce death.
We don't know how many of those 17% deaths were legal or illegal guns.
We don't know how many were drug & gang related.
We do know that that 17% included "mass shootings" but sadly we also know that any incident gang related where 3 or more people were shot dead are included in "mass shooting" and some states use a different cut off number for "mass" shooting than others. One well known mass shooting in Philadephia that year turned out to be a dispute between 2 people with guns, legal or not we don't know & because people were accidently killed & the death toll was above 3 it went into the same statistical cohort as a school shooting.
So I'm not exactly sure which death cohort can be lessened by America adopting a 5 gun per person limit. We do know that not all but nearly all gand related deaths involving gang members or drug disputes involved people who've gone to jail, people who are ineligible to legally buy a gun (so they use illegal guns) & we know in Chicago...well you can't buy guns there & yet they have a serious gun crime epidemic.
Which changes do you think will lessen gun crime, by how much and how that will work exactly the same in WA?

The reply I got was jaw dropping to me..."What sort of person has access to those sort of statistics, are they even accurate?" 

I just said, yes I think its all accurate, I read up them only a few days ago. On the public record from the Authorities...I didn't make them up.

I didn't say this at the time, wish I had but here's no evidence or research for saying a reduction in gun ownership will drop suicides by whatever number that 63% works out to be. But grab the calculator, that number in 2019 works out to be around 20,000 suicides will be somehow magically lessened if gun ownership is lessened to 5 per person...zero valid reason let alone factual data. No data at all to suggest or prove 5 guns per owner will lessen the 4-5000 justified police killings by gun either.

There is no valid research to say less guns will reduce deaths, are we going to reduce the number of cars on the roads & restrict people's daily alcohol intake & sentence people to imprisonment for  smoking cigarettes?
Makes no sense. 

Then I got, "I can't believe you're even saying this, its astounding you defend guns"

I pointed out I'm not attacking nor defending anyone nor anything, I'm putting forward the facts & I am saying I support any reforms of any laws that make sense & have valid data behind them. Restricting people to a number makes no sense.

Again I didn't say this at the time, but I think it would have made no difference...
People that are involved with ballistic sports usually have one for their competition & not unusual to have a back up firearm in case the usual one breaks/malfunctions during competition. I know people that compete in 4 or more disciplines. Some hunt. Some do feral control, some are hunting for food.
If they have a genuine need, meet the background checks, maintain, use & store the firearms safely AND have a genuine need then there is no number of firearms that will suddenly turn them into a gun suicide or a killer. Its just not even fanciful, its 100% untrue.

Bring the facts & bring everyone along. Don't ram through just because you have a gut feeling or reckon that might help. I pointed out something previously on mental health checks...we're grossly understaffed for mental health professionals in WA but most psychologists take many hours, sometimes as many as 10-15 hours to establish a patient baseline BEFORE they can make a disagnosis. In Western Australia there's 90,000 licenced firearms owners so are we expecting 10 hours of lead up to a diagnosis that cannot predict future behaviour like murder or suicide is helpful?

10 hours x 90,000 is nearly a million clinical hours to cover every licenced shooter in WA. Divide that by a 30 hour working week we're going to need what another 30,000 mental health workers clinically trained to make a diagnosis of a condition but not able to make an accurate prediciton of crime, suicide, assault or murder?
Its just facts we need, not emotional.

That last comment (I won't repeat) was a very prophetic comment because the comment came back with swear words telling me to go somewhere & calling me a below the waste body part.
Very non-adult, very fact free, very emotional

My position remained the same then as it is now. If it helps bring a positive outcome I'm for any reform...but it must be a well thought out plan or change that has facts behind it, lots of rigourous discussion from everyone around it & no knee jerk cold slap idea that's more about creating a demon & killing it with a fact free stick just to get a political hug/vote/donation from others who don't think to ask about the facts & research.

I don't really understand the Hashtag thing but that aside...

 #ReformsDoNotIncludeOverReachOrBurden

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Just an aside, a theocracy is when the political leaders, the leaders of the nation are religious leaders. That's what a theocracy actually is. When people say bureaucracy people just think its the Public Service but...No. A Bureaucracy is where a country is run by the bureaucratic leaders and the public service doesn't serve the public, it serves the Bureaucratic leaders. This is the Swamp when people made the clarion call it "Drain the Swamp" This is what's happening in the USA & opposition to the Swamp is growing. We have a bit of swamp going here to because when bureaucrats & the minister construct bills to become legislation WITHOUT public comment period, without stakeholder consultation & generally get industry or stakeholders in to quietly listen to them, then ignore what they've said or asked for & just start explaining what will be...your options are shut up & comply or speak up thanking us as you comply or suffer more consequences you can call payback. No call to rise up. Rather join an advocacy group or get involved supporting them as they support you.

No, Seriously...What is a woman?

"What Is A Woman?" - Matt Walsh first coined the iconic question or at least cemented in the lexicon by producing a must watch film with that question as the title. 

It is actually a very rational question that shines a bright beams of fresh sunlight on the whole premise of why state & federal governments have a "Minister of Women's Interests"

So “anyone who identifies as a woman" means being a woman is chosen social sub culture identity like a goth, hippy, metalhead. It now means the gender wage gap is immaterial. You can chose to be a Yuppy or a Goth or a Man or a Woman & have the corresponding average earning capacity that goes along with that identity choice...maybe you'll do better than the average or a lot worse but in any case, you choose & if one is worse than the other it reflects your choice...so not the problem for anyone else to fix. Logic (although its remarkably absent in Identity Politics) would suggest there will be a Minister for Goth Interests soon & Hippy Interests and so on.

Stressed point - On this the feminists are strangely dead quiet.

Now is this is all about the Identity a person chooses that logically means “Anything” is viable as a chosen identity choice in which case if you identify as a cat, let the authorities know if you don't have an owner & are no a registered & chipped animal. You can be taken to the pound, be assigned a vet for your care until you’re neutered & await pet adoption by whomever wants you & is happy to pay your pet licence. Spoiler alert…a lot are not adopted & get put down but hey…

Humans are top of the animal kingdom so, hang in there til PETA saves the day. Although that’s a political group, they don’t keep or rehome any animals. As a cat you have to be an animal, do not have personhood, citizenship, voting rights, no money or assets...so you're either a licenced pet or you're a feral. Sound ridiculous doesn't it, can't compare it with LGBTQI+... But cat or transman transwoman its all only a self chosen identity. It's all the same under this nonsensical illogical premise. I mean you created this derangement that doesn’t work. Embrace it for all its stupidity If you cannot define a woman as anything other than those that choose to live as the non defined identity callen women, its got no value beyond a socially constructed self identity choice. You don't get extra rights. If you do, Goths do, Surfies do, Metalheads do, Bikers do, Hippies do and they ALL need to be graded along with Men & Women on the gender pay gap scale...no one has any prominence over another. I not many members of Parliament say women are those who live as women. Many. They hate & avoid the "What is a woman? question like acid covered plague nowadays...now they know they strapped a whole bunch of logic grenades to their chest, pulled all the pins & threw the pins at those who question them. They have argued their way into logical quicksand with pockets full of brick pavers & wearing big old cement shoes. Which also runs another big into view to sit on them whilst they sink in the quicksand... Sex & gender no longer exists. It must no longer exist in toilets...currently there has been a push for that & in some places its happening. But the even bigger one, it must no longer can exist in sports. We cannot have any more men, nor women brackets in sport or we have to open it to all self chosen identities. Who will end up with the Olympic Record for Bhuddist Goth Women's Javelin OR is it humans against humans and no sub culture social construct identity isn't used? None in or all in...can't be preferential & biased or oppress some with exclusion. Currently Identity Policis is destroying women's sports Stressed point - On this the feminists are strangely dead quiet. I know of a number of sitting MPs that have this logical dilemma. They are super strong feminists & yet say those who live as a woman are women. Strangely this means death to any sports endeavour most young girls might aspire to. They most likely are going to be competing against anyone who "lives as a woman" even if they were born male & became and lived as relatively strong males for most of their life. If someone was truly a feminist they would not accept that a woman is anyone (born male or female) who lives as a female. They would be living the traditional line. Stressed point - On this the feminists are strangely dead quiet. As are the Members of Parliament who like to remain in a vague cloud & play verbal distraction games. I should remind you, they're on a 3-4 year contract & they have to pretend to be doing you well whether they do anything or not ro get re-elected. Now its possible those feminists have fully embraced "woman" as being a self chosen, social construct identity like goth, hippy, surfie, metal head...and there's no political need to argue any debatable oppression if its a chosen identity. No gender, no females, no feminism, no feminists...that's logically making a lot of sense but I think its more likely to be chosen silence due to the embarassing logic implosion they have stapled to their forehead.

This is what Identity Politics is. It is a gross & debilitating cancer on society.

So with that in mind, you might want to check this video of the Queensland Minister for Women's Interests...  https://twitter.com/i/status/1655893546933837831