Simon Chapman, an associate professor of public health in Sydney, Australia,
and an avowed gun-control advocate, has a gruesome recipe for advancing the
cause of firearm-prohibition. His intentions were revealed in a recent
statement:
"Gun control advocates should seek to contact survivors of shootings
and relatives and friends of those who died."
The vision of vultures circling high overhead, waiting eagerly for their next
meal to gasp his or her last breath, may be reminiscent of some fictional horror
movie, but it's a ghoulish scene accurately describing the feeding frenzy of
today's firearm-prohibitionists -- a scene which predictably plays after every
fresh new horrific mass public shooting.
For the first time, the firearm-prohibitionists -- amidst a fit of gloating
about the success they've achieved in disarming peaceable gun-owners -- have
finally told the truth about themselves, and it's what many gun-owners have
known all along.
In Their Own Words
Chapman's book Over Our Dead Bodies chronicles how the Australian gun
ban was achieved after the April 28, 1996, shooting in Port Arthur. In
describing efforts to "harness opportunities" from the anguish of his
fellow man, Chapman said,
"To some, the word 'harness' might connote a vulture-like attitude to
human tragedy, with advocates waiting patiently for disasters or gun massacres
so they might climb aboard community outrage and opportunistically capitalise
on the misfortune of others."
But to Chapman and the rest of the gun grabbers, the end always justifies the
means, and image be damned. For, as Chapman accurately stated:
"...major advances in gun-control depend largely on relatively
uncommon but more dramatic killings, particularly when these occur in public
places and the victims are unknown to the perpetrator. These infrequent events
can therefore be considered critically important to possible advances in gun
control policies...".
Reality reflects the truth in this Machiavellian statement.
Counter-productive laws affecting millions of law-abiding citizens have resulted
from such gruesome incidents. And it's not just happenstance. Consider this list
of shooting tragedies and the resulting losses of freedoms which immediately
followed.
Port Arthur
On April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant is alleged (the account is still hotly
disputed) to have entered the Broad Arrow Cafe in Port Arthur, Tasmania, and
shot 20 people to death inside the cafe with a Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.
By the time Bryant was finally apprehended, 35 people were dead, and 18 injured.
In considering a gun-control bill drafted early in 1996, Chapman admitted
"there was no chance" it would be passed under prevailing
circumstances. "Nonetheless", he added, "it would represent a
model bill lying ready for action in the right political climate..."
That "right political climate" was conveniently created by the
actions of Bryant. What followed next was the forfeiture, by government
confiscation, of more than 500,000 semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in what
has been euphemistically termed a nationwide "gun buy-back
program".
Montreal
On December 6, 1989, Mark Lepine shot 14 women to death with a Ruger Mini-14
semi-automatic rifle at the University of Montreal. In 1991, Parliament enacted
C-17, an omnibus firearm law. It was implemented the following year. Among its
the provisions was a ban on a variety of semi-automatic and other firearms and
"high-capacity" magazines, and regulations pertaining to the
"safe handling and storage of firearms".
More importantly, C-17 provided the momentum for passage of C-68, the
"Firearms Act", Canada's system of universal firearm registration,
which went into effect on December 1, 1998. Introduced into Parliament even
before the changes brought about by C-17 could be evaluated, the Firearms Act
drastically changed the politics of private firearm ownership in Canada.
Dunblane
On March 13, 1996, Thomas Hamilton entered the gymnasium at Dunblane Primary
School in Scotland. Hamilton, armed with four lawfully acquired handguns, shot
16 children and their teacher to death before killing himself. In the aftermath
of the Cullen Inquiry which followed, handguns were outlawed and confiscated
throughout Great Britain, and restrictions tightened on the possession and use
of long guns.
The Politics Of Panic
The same familiar script has played out here in the States, with Littleton,
Atlanta, and Los Angeles being just the most recent examples of high-profile
shootings. Each new disaster is milked for all it's worth, with calls for
additional "reasonable", "common-sense" gun-control laws --
as much as the firearm-prohibitionists feel they can get away with, for the time
being.
All laws -- even good ones -- have unintended consequences. That's the very
reason not to legislate in the heat of the moment. And when some deliberately
attempt to stampede the legislative process through sheer emotion and hysteria,
it's a sure bet their motives are not for the benefit of their fellow citizens.
But it's the only way the firearm-prohibitionists can advance their agenda.
For if the emotional trauma of each new tragedy is left out of the equation,
their schemes -- subjected to the harsh scrutiny of the truth -- would be
exposed for what they are: plans for the elimination of private firearm
ownership in America.
To those who naively support firearm-prohibition out of a genuine belief that
this is the road to a safer world, please answer this question:
If your philosophy requires tragedy and the death of innocent persons for
its successful implementation, can Utopia really lie ahead?
In attempting to steal the moral high ground from law-abiding gun-owners,
firearm-prohibitionists cavalierly exploit the deaths of the victims of
criminals and crazies. Ignoring the thousands of innocent lives saved by
firearms each year, the media, without fail, parade the faces of every
grief-stricken mother of a child caught in the crossfire across every newspaper
and television screen.
All credible scientific evidence now shows that denying the ready access of
firearms to peaceable citizens only harms them. It is this fact which renders
civilian disarmament both morally repugnant and indefensible.
"Vulture-like" is not just some mean-spirited caricature of
legislators who seek to dismantle the Second Amendment created by those still
squeamish about relinquishing their right to self-defense with a gun. It was
Chapman, himself, who articulated the term "vulture-like".
In the animal world, vultures serve a useful and necessary function -- they
clean up in the aftermath of death. But Chapman and his fellow
firearm-prohibitionists only create more victims, more misery, and more corpses.
Now we have it, by their own admission. Chapman and the rest of the
victim-disarmament crowd are self-proclaimed vultures. We wholeheartedly agree.
About the Authors:
Dr. Joanne D. Eisen is engaged in the private practice of family dentistry.
She is President, Association of Dentists for Accuracy in Scientific Media (ADASM),
a national organization of dentists concerned with preserving the integrity of
the professional dental literature, against the politicization which has
corrupted America's medical literature.
Dr. Paul Gallant is engaged in the private practice of family optometry,
Wesley Hills, NY. He is Chairman, Committee for Law-Abiding Gun-Owners, Rockland
(LAGR), a 2nd Amendment grassroots group, based in Rockland County, NY. FOR MORE
INFORMATION CONTACT: LAGR P.O. Box 354 Thiells, NY 10984-0354
Read more from these great writers at http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Gallant.
