Personal

THIS IS WHY I WROTE THE PRESERVATION OF LIFE – COMMUNITY PROTECTION BILL…

My good friend John Howdle who the media called the ten-dollar good Samaritan, was thrown down concrete stairs at a Queensland housing commission complex. Queensland housing put an ice addict with a long criminal history of violence in with pensioners. John tried to recover a debt of $10 from the man earlier that day on behalf of another. Ten dollars is a lot of money for a pensioner. Later his murderer came to his unit and forced his way in, grabbed John, and threw him down the stairs. I call that murder, and I am a retired police officer, and the courts call that manslaughter. Does that sound like justice to you?

The killer got only seven years. 

Anyone that knew John knew he was a kind man and the diplomat. 

At his funeral, things said, and a seed planted. Why are the homeless unprotected, why do violent ice addicts get housing alongside pensioners, why are the most vulnerable prohibited from having a capacity to deter attackers or defend themselves? 

So I began researching these things, and this included social media and joining different and polar Facebook groups. During my research, I posted stories and ideas, including the fact that a right is not a right unless you can exercise that right. 

Many praised the work I was doing. However, as soon I mentioned having a capacity for self-defence, that’s when a few would insult with phrases like “you’re a moron”, “you’re a gun-nut”, your this you’re that.  

Capacity can mean many things. However, they focused only on one thing, winning an argument using insults and putting forward assumptions of facts that I would research and find to be completely untrue.   

There were the half canned responses, like “The solution to guns isn’t more guns” and I would reply that is only half the saying, “The solution to guns isn’t more guns in the hands of criminals.”  

But unable to remove them from the hands of criminals they are left with taking them from the victims, and this seemed to make them happy? 

I know John’s views on firearms. He once purchased a semi-automatic Chinese military rifle because he wanted to know what it was like to shoot such a thing. A friend took him to a range, showed him how to operate it safely and they fired about 50 rounds. The following week he returned it to the sporting store. He said to his friend, “It was easy to buy one of these; they shouldn’t allow that to happen because the wrong person may get one.” He was right because a year later, Port Arthur happen.

That tragedy would never have happened if there had been a background check of Bryant. The year before the event he was shooting at tourists with an air rifle when they stopped at an apple cart roadside store that was unattended. There were also other incidents indicating Bryant was dangerous. Those things were enough cause for the police to disarm him. They had the laws, but that didn’t happen. I think the reason there was no Royal Commission of Inquiry was that it would have revealed that fact. Such a finding would have forced the Minister of Police to pay tens of millions in compensation to the families of the victims to help them rebuild their lives.

The laws existed to disarm him, but the police failed in that regard. 

I agree with John, there should be regulation, and Port Arthur gave us responsible ownership laws. However, they have gone so far that these have become victim disarmament laws that favour the criminal. 

I know from my experiences in the police that murderers use their hands, they use knives, they use clubs of some description. It is not very often they use a firearm. Also today the growing concern is the easy-to-make ghost-gun. You cannot eradicate knowledge through legislation. 

Today, I am sick and tired of weak-as-piss politicians. Sorry for the language. They allow the elderly, the women, and all the other innocent people to be at the mercy of criminals that kill so readily as evidenced by the placing an ice addict with a long history of violence in with pensioners. What possibly could go wrong? 

Why can’t a woman stalked by a known rapist the police can’t catch have a permit for pepper spray? Why can’t a farmer use his rifle to deter a knifeman at 3 in the morning protecting his family? (the farmer Dunstan case).

These people that insult me are like silly children scared of the dark looking in the wrong direction. They demonise farmers, the sporting shooters, and now toy sellers. It is a cultural war against anything firearm. Their actions are pro-criminal because when you outlaw the capacity for self-defence, only criminals have that capacity, not their victims. 

 We once could deter home invaders; these days, these things happen more often than you think. Still, they don’t usually call it a home invasion, its a burglary, a break in with occupant home. Unless someone is murdered or brutally beaten, it is called anything but a home invasion incident.   

The State militarised their police to create not a community service but a force. This paramilitary police stand close to the politicians when they go out in public and tell us just how much they are doing to keep us all safe. 

The middle class are becoming poor by the hour, and the poor are deserving of protection, the rich have their gated communities and security officers, and the politicians have their paramilitary police to protect them. 

John, you cared for the homeless and the poor. You lived amongst them for a time. I believe you would have agreed with the intent of the Bill. This Bill is for you and victims of crime as you. Pensioners, elderly, homeless, women, children and all others that the strong and the armed prey upon needing a capacity either directly or indirectly to be protected.   

R.I.P mate. 

Sincerely,
Lawrence Lyons
Author