Chapman the nanny

What is it about Simon Chapman that makes him think he knows what’s best for the rest of us?

First, he hates smoking. However, it’s not sufficient not to smoke himself. He wants to ban smoking (directly or indirectly) so that nobody else has a choice. He wants to make the choice for us.

He also hates guns and has now co-authored a paper with another notorious anti-gun obsessive (Philip Alpers) that argues the Howard gun bans resulted in fewer firearms deaths. His aim, as with smoking, is to get rid of guns entirely (or at least those legally owned by anyone except the state).

Even if his arguments were valid (and they are faulty, as summarised below), his conclusions are based on the assumption that he knows what’s best. That is, people cannot be permitted to make their own choices and run their own lives, accepting the consequences if they make poor decisions. He prefers the nanny state in which big brother is watching.

As for the paper itself:

1. The paper argues there have been no mass murders involving firearms since 1996, indicating the success of the Howard gun laws. However, the authors do not acknowledge that there have nonetheless been mass murders. These include the Childers backpackers’ fire, the Snow Town murders and several cases where parents killed their children and themselves by car exhaust.

The fact that those mass murders were not carried out with a firearm makes them no less tragic. Australia’s second worst mass murder, and the worst prior to Port Arthur, was the Whisky-A-Go-Go fire in Brisbane where the weapon was a container of flammable liquid.

2. The paper assumes 700,000 firearms were “removed” from the community, impliedly leading to the claimed reduction in firearms deaths. There was no such reduction. As is well known, a large percentage of the funds received from the government for purchasing the confiscated firearms were used to buy replacements.

3. The paper shows that, with mass shootings removed, the firearm homicide death rate maintained its downward trend completely unchanged after 1996.

Criminologists point out that the rarity of mass murders in general, let along mass shootings, makes them an extremely difficult occurrence to predict.

4. The paper shows that the non-firearm death rate began to fall after 1996. Did Howard’s gun laws do that too?

5. The paper shows the unintentional firearm death rate actually rose after 1996. How can that be explained if the fall in mass shootings was a result of reduced firearm availability? Does Chapman know the difference between correlation and causation?

6. The paper shows the firearm suicide rate fell after 1996, as did the non-firearm suicide rate. This contradicts other data (AIC) pointing to method substitution. Nonetheless, it is ridiculous to suggest that fewer semi-automatic firearms means fewer firearm suicides. How many people need (or are capable of taking) a second shot to kill themselves?

Addressing the problems of suicide and severe mental health issues is not an opportunitiy to perpetuate personal biases. It is about accepting the need for both mental health practitioners and the community to identify and treat the mental disorders, particularly severe depression, that are associated with suicide and other violent acts.

7. The authors give no consideration to socio-economic factors that also influence suicide and murder.

Total sudden violent death across all categories, not just firearm deaths, has been steadily decreasing since 1997. This has been a result of community awareness about the factors causing suicide and the provision of more accessible services.

A decline in the homicide rate since 1996 could also be explained by the decline in young male adults as a proportion of the population. One of the lowest levels of homicide rates in Australian history occured during WWII when a lot of young males were absent from the country. This is in spite of the fact that guns were much more prevalent during that era.

Australia is not a safer or healthier place, despite the billion dollars or so spent on buying back legally owned firearms



6 Responses to Chapman the nanny

  1. Belle Star says:

    God Dam, you guys amuse me, you elected that Jingle fella to Parliament and all he could do was rant and rave like a raccoon at bath time if he did not get his own way all the time and now you have the hide to criticise Mr Chapman for wanting things his way. Some of you guys are so far up yourselves you can;t see there is no difference between Chapman and gunowners, you,s all want it my way or else.

  2. Peter W. says:

    Belle Star. The argument is really not about “ranting and raving”, but about what sort of society we like to live in. Gun owners tend to be the sort of people who can cope with life, make their own decisions about major issues and resent being told what to do by others. On the other hand it is my observation that anti-gunners need to always be telling others how to run their lives, pushing the “Security Blanket” over them at every turn.
    Quick example:
    FACTORY FIRE SAFETY NOTICE (from the view of an anti-gunner and social engineer)
    1. In the event of a fire, all employees should assemble at the nominated safe area and notify the Authorised Fire Safety Officer.
    2. Those injured in the fire are to receive counselling, by the Approved Counselling Officer, followed by lengthy re-education on the evils and dangers of fire.
    3. Those who died in the fire are to be exploited as long as necessary, so that the dangers of fire can be fully exposed.
    4. New laws shall be introduced to ban matches in the Factory.
    5. A Government Grant will be obtained by the Fire Safety Officer, to study the effectiveness of Fire Control Laws. University Adjunct Professorships will be freely granted for the study of other tougher bans, on such things as cigarette lighters.
    Compared with:
    FACTORY FIRE SAFETY NOTICE. (from the point of view of a gun owner)
    1. If you see a fire, put it out with the fire extinguisher.
    2. The person who started the fire will be located.
    3. The person who started the fire will be reprimanded and trained in the safe use of fire.
    4. A new fire extinguisher will be installed.
    5. Now, get back to work!

    (OK, I’ve just come home from a Christmas Party, but I hope you get my drift!)

  3. Belle Star says:

    Take the matches and fag lighters off em, bingo, no fires

  4. ChrisPer says:

    Well, banning matches and fire lighters does not prevent the electricity authority starting fires, as killed two ladies near my home a couple of years ago. I fought that fire, and fought a very similar one twenty years earlier in the same location started by a pole-top fuse.

    But really Belle Star, the whole gun debate seems to be a way for poseurs to show off their moral superiority.

    Sneering at people for their values, even just for being white and male; calling us rednecks which is a strange American term, not one we use here; sexual abuse of the like of ‘little dicks’ based on a mistaken assumption about a poorly understood theory by a discredited fraud, Sigmund Freud.

    The whole point of gun control activism is making the activist feel superior by hate speech against neighbours who don’t fall in behind their agenda.

  5. Belle Star says:

    God dam,you boys still don’t get it, where I come from you have to sell your own goods and stop worrying about the opposition, while you are obsessed with them you are not telling your story, get out and promote who you are and what you are, Oh and by the way, it takes time, effort and lots of money, not just barbers catting around on a site like this

  6. ChrisPer says:

    Oh you’re THAT Belle Starr! I read about you years ago in G&A’s Guns of the Gunfighters. Ma’am you sure command respect with that .44 S&W Russian.

    You’re right. Thats what we are doing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: