I'm not in the habit, gentle reader, of posting Youtube videos, but this is well worth the watching.
You could reasonably say that this is not an Australian problem, and you'd be correct, but there are political parties and pressure groups out and about in this country, pushing to ape an American style gun culture.
The Harvard review referred to at 3:20 can be found here.
 |
| Australian SLR 7.62 mm Semi-auto |
My interest in firearm regulation has a lot to do with carrying one of these things for ten months in Vietnam. They are, after all, designed and manufactured to kill.
We don't need them freely available in this country.
Comments closed.
14 comments:
What do you think of these beauties, designed for long range "target shooting" precision competition. Obviously can kill, but not designed to kill. Like a hammer or a knife of many configurations.
https://www.ruger.com/products/precisionRifle/models.html
Range practice aside, Robert, how many times did you squeeze the trigger, or for that matter disengage the safety on your issue SLR (cleaning not included)?
Legally at present the only people, aside from Police and military, who can buy something like that are farmers and professional feral animal shooters and instructors for that type of weapon (semi-automatic). Hardly freely available and probably beyond the budget for most, (crooks will get whatever they like).
First comment. Complete waste of money, and dangerous - toys for morons - hopefully illegal in this country. And if "not designed to kill", what are they designed for?
Second comment. No idea - hopefully however many times it was, I didn't hit anyone. Carrying the bloody thing everywhere was bad enough.
Designed for sport, Bobby, specifically for long range precision target shooting. But that was explained in the original comment. Your toys for morons comment is unbecoming but expected, and I know a number of people who would make that comment about a Mazda sports car which cost a lot more than the Ruger with an excellent scope. Cars in both the US and Australia have a much more dangerous reputation than sporting shooters' firearms.
Quite legal in this country, as it is a bolt action rifle.
"And if "not designed to kill", what are they designed for?"..Target shooting with pin-point accuracy. https://precisionshooting.club/precision-rifle-competition
I know you are probably unaware because of your aversion to firearms but target shooting is fairly popular in Australia and overseas. Hand-guns, shotguns and rifles are actually included in Olympic sporting events.
"Carrying the bloody thing everywhere was bad enough." I would have thought you, as a pogo would have rested it in the Landrover most of the time. Personally I carried an M16 and was a little less burdened.
Cars in both the US and Australia have a much more dangerous reputation than sporting shooters' firearms.
Might be true in Australia, but the biggest cause of childhood mortality in the USA is firearm deaths, both homicide and accidental. Watch the video and you will see and hear the reference.
When I visited the US in 2018, I remember being horrified to see roadside billboards advertising bullet proof vests for kids. You could fit your child out with one of these together with school bag, pencil case, etc.
I'm quite happy with our Australian gun regulation. The threat to our community is the possibility of the parties representing the gun lobby getting the balance of power in the various legislatures.
And by the way, I actually spent more time in a rifle section in 7RAR than in Q Platoon, and the part of my service that I am most proud of is when I was posted as a POGO. During that time I was doing something positive, supporting other soldiers, rather than charging around the Vietnamese jungle looking to kill people who were fighting for something they believed in.
This was probably behind R A Grey's policy of replacing Nashos who had completed their time in support postings with riflemen who were Nashos with time left in country.
It ensured these essential roles were occupied by very motivated and effective soldiers.
USA figures replied upon by CDC in 2020... 2016....Motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death for children and adolescents, representing 20% of all deaths; firearm-related injuries were the second leading cause of death, responsible for 15% of deaths. Among firearm deaths, 59% were homicides, 35% were suicides, and 4% were unintentional injuries (e.g., accidental discharge). (The intent was undetermined in 2% of firearm deaths.) In contrast, among U.S. adults (≥20 years of age), 62% of firearm deaths were from suicide and 37% were from homicide. Furthermore, although unintentional firearm deaths were responsible for less than 2% of all U.S. firearm deaths, 26% occurred among children and adolescents.
"I'm quite happy with our Australian gun regulation." Obviously not Robert or you would not have said " toys for morons - hopefully illegal in this country." when referring to the Ruger precision rifle.
I knew POGO would trigger you.
"R A Grey's policy of replacing Nashos who had completed their time in support postings with riflemen who were Nashos with time left in country." I doubt there was such a policy as such. Doesn't make a lot of sense to replace someone in a position where due to short service you would have to once again replace the replacement (as in your situation, where you went home earlier than the rest of the battalion). I doubt it was a decision initially arrived at by Grey to remove you from the field. Considering the large numbers of nashos vs regs in the battalion there was probably little chance of shifting full time soldiers from the field to support roles unless there were disciplinary reasons or medical or competency problems. So in reality it does make sense that you fit one of the reasons as stated although not a reg.
You claim knowledge of Grey's policy in this regard but are blissfully unaware of (actively deny) his policy to transfer out of the battalion, personnel expressing a desire not to go overseas. Privvy to some policies and not others...is that your explanation for making assertions to make your personal situation appear impressive, or even forced, to the uninitiated?
"This was probably behind R A Grey's policy of replacing Nashos who had completed their time in support postings with riflemen who were Nashos with time left in country."It ensured these essential roles were occupied by very motivated and effective soldiers", as were those in the field actively engaging with the enemy. Nothing to do with being a nasho or reg. as you inferred. They were all infantry members of 7RAR.
You seem to have the impression that nashos (which includes yourself, of course) are a superior soldier.
You seem to have the impression that nashos (which includes yourself, of course) are a superior soldier.
I was probably a better soldier than you would have been a teacher, but I didn't have a choice in the matter.
In terms of Nashos Vs Regs, it's a non-argument, as we were identical as far as the Army was concerned.
Having said that, remember the Head of Army who was quoted as saying "The average IQ of the ADF was raised 20% by national service?"
You claim knowledge of Grey's policy in this regard but are blissfully unaware of (actively deny) his policy to transfer out of the battalion, personnel expressing a desire not to go
overseas.
This is precisely what I'm researching.
So far, I've found only two out of the ex-Nashos I've interviewed who were given an option, and they were both Sigs. I am yet to interview an ex-Nasho infantryman who was given a choice. It's a very long way from the statement that sat on the ANZAC Day commemoration committee for over a decade which stated Every national serviceman who went to Vietnam was a volunteer.
As for RA Grey, have you read the saga of Stan Larsson? Stan was killed in a mine incident on 6th June 1970. He was initially posted to 7RAR same time I was in July 1969. If you check the nominal roll, you'll note that he didn't get to SVN until 14th May 1970. Because of his poor eyesight, he applied for a compassionate transfer out of the battalion prior to embarkation in February 1970, which Grey granted. The Minister (Peacock at the time) got wind of this and sent him to the Board of Eastern Command to have his fitness for infantry service reviewed.
He was declared fit and sent to Vietnam in May the next year with two pairs of thick glasses.
He was the victim of political interference, and the government made it quite clear by singling him out, that COs were not to treat Nashos in this manner if they wanted to avoid operational service. I researched the case as part of my coursework, and it makes chilling reading.
To save you having to dig up the parliamentary Hansard for June 11th 1970, here is the extract. It begins with a speech from Norm Foster (Member for Sturt) who reads a letter from Stan's father to the parliament -
1 had intended in this grievance day debate to deal with a matter relating to cottages for the aged, but I am now awaiting confirmation of information I received earlier this morning. I realise that the time granted to me in this debate is extremely short. I want to raise in this House the matter of the late Private Larsson, who was unfortunately killed in Vietnam last Saturday. On behalf of the parents of this soldier I wrote to the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock) early in January requesting that this soldier not be sent into active combat in Vietnam because of his extremely poor eyesight. The soldier, as the Minister informed me, was transferred from his then regiment, the 7th Battalion, into the 5th Battalion and he was in due course boarded. Finally I received from the Minister the following letter:
"I refer again to your personal representations concerning Private S. G. Larsson and his proposed posting to Vietnam.
All members of the Army, whether regular soldiers or national servicemen have the same liability to serve overseas should the needs of the Army require it.
The member’s medical condition has been investigated by officers of my Department in Eastern Command and he was medically boarded on 3 February 1970 and was found to be tully fit for service everywhere. His eye condition is corrected by the wearing of spectacles, which are obtainable from any source, including Vietnam.
Private Larsson will be issued with 2 pairs of spectacles in accordance with normal Army practice. This is to ensure that if one pair of spectacles is damaged, a replacement pair is immediately available. Let me assure you that no soldier would be permitted to serve in an operational area if it was felt his medical condition would endanger either his own life or that of his colleagues.
Careful consideration has been given to Mr and Mrs Larsson’s request but I cannot accede to their wishes, even though I can readily understand their anxiety and, in fact, the anxiety of any parents whose son is required to serve in an operational area."
In earlier correspondence I pointed out that Private Larsson was in need of glasses of a type requiring specially ground lenses which were not readily available. The fact that the Army, having its wilful way, directed this soldier back to the 7th Battalion, into Vietnam and into a combat zone would leave a very real thought for ever with his next of kin, his parents and his brothers and sisters, that he probably .lied as ; result of this poor vision. I understand he lost his life through a mine explosion in Vietnam.
It would be very interesting to know, and there should be some form of inquiry to establish, whether this did occur.
With the short time that is available to me I also wish to read a letter which was directed to the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and of which I received a copy. The letter is from the late soldier’s father and it says:
"Thirty years ago, you and I were engaged actively in a conflict on an issue that was beyond doubt. We fought for freedom from individual oppression and tyranny, andI was proud to be an Australian.
A short while ago, I was informed that my son was killed in action in Vietnam.
In Vietnam there emerged a terrible armed struggle between the peoples of one race - father against son, brother against brother, each fighting desperately for principles I no longer understand, but it was a family struggle, which in the final event will only be resolved between the people of Vietnam.
Yet into this conflict, Mr Prime Minister, powerful neighbours intruded, and so you committed Australia. You felt that by armed force, your ideals might be thrust upon these people. Through your intrusion, you and your colleagues introduced into Australia, the very principles against which I was prepared, with others, to die if necessary.
This is your Australia, Mr Prime Minister, and 1 no longer have pride in being an Australian.
Into the conflagration that is Vietnam, you sent my son, a man whom you knew that without his glasses, could not see a hand held four feet away, or a car at 30 feet, and whom you told could see reasonably well with glasses. You advised him to keep them clean, yet in the torrid humidity of Vietnam, you could not tell him how.
He went, Mr Prime Minister, because you told him it was right and honorable.
Was it, Mr Prime Minister? Why? For whom?
A thousand questions flood my mind. How do I answer his young widow, or my children?
Did he die to further the political ambition of yourself or your colleagues? Or was it to allow you to ingratiate yourself upon the leaders of the most powerful, yet most hated and feared nation in the world today?
DoI answer them that it is the cowardice of men too proud to admit to a horrible tragic error?
Wherein lies the truth Mr Prime Minister, and how long must this carnage of Australian manhood continue How many more must die under the conditions you have chosen to impose. What is the truth? Why? For what?
In the depthless horror of sorrow and grief. I turn to my friends and ask, but none can tell me, none can answer, so I must turn to you.
Perhaps if in the interests of human justice, and of truth, the news media and journals of our day can find the courage to publish my letter to you,I may find truth, or perhaps, Mr Prime Minister, time may show that my son did not die in vain".
IQ, bobby, gives you a level at which you can learn. It does not create a person who can actually put their knowledge into practice better than someone with a lower IQ, given that the demands placed upon them are the same and both have sufficient knowledge to carry out those demands. You don't have to be a university graduate to be a grunt, but you may pick up the skills quicker if you have an interest in that area. I am familiar with Stan's tragic story. And as you state, upon request to Grey he was transferred out prior to embarkation. As the story goes, unfortunately, his father's request set up the enquiry that led to Stan's fitness records being checked and Grey's decision was over-turned. Stan was returned to the active duty listing and... His service in Vietnam included:-
1 Australian Reinforcement Unit, from the 4th March 1970 to the 24th March 1970
6th Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment, from the 25th March 1970 to the 13th May 1970
7th Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment, from the 14th May 1970 to the 6th June 1970.
I do not know what roles he may have played in reo or 6th Bat. At a guess his performance did not indicate a lack of coping ability as an infantry soldier, but he was subsequently returned to 7 and died in the mine incident. From reports at the time spectacles had nothing to do with the tragedy from which Mick O'Halloran survived.
Personnel with corrective lenses were removed from patrolling duties and were placed into support roles for political reasons.
Having been involved in death and its consequences for the majority of my working life I know of the anguish suffered by parents who lose a child by any means. I would expect no less than the correspondence you reference. I would hate to be put in that position.
You have not commented in relation to my previous comment refuting your claims of childhood death numbers in the US and the likelihood that you do have a problem with Australian gun laws and your belief that firearms of all designations are "designed to kill".
Don't forget to stick to the subject of the post, as you often say when you don't wish to continue after a rebuttal of your claims.
See this extract from Child and Teen Firearm Mortality in the U.S. and Peer Countries by Matt McGough, Krutika Amin, Nirmita Panchal,and Cynthia Cox. Published: Jul 08, 2022 - "Firearms recently became the number one cause of death for children in the United States, surpassing motor vehicle deaths and those caused by other injuries". Your comment about gun death statistics refers to old data. The situation has changed, and that was Stuart's point - https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/issue-brief/child-and-teen-firearm-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-peer-countries/
Actually, an IQ score is simply how well an individual does on a standardised test. It is muddied by issues such as attention span, sensory deficits and language.
Personnel with corrective lenses were removed from patrolling duties and were placed into support roles for political reasons. Absolutely, emphasising the historical fact that we were fighting for our political masters, not our country. A bloke from my section with thick glasses was posted to ALSG as a storeman. A chopper came out to the AO and whisked him away, and neither he nor the rest of us had any idea why. He died a couple of years ago from multiple myeloma, quite possibly as a consequence of exposure to residual dioxin from extensive use of Agent Orange around the airstrip at Vung Tau which was one of the most sprayed areas in the province - https://nominal-rolls.dva.gov.au/veteran?id=1282919&c=VIETNAM
You departed from the subject of the post by your reference to my service. I simply responded.
Thanks for the link. I relied on CDC figures quoted from 2020 which cited 2016. Will have a look.
Yes IQ score is what you say it is but it subsequently is used to give others an idea of your ability to learn and retain information. So you agree then that a high IQ score does not relate to actual performance in the job situation where two parties have equal knowledge and application skills.
One of the better gunners in the battalion was treated in a similar fashion and found himself in Mortar platoon. He had been raised in PNG and been handling high power weaponry from a very early age and carrying an M60 was almost in his blood. He could use it standing, from the shoulder, as you would an SLR, and with accuracy. His specs were made from coca cola bottle bases. The military moves in mysterious ways and always in accordance with policy driven by fools with no idea or experience.
You referenced your service, "My interest in firearm regulation has a lot to do with carrying one of these things for ten months in Vietnam. They are, after all, designed and manufactured to kill."
I merely tossed in an aside and used the POGO bs to trigger you. As far as I am concerned every military member that served in the funny country is an integral part of the team, every single one of them. I knew you'd bite. You are part of my entertainment system, Bob. I admire your life's choices and the work you put into it. I don't always agree but you are good fun. Take care and look after family, above all else.
I checked your link...doesn't paint a pretty picture and is only 10 percent of the overall.
We could save 90,000 American lives per year by banning Cars and firearms. Although the lives lost as a result of the business downturn may be cause for concern.
Post a Comment