Matt Clarke #8:32

Yesterday an elderly Australian man was forced through sheer desperation to use a gun on an intruder who had stabbed him and his wife. Police have indicated charges won't be laid in his case which is a win for common sense, sure, but the particulars of his case were VERY specific, allowing him time to retrieve a gun from storage AFTER he and his wife were stabbed. That is a luxury of time that most victims will never have, and this couple were very nearly killed because of Australia's gun laws and gun storage laws. Common sense may have prevailed in this case, which I'm grateful for, but the fact remains that in Australia there's a very real possibility a victim may be charged with firearms offences or storage related offences just for the 'crime' of having the gun accessible in a moment of need. More than that, if their attacker is hurt they may be charged with assault or even manslaughter if an attacker dies of the gunshot wounds inflicted by their victim. Of course we dont know what the police will do in any given case, but that's the point. There should be no uncertainty. The uncertainty of the 'process' is the punishment, often even in cases where no charges are laid. The quick 'no charges' decision in this case is the exception, not the rule. In Australia we're not allowed to arm ourselves for our own protection, and if we do then in all but the most clear-cut circumstances we will face years of legal threat and uncertainty. But when I advocate for self defence to be decriminalised, for castle law, and even yes for *gasp* legal gun carry, guns in homes, guns in shops, even grannies with guns *clutches pearls*, the immediate response is: "Would you rather be like America???" Its not a question, its an accusation. It's a received truth, an article of faith, that no sane person would want to be 'like America'. I beg to differ. I first began researching US FBI crime statistics in 2010. I personally interviewed the statistician Davi Barker on the ACTUAL statistics of mass shootings in the US and world wide and my world changed. I've been an outspoken gun and self defence advocate ever since, not that its done much good in Australia yet. Recently I interviewed Dr John Lott when he visited Sydney. Again my world changed. I already knew the US was a lot safer than most people think, but I didn't realise just how manipulated I'd been regarding crime stats in the US. The reality now is that not only was the US already far safer than I thought, their crime rates are falling, for example murder is at an ALL TIME LOW. And not only was Australia more violent than I thought, but as followers of this page well know, our violent crime rates are sky-rocketing to record levels, especially home invasions, stabbings / slashings, and car-jackings. Those truths about our relative crime rates are hidden in the differences between our definitions of different crimes, and in reporting rates vs actual rates, and so the statistical malpractice continues largely unnoticed. Given what I know, would I rather be 'like America' when it comes to guns and self defence? Well I can tell you I'd like for my wife to be equipped to defend herself like the woman in this article by Dr John Lott, and like millions of US women, wives, mothers, and yes... grannies. I'd also like to have a firearm in my home to protect my family in the event of a home invasion, like the one I posted about yesterday. We're not all going to be lucky enough to have the minutes needed to retrieve a gun from a safe, ammunition from a locked box, install the firing pin, load, and then face our attacker. Examples like what happened yesterday are vanishingly rare. The right to self defence is a human right, it is ours by birthright, but that right is violated daily in Australia by our gun laws and our police who enforce them. You have the 'right' to defend yourself in theory, but in practice you better watch yourself because if you prepared your home in advance then you're the criminal and whatever you did was 'premeditated', if you used a weapon you're almost certainly a criminal and even just a strategically placed baseball bat near a door is enough to see you dragged before a judge to explain yourself. No, you're not allowed to prepare in advance, you have to improvise once the attack has started, use only what you can explain as 'lying around', even if you take the weapon off the attacker you'd better not use it on him because now he's 'disarmed' so you'd be assaulting him with a deadly weapon if you simply did to him what he broke in to your home to do to you. Not to mention that if you make one wrong judgement call while fighting for your life and the life of your family, one moment of 'excessive force' you go directly to gaol, probably for longer than the person who smashed his way into your home. 'But its the police's job to protect you'. Yep... that went well for Henry Nowak didn't it? Even if police show up we know from bitter experience in Australia and around the world that we can't be sure whose side they'll be on, and whether they'll correctly understand the scene unfolding in front of them. Here's the bitter pill no Aussie wants to swallow: It's not the police's job to protect you. They have no obligation, no KPIs, and no liability when they fail. It's literally NOT their job. The police's job is to give condolences to the widow while handing her a r4p3 kit and making empty promises about how they'll do everything they can to catch the thugs who should instead have been shot by her husband (or her) upon forced entry to her family home in the middle of the night. This isn't about whether you 'know a police officer' and they're 'really lovely'... brave, moral, etc. I dont doubt you, I too personally know police officers and (with some exceptions I've encountered over the years) they're fine upstanding people who I'd chat with happily at a BBQ. But that doesn't change the laws of physics or give them super powers. When you need them they won't be there. Not because they dont care, nor because they want you to die, in fact most of them would love nothing more than to be on-site to stop a crime instantly the moment it starts... that's literally why many of them joined in the first place... the hope of being there to save a life, stop a crime, catch a crook. It's what many of them want to do more than anything, and that desire is a credit to them. But what they WANT is irrelevant, and what they 'would do' IF they were there to protect you is meaningless. They won't be there. All their courage, care, and moral virtue, all their fitness training, gym time, range time, even the shiny badge will not change the fact that when you're fighting for your life not only will they NOT be there to help you, THEY are in fact the reason you're disarmed and struggling to help yourself. Forget the good intentions (the pavers on the road to hell), the practical reality in Australia today is that the government and police have disarmed the victims of crime for the protection of criminals. We have a government-run protection racket where the people most protected are the criminals who ignore the weapons laws and have near immunity from risk when committing violent crimes. Would I rather be 'like America'? When it comes to self defence and guns... yes. Yes i would. Here's John's latest article: realclearinvestigations.com/…

Imagine if there was no such thing as renting, either you could afford to buy a home, or else you were homeless. That would be crazy right? Millions of Aussies who are currently renting comfortably enough would suddenly be living on the street. Getting rid of rentals wouldn't suddenly mean everyone becomes a home-owner, right? Come with me on a thought-experiment. What if there were no small economy cars? Or no second hand cars? Would everyone suddenly be driving brand new luxury cars? No of course not, most people would be walking or riding a bicycle. We NEED the 'cheap and nasty' version of... everything, and when you take that 'cheap and nasty' option away you don't raise the minimum standard, you actually lower it, pushing people down to an even worse option. The trouble is when well-intentioned people create 'minimum standards' and regulations to 'make it better'... whether that's housing insulation or car fuel efficiency or minimum wages or whatever... All they're doing is taking away the cheap and nasty option, the bottom rung on the ladder which is where almost everyone has to start. These politicians and regulators promise to raise the minimum standard up, instead they leave the poorest people behind, unable to even get a start, now locked into their poverty with no hope of climbing up the ladder. Australians are living in tents because the government won't let builders build smaller cheaper homes with fewer features. But when I advocate for... smaller cheaper homes with fewer features, all I hear in return is 'Would YOU want to live in a house like that?' and of course my answer is 'no'... but if something were to ever happen to me and our family income were to drop... I'd like to know that houses like that are there to 'catch' my wife and kids so they don't end up in a tent. I would rather end up in a 'cheap and nasty' house than in a tent. I would rather end up in a 'cheap and nasty' car than on a bicycle. I would rather end up in a 'cheap and nasty' job than in the queue at Centrelink. No one WANTS to be on the bottom rung of a ladder, but without those rungs its not possible for people to CLIMB the ladder. Take away the bottom rungs and the ladder belongs to those who are already on it and no one else. That's what we've done with housing, with employment, and with so many areas of modern society. So yes, I want the 'cheap and nasty' option to exist. I DO want cheap housing with no airconditioning and bad insulation that's too close to a noisy road to exist. .. Not because I want to live like that and NOR because I 'want' others to live like that... I don't 'want' anyone to live like that... but if that bottom rung of the ladder doesn't exist then when someone slides down below the rung above... they fall off entirely and more people end up in cars, under bridges, or in share houses. This principle is true absolutely everywhere. We need the 'cheap and nasty' version to exist, from hotels to food to houses to cars to jobs... entry-level, first-rung, 'please Lord never let me ever have to go back to that' kind of stuff. We NEED it to exist. Because when we 'raise the minimum standard' we don't raise the people at the bottom, we lock them there.