Reprinted with permission from Guns Magazine, August 2000.
(C)opyrighted 2000, Guns Magazine; All rights reserved.
http://www.gunsmagazine.com”>www.gunsmagazine.com

WITH GHOULISH INTENT

by Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen

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 isChairman, 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