Weapons Control... Not Just Guns

Greetings,

The subject of gun control is not one I usually post about simply because it does not seem to be a subject which it is possible to have a calm discussion about as people become too emotional about it. Before I begin the core of this discussion I will note some important biases which will colour my opinions with regard to this matter. I have a family history with regard to firearms. My father was a part-time gunsmith, both my parents were licensed shooters. I fired my first rifle at the age of 8 years old and was taught my first lessons about firearm safety at the age of 7. I am also a Life Member of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA). With all of these details noted, we move on.

The first thing that needs to be noted is the subject of terminology, we are not talking about guns, we are talking about firearms. Firearm is the term knowledgeable people use when discussing this particular subject, gun is the generic term. Firearm is also the one which appears in the Weapons Act.

With regards to our Weapons Acts, as we have one for each state and territory of Australia. Almost every time there is some sort of mass shooting in the United States or elsewhere, people get up in arms about tightening our weapons laws. Why? Did it happen in Australia? How will tightening our weapons laws prevent something from happening in another country? Further, it should be noted that the last time we had a mass shooting in Australia, primarily in 1996, the Port Arthur massacre, and then in 2014 after the Lindt Cafe siege, some 18 years apart. Incidences such as these are used as "evidence" for the need for tighter weapons laws. In both instances the weapons were illegally obtained, thus obtained outside the law so tighter weapons laws would not have stopped them anyway.

Likewise to compare the SSAA and the NRA is ludicrous. Both organisations have their similarities but they also have their stark differences. From my own personal point of view, I am proud to be a member of the SSAA, I would never become a member of the NRA. I personally think that what the NRA does is push the bounds of the reasonable way too far. Needless to say Australia does not have gun ownership enshrined in its constitution unlike the United States, and this aspect is what gives the gun lobby in the United States its power. The gun lobby in Australia is not such a fearsome beast.

What needs to be noted is that the legislation in each of the states and territories in Australia is a Weapons Act not a Firearms Act. What does this mean? What this means is that they do not just cover firearms but other weapons as well. Crossbows are legal in Queensland so long as you are licensed, in New South Wales they are prohibited, they are not firearms. Swords are fine to be carried in a normal bag and taken care of as any other piece of sporting equipment, and so long as you are not waving it around in public without a good reason you will not be hassled about it. In Victoria, they need to be locked away in a lockable container in a similar way to firearms. This goes for the blunt weapons we use for medieval and Renaissance recreation as well. At one point in time consideration was made toward legislating bows, but was considered too difficult to enforce.

Firearms may be the popular target when it comes to the Weapons Act, but it does not mean that government agencies are not looking to restrict other weapons. This is one of the reasons why it is vital that anyone who is involved with any sort of weapons whatsoever is careful and treats them with respect. All it needs is for someone to draw the wrong sort of attention and restrictions can be brought against other weapons not just firearms.

When you consider your support for tougher firearms laws, or weapons laws as the case truly is consider what you are really asking for. Consider what you are asking the politicians to do. Consider that they may decide that the weapons which belong with your medieval and Renaissance hobby are too dangerous and you should not be able to use them anymore, or not without severe restriction. When we take action for a cause we should always consider what sort of flow-on effect this may have with other aspects which are related to that cause, things are more connected than you realise. It also means that we should all take care to ensure that we do not perform any action which may draw any unwanted attention our way. There is always someone willing to get annoyed with any excuse with what we are doing.

Cheers,

Henry.

The Smoker: A Dying Breed

Greetings,

The following is something that I wrote after having an experience and a chat with some people while in the centre of Brisbane, Queensland. I am not advocating anyone taking up smoking at all, just asking you to have a look at the situation from a different perspective. I have tried to be as objective as possible with regard to this post, but it is a little difficult.

A further note, I sent this to the editor of the Courier Mail for one of the Letters to the Editor not long after I wrote it with no response. Obviously policy does not allow an even-handed or even counter-argument view on a subject as divisive as smoking.

The Smoker: A Dying Breed

The smoker is a breed of human which is dying out, in both senses of the word. They are subject to the threats of cancer, emphysema and other life-threatening diseases and infections. But they are also subject to other hazards, social disgust, legal ramification, and taxation. Likely, while the former are good reasons to “kick the habit”, as has been coined in modern speech; the latter are also likely to force the smoker out of his ever-dwindling breed.

While quitting smoking has been seen, and is, the healthiest alternative, a new breed of smoker has emerged, “the vaper”. These individuals suck on vapours produced from different flavoured fluids. The studies show that this is a healthier alternative, but is it only time until society turns against these individuals as well?

Amongst the smoking breed there are those who take their habit as some sort of stand, often against some authority. Like a quiet form of protest they smoke as a stand for their habit, forgetting the original reason they started. These are what could be called the “hard-core” smokers who will defend their habit as any other might theirs.

The considerate smoker is one who will ensure that they are away from non-smokers, or are in the company of other smokers. They will do their best to ensure that their habit has the least effect on those around them. If in mixed company, they will do their best to ensure their smoke is blown away from non-smokers. They will always ensure that their butts are extinguished properly and also disposed of properly. Yet they are lumped in with those with no consideration.

The inconsiderate smoker lights up where they feel like regardless of the company and regardless of the feelings of others. They have no consideration for the effect their smoke may have on others. They may even be offended if their inconsiderate smoking is pointed out to them and thus will react angrily and with no remorse.

Smokers have been banned from playgrounds, which is sensible so they do not have an effect on the young lungs of children. Smokers have also been banned from bus stops, public transport, public buildings and most covered areas. The considerate smoker would absent themselves from most of these without legislation in place; yet they are chased away and threatened with legal action.

The result of these bans is that we see smokers clustered together like social outcasts. Areas have been designated for smokers and smokers congregate in these areas to smoke. Ironically, some non-smokers will approach these spaces and complain about the smoke. Just as with any group of people, there are also the “radical non-smokers”.

The true bane of the smokers’ existence is both the “radical non-smoker” and the “radical ex-smoker”. Like evangelicals they feel it is their purpose in life to convert or persecute smokers wherever they may be found. They are mortally offended if they can smell smoke on a breeze and will expect the smoker to move regardless of the situation. They will quote evidence of the damage and cost of smoking, even though this is now evident, often in graphic detail, on every pack which is bought. What they do not realise is that they harm their cause taking such a stance.

Nicotine is a drug, pure and simple, and an addictive one at that. Alcohol is also a drug, and a poison, yet smoking products are taxed and legislated against far more strongly, even though it could be proven that the damage caused by alcohol is far more costly.

What is also not known is that some of those smokers are doing it for their health. For some it is a simple and relatively quick form of pain relief when access to other drugs and pain relief are not available. For others it provides a measure of stress relief in situations where other methods are not possible.

Smokers are a dying breed, and they know it. They know the risks of their habit. They are not all the same and they do not all smoke for the same reasons. Unless you have been in the smoker’s shoes you do not know as much as you think. Have some consideration before you speak out against their habit, our “nanny state” may decide that your habit or hobby is too dangerous and anti-social next.

Cheers,

Henry.