The Australia Institute says it likes to engage in political debates. Except when it comes to guns. That’s why we say they’re evasive and exaggerate facts.
They’re chicken …
The Institute’s claim
THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE claims to be one of the country’s most influential policy policy think tanks.
Based in Canberra, it states that it is non-partisan, and won’t shy away from political debates.
It says it believes in democracy and that it’s work is aimed at being informed.
Failing on guns
IN LATE JANUARY, the institute wrote an article suggesting that gun ownership in Australia is ‘failing to keep pace with community expectations’.
The article, sourced almost entirely from anti gun groups such as Gun Control Australia and the Australian Gun Safety Alliance, fails to cite any source from within the shooting industry. There is also no evidence that they tried to do so.
We put in a request for an interview on our podcast to provide the institute with the opportunity to provide that balance.
We asked the Institute if would be prepared to be interviewed to discuss its findings, the rationale and the basis behind it.
However, it failed to respond.
That’s why we say, they’re chicken ….
Doing the antis’ bidding
THE INSTITUTE’S one sided article stated that its key findings are:
- There are more guns in Australia than there were before the Port Arthur massacre.
There are also more Australians here… 8m more, actually.
- Firearms are not confined to rural areas, with a third of guns in New South Wales located in Sydney, Newcastle, and Wollongong.
No kidding. Is that why every capital city has a major shooting centre there?
- All states and territories are failing to meet key criteria for effective gun control, including data transparency and limits on the number of firearms a person can own.
Other than in WA, where the WA Police are happy to publish the addresses of gun owners to make life for criminals easier
- On average, a firearms licence holder owns more than 4 guns, with two individuals in suburban Sydney each owning over 300 firearms.
Yes, and they’re called shooters. Or gun collectors. .. and every single one of them is licensed by the police. Except for the criminals, of course.
- Three-in-four Australians support limits on the number of firearms an individual can possess.
Four in four shooters don’t. We’re working on the non-shooters by inviting them to our clubs.
The Institute’s self-serving scorecard
The institute also published a ‘scorecard‘, which is self explanatory.
As any shooter knows, this list is full of stuff that is designed to choke the shooting sports.
For those who may not be aware, gun limits serve the same purpose as limiting the number of tools someone has in a shed.
The real question should be whether holders are ‘fit and proper’ to hold licences. People who run dodgy associations that publish misleading tables do not fall in that league.
The age limit would kill the Olympic shooting disciplines – ….. ….. …. and why would that be good? ….. …. .
The ‘advocates’ the Institute believes need to be consulted need to be more than uniformed academics.
They need to be from the shooting industry in the same way that consultation on aviation safety needs to be informed by those who work in that sector.
In closing, the logo you see for the Institute on the scorecard boasts that is supports “research that matters”.
We’re suggesting that the research it does, is anything but transparent or balanced. It’s evasive, exaggerates or invents problems and as a result, comes up with the wrong answer.
Gun safety advocates?|
Or gun safety imposters?
It also intrigues us that the Australian Gun Safety Alliance has the name that it has.
Its convenor, Stephen Bendle, has his roots in the Alannah and Madeline Foundation which has been using a national tragedy to push what is clearly a political agenda. At least, as far as we know.
My bet is that if I put a loaded 22 on a table in front of the ‘gun safety alliance’ and asked them to make the firearm safe, they would not know what to do.
There’s a very good chance they would shoot themselves in the foot.
Or worse still, me, in the foot.
Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?
