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.
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".
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.
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:
P.O. Box 354
Thiells, NY 10984-0354
Reprinted with permission from Guns Magazine, August 2000.