Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Sunday, July 15, 2007
I decided to play devil's advocate and put forward a way to eliminate gun crime. Too often, we gun owners are accused of being one sided. Out of a sense of fairness, I decided to consider the anti-gun side of the argument and put forward a solution to eradicating gun crime.
In order to do this I'm making a few assumptions as follows:
A) We will need three levels of equality in the citizenry: The ordinary citizen; Community Safety Officers (CSOs) - police, customs officials and the military; Community Officials (Government Officials and Assistants).
B) Prohibit ordinary citizens from owning guns.
C) Sufficient law enforcement and vigilance can eliminate guns from our society and therefore eliminate gun crime.
To realise the goal of eradicating gun crime will require some new programmes and laws:
1) Eradicate all ownership of guns in order to eradicate crime.
Anyone who owns a gun can have it stolen or may misuse it so it is a prudent safety measure for the community to completely disallow ownership of guns. This also simplifies law enforcement as possession of a gun confirms guilt.
2) Guns are an effective form of self-defence and an economical way of enforcing community safety. To ensure community safety the only people that should have guns are those who are upholding the law (these are citizens such as the police, customs officials, government bodyguards and the military – the CSOs).
It will be necessary to allow certain citizens access to guns to guarantee community safety. These people will need to be carefully vetted and above reproach. Anyone with criminal connections (either directly or through personal and family connections) will need to be excluded. To ensure that that CSOs remain above reproach we will need a group of impeccably trustworthy citizens to supervise them. We will call these citizens Community Safety Officer Observers (CSOO). They must have the power to immediately dismiss the CSOs and relegate them to the level of ordinary citizen. However, to ensure that there is no abuse of powers they must not be able to dismiss any Community Officials.
3) Enforcing the law by enacting complete zero tolerance ensures that the law is obeyed. To achieve this enforcement simply requires allocating enough resources and increasing the punishments metered out by laws.
The zero tolerance approach to gun crime will mean that tougher laws and harsher law enforcement will be required to eradicate gun crime. Ignorance of the law is no excuse so any punishment is warranted when breaking laws passed by the Community Officials. Community Safety Officers who refuse to support these laws must immediately be considered as corrupted by the CSOO’s and therefore dismissed.
4) Community Officials who make the laws need to be unquestionably honest.
In order to ensure the honesty (and therefore the impeccability of the laws) the Community Officials must comply with rules that have been set by a majority (51% or greater) of the Community Officials. Self-regulation by a majority vote will ensure that there is no corruption within the Community Officials.
5) Our borders must be protected and any imports or people entering the country must be thoroughly screened to ensure that no guns enter the country.
CSOs will need to patrol the coastline in boats and aircraft. Radar installations will act as bases for boats and aircrafts and serve as early detection systems. On an Australian sized coastline of around 20,000km then only 50-100 bases will be required.
6) Any entry to a public place needs to be controlled through metal detectors and other detection mechanisms. In areas deemed crucial to National Security, such as offices of Community Officials, then body searches will be required.
This will be accomplished by the installation of metal detectors and placement of CSOs at the entrance to any forms of public transport or any public space. Placement of roadblocks with metal detectors and body searches at each entrance to a suburb or town will ensure that guns do not enter any of these zones.
CSOs, CSOOs and Community Officials can be exempted from these searches, as they have already been deemed reliable by laws and processes.
While this solution may seem extreme, it will be successful. I estimate that we would only need to increase tax rates by 20-40%, depending on funding cuts to other areas. Alternatively, surcharges on goods and services could also be implemented to pay for our safety.
Existing technologies and processes in use today can easily accomplish the eradication of gun crime. All that is required is strong political will and the understanding of the citizenry.
If you have nothing to hide then you have no need to worry.
Friday, July 13, 2007
The ACCC is the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission whose role in life is to ensure "fairness" in competition between private businesses. All in the "interests" of the Australian consumer. Or as I like to think of them: knee-jerk government reactors to whatever herd is bleating loudest or whatever area will impact government control.
The news article details how the ACCC are taking Google to court here in Australia, alleging that Google has been misleading and deceptive in it's conduct. From the article
"The ACCC said that in 2005, sponsored links titled “Kloster Ford” and “Charlestown Toyota” allegedly appeared on Google, but the links allegedly directed users to the Trading Post website.
Both dealerships compete with the Trading Post.
The ACCC said by publishing the links, Google allegedly engaged in “misleading and deceptive conduct”.
Google also continues to allegedly fail to “adequately distinguish sponsored links from ‘organic’ search results”, according to an ACCC statement. "
What concerns me is if the ACCC wins then it will have opened a way into "policing the internet" (on behalf of all Australians, of course).
If there were only one or two search engines on the internet, then maybe I could understand their position. Fortunately this is not the case. What it means is that people can choose another search engine if they don't like Google!
Let the market decide for itself, not members of a broadband crippling government with naught in their sights but control and an upcoming election.
Friday, July 06, 2007
The Howard government's linking of the Iraq war with oil has confirmed arguments against gun control laws.
A primary argument against gun control laws is that they become increasingly onerous in size and restriction. In examples such as the UK this manifested in virtually complete confiscation of private property and the freedom of personal choice.
The twisting of truth used to hide the gradual steps to our current Iraq involvement is exactly the same strategy being implemented with gun control.
Expanding on this point:
If you are in favour of gun control then the following will hopefully give you an insight into the unease I experience when I discuss gun laws with you.
My concern over what will happen to my private property (guns in this case) and my freedoms is vividly demonstrated by standing back and looking at how our country has been led to our current situation in Iraq.
Anther war in Iraq was looking likely before 911, however it serves as a useful memory post for most people. To the best of my recollection, the events and what we were told went as follows:
1) 911 occurs and many westerners are understandably fearful and confused. We are told that the perpetrators will be hunted down and caught.
2) Bush's government starts mentioning Hussein's Iraq and 911 in the same speeches and media releases. Iraq had *nothing* to do with 911. People start getting stirred up over Iraq and begin to link Hussein with 911.
3) Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are announced. Colin Powell presents "evidence" to the UN and media outlets sensationally parrot this new threat from Iraq. We are told that Australia can confirm the intelligence and that we need to start worrying about the potential threat of Iraq.
4) Bush decides to invade Iraq. As an ally of the US, Australia commits to this action. We are told that it will be a short action to destroy WMDs and remove Hussein. We are assured repeatedly that it is not about oil and that we will only need to commit troops for a short period of time.
5) Iraq is invaded. No WMDs are found and Hussein is eventually removed. We are now told that we need to remain in Iraq for just a bit longer to help foster democracy and support the Iraqi people. We are told that it will cost a bit more than originally expected and that we may need to stay longer for the good of regional security.
6) Iraq is now described as a breeding ground for terrorism and a front line for Al-Qaeda. Despite Bush's announcements of "Mission Accomplished" we begin increasing the number of troops and finances to continue the war in Iraq.
7) US, Australian and UK military leaders admit that troops in Iraq will be needed for up to 10 years. We are told that the war is now required to fight terrorism in the region and protect the Iraqi people.
8) Howard's government now confirms that protection of oil interests is a reason for being in Iraq and that our troops will be required indefinitely.
In 8 (very broad) steps you can clearly see how our Australian government has taken us from a short term, relatively low cost war to eliminate WMDs to a costly, indefinite war to secure our oil interests.
This is *exactly* the same gradual steps of deception that are being used with gun control laws. Bit by bit they are made more oppressive and controlling.
Gun law supporters, when I argue with you I am doing so with the knowledge of where your laws will lead us. Don't expect me to believe that at some point in time the laws will not be taken to the level that they have in the UK. To assert otherwise is tantamount to a lie.
The same system of people (regardless of political orientation) that lie to and cheat the very people they are supposedly meant to serve, are the same people that you unfathomably trust to create the laws you want.
Forget the millions (billions in the US) of dollars that have been spent on the Iraq war. Forget the tens of thousands of people who have died in the Iraq war. Forget the lies and deception surrounding this war.
Forget all this and simply consider this: How can you support "leaders" that have no integrity?
Monday, July 02, 2007
On paper consensus is a terrific idea. In the hands of the current power seekers it has become a method to enforce morals and fears.
There is a simple yet fatal flaw in our current system:
The high and mighty, the busy-bodies, the afraid, and the mistrusters of personal responsibility have hijacked the system for personal interests.
If you believe that you have "high morals" that everyone must adhere to; If you believe that your neighbours business is your business; if you don't believe that people can be responsible for themselves then enclave yourself in this cocoon of fear and leave the rest of us alone!
Have what you want but dont' have the gall to sit in judgment of me and blithely use the violence of force and government to make me comply with your wishes.
When you enable the force of government against me then you are supporting and encouraging a despicable and odious facet of our system that leads to control of my life through the use of violence.
I have *no* objections whatsoever for how you choose to live your life but I find it disgusting that you believe your are entitled to use the force of government to pull me into line with your standards.
Go through *whatever* reasoning process you like but realise that when the only way you can make me comply with your philosophy is to enact the force of government, then are sanctioning, supporting, and actively encouraging violence and suppression in a way that history has proved *always* leads to the destruction of the society.
Go in peace but leave me alone to live my life how I responsibly choose.