From Simon Munslow (Firearms Lawyer Australia on FB)

News and events in the media and political arena relating to firearms.

From Simon Munslow (Firearms Lawyer Australia on FB)

Post by bladeracer » 14 Jun 2020, 12:49 pm

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1142440512779467&id=438012929888899&__tn__=K-R

Simon posted this the other day.
"HERE IS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

I have just read and reviewed the latest Australian Institute of Criminology (‘AIC’) firearms research, and I shall circulate a review on it shortly.

This report, and consideration of the lack of AIC activity on firearms matters during the last decade, highlights a point that shooters need to consider.

I would assume that the AIC undertakes research after receipt of an expression of interest from a law enforcement body, otherwise it would be undertaking research largely at the whim of its researchers, and that would not amount to a sensible use of government resources. In this context, I would not expect the AIC to receive instructions for research into areas that subvert the Australian government gun control paradigm, and this is probably the reason why we are not seeing as much AIC firearms research as we used to.

(By the way, while the AIC is a government body, its research is generally of the highest quality, and one should not criticise it because of its government status).

We are never going to see a significant winding back of firearms laws in Australia unless there is a considerable body of highly persuasive peer reviewed research that grounds changes to the National Firearms Agreement, in sound public policy.

The reason for this is twofold. The community has been brain washed, and law makers take considerable convincing when they get it wrong.

There are a number of lobbyists operating in the Firearms arena, and most are small outfits. Many have had minor successes in respect to activity that usually amounts to the correction of an erroneous view that a policy officer has developed. This type of thing is all well and good, but it is strategic outcomes we need, and this requires research evidence.

Given three aspects to this that interested players need to consider how this research can be obtained and be funded.

-Funding- where does the money come from?

-The logical answer to this is that all shooters need to be involved in contributing to lobbying. Such contribution cannot be compelled, and as such probably the best approach is to look to the example of the gay community. Just as the gay community scorned those who would not ‘come out’, we need to start scorning those who wish to freeload.

The final aspect is that this shall cause a degree of argument amongst elements of the shooter rights movement. Opinions are things that everyone has, and the opinions held by some shooters are grounded more in wishful thinking rather than any sort of sound policy basis.

In considering the above, thought would need to be given in respect to how to navigate this.

For what it is worth, my stance is that the only gun law that is acceptable, is one that the preponderance of quality, peer reviewed research establishes is of merit to the community. Law should not form a battle ground for people on either side to seek to impose their personal code of morality.

What do you think? And how can such research be funded?"

Follow him on FB if you want.
https://www.facebook.com/Firearms-Lawyer-Australia-438012929888899
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12655
Victoria

Re: From Simon Munslow (Firearms Lawyer Australia on FB)

Post by womble » 14 Jun 2020, 7:49 pm

Don’t known which report he is referring to.
Homicides are down. Majority of which are domestics.
Firearm thefts are up, with a more recent focus on rural areas. Majority of which are thefts from residential premises.
Firearm homicides seemingly trend quite evenly for the past two decades if you reference Sydney University.
Theft is the anomaly I think he is referring to, with a sudden spike and acceleration past two years.
I think this is important information that would be attracting a lot of attention, because if it keeps following a rapid upward trend that is reflecting criminal access to firearms.
Which would effectively reverse all firearm statistical trends over the next following decades. And we,d be back at 1988 sooner than later,

What does this mean for us.
I would anticipate a level of culpability applied to the lfo.
Because that’s how our dumbfuck government works. Shift culpability to the victim and apply more stringent regulations. Blame the victim, too easy, screw crime fighting.
Last edited by womble on 14 Jun 2020, 8:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I dream of a world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned
womble
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2369
Victoria

Re: From Simon Munslow (Firearms Lawyer Australia on FB)

Post by womble » 14 Jun 2020, 8:02 pm

Haha your filter dose’nt contain dumbfuck
I dream of a world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned
womble
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2369
Victoria

Re: From Simon Munslow (Firearms Lawyer Australia on FB)

Post by TassieTiger » 15 Jun 2020, 3:41 am

I’m sure Lord Blade will be cracking it over this reply...lol.
Dumb duck (hmmm...)
Dumb duck
Dumb f***
Dumb f***
Dumb duck
Dumb f***
Dumbfuck

Weird. You must have wrote that word several times to get it to accept it lol.

So lawyer Si thinks we need to pull together and organise ourselves...err yes...so, who is going to lead the charge? Because we have been splintered for a long bloody time and have been talking about this since 97.
Tikka .260 (Z5 5x25/52)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223 - VX 3
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22 (vtex 4-12, bush 3-9)
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 reddot
Sauer 30-06 - VX 3
Howa 300 win mag. SHV 5-20/56
Marlin SBL 45/70
TassieTiger
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3704
Tasmania

Re: From Simon Munslow (Firearms Lawyer Australia on FB)

Post by Archie » 15 Jun 2020, 12:35 pm

womble wrote:Don’t known which report he is referring to.


My guess is that when he says "latest Australian Institute of Criminology (‘AIC’) firearms research", he's referring to a report on research, on firearms, by the Australian Institute of Criminology. And I could be wrong, but I'd lean towards it being the latest one.

I'll save you the three seconds it took me to find it:

https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/sr/sr24

Abstract:
In 2018 there were 847 reported incidents of firearm theft in which 2,425 firearms were stolen. This represents a 15 percent increase in incidents and a 35 percent increase in stolen firearms since 2008–09. Most thefts targeted residential premises with an average of three firearms stolen in each incident. The largest proportion of thefts occurred in regional parts of Australia, indicating a shift from major cities as the primary site of theft incidents. The majority of stolen firearms were in firearm safes at the time of the theft.


I agree, for what its worth, that this a bad thing. Because the inference is, the way you stop this theft is to further tighten storage requirements (as per the NSW Greens idea that all firearms need to be stored at police stations).
Archie
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 366
New South Wales

Re: From Simon Munslow (Firearms Lawyer Australia on FB)

Post by simmo » 15 Jun 2020, 2:02 pm

TassieTiger wrote:I’m sure Lord Blade will be cracking it over this reply...lol.
Dumb duck (hmmm...)
Dumb duck
Dumb f***
Dumb f***
Dumb duck
Dumb f***
Dumbfuck

Weird. You must have wrote that word several times to get it to accept it lol.

So lawyer Si thinks we need to pull together and organise ourselves...err yes...so, who is going to lead the charge? Because we have been splintered for a long bloody time and have been talking about this since 97.


In terms of spear heading a Consolidated response to poorly formed laws, in multiple jurisdictions, the NSC is taking this on as we speak.

https://nationalshooting.org.au/blog/f/ ... b-41749261

We should all be joining these guys and helping them make a difference.
simmo
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 107
New South Wales

Re: From Simon Munslow (Firearms Lawyer Australia on FB)

Post by TassieTiger » 15 Jun 2020, 2:36 pm

^ am already a member - but I’ve also just read that WA have reclassified a heap of rifles on appearance so is anyone challenging that ?
Tikka .260 (Z5 5x25/52)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223 - VX 3
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22 (vtex 4-12, bush 3-9)
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 reddot
Sauer 30-06 - VX 3
Howa 300 win mag. SHV 5-20/56
Marlin SBL 45/70
TassieTiger
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3704
Tasmania

Re: From Simon Munslow (Firearms Lawyer Australia on FB)

Post by Madang185 » 15 Jun 2020, 9:40 pm

The figures that are missing from the various Police Forces are the numbers of illegal firearms that they are finding. The question must be asked, Why?

Dare I suggest that the real figures just might be more than the legal firearms that are stolen, there is also some suggestion that the various registry's are compromised, How? It would appear that in NSW alone the keeping of data on an unsecured site was to say the least, questionable.

Why is it that Police at the coalface know that licensed shooters are not the problem BUT Police command are telling a different story- Politics?

The problem with many shooters per se is that they are to busy building little empires for self gratification rather than look at the whole problem and where it will lead to.
Madang185
Private
Private
 
Posts: 72
Victoria

Re: From Simon Munslow (Firearms Lawyer Australia on FB)

Post by simmo » 15 Jun 2020, 10:01 pm

WA did do that. Given the oinkers over started permitting barrel shrouds (think the Tikka TAC A1), going and imposing these changes like this is disappointing but not surprising.

I don’t know if the NSC is fighting this, they have court cases against Victoria and WA over closures of gun shops. Probably a stretch fighting this as well.
simmo
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 107
New South Wales


Back to top
 
Return to Firearms related media and politics