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