Talk:Gun Control Australia

Contact with John Crook
I have recently received a response to one of the several e-mails I have sent to John Crook asking for further information and hard facts regarding to the aforementioned murder of the 2 girls. He has promised to send me information and reference material relating to the instances, nothing has yet been forthcoming. Specially from his e-mail to me dated 02 July 2008, John stated: >Thanks for email and sorry for delay. I will find the references you >want within a few days and contact you again. John Crook, president GCA. It has now been several weeks, I have heard nothing further. Kartano (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Apocryphal stories
These stories of girls being killed by 'sporting shooters' constitute propaganda, not encyclopaedic information.

GCA are not a very reputable organisation, apparently consisting mainly of aged crank activist John Crook, and a few others to manage the website. Media organisations until recently avoided them in favour of the less embarassing National Coalition for Gun Control. In GCA's pronouncements they have made plain that they do not have interest in controlling criminal misuse of guns, but rather denying the legitimacy of ordinary Australians owning or using any kind of firearm at all. ChrisPer (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Gun Control Australia wouldnt help create a neutral viewpoint for this encyclopaedia
Check this article out on their website: http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=77

After this crticism of the Wikipedia article they rewrote and POSTED IT ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE instead of Wikipedia! Perhaps they would be willing to help? Note what they thought a more helpful way to frame the issue.


 * "Shooting has been a legitimate activity in Australia for many years. Hundreds of gun clubs exist as do gun traders. Hopes for an independent thinking Australian gun lobby were badly affected when in the early 1990's the largest gun group, the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA) developed a tight political relationship with one the world's most extremist gun organisations, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA). Unfortunately this relationship and the SSAA's long association with the gun trade has meant that gun politics in Australia is often driven by the gun rights debate instead of recreational issues or public safety." []

It is worth noting that the NRA is a very staid mainstream body, by no means extremist in nature or policies; since its inception it has delivered great benefit in sports, training, safety for the community and opposition to racist policies of populist politicians, including speaking out against the KKK. Its status among the politically correct is based on their hate of the fact that it has truly massive membership and is effective in influencing policy in a democratic way not achieved by the tiny organisations of their opponents, who are artificially supported by media approval. In any casen SSAA has had little to no benefit from NRA involvement. The associated GCA idea that the sinister Australian gun trade is mysteriously 'behind' the broad support of the shooting sports has its own charm, within the spectrum of human ideas. ;-) ChrisPer (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Added litigation history
GCA's rather combatative language has created some embarrassments for them in the courts, but helped ordinary people understand that they are a very small group of somewhat obsessed activists - possibly limited to one to three names.

I would like to invite the Gun Control Australia supporter who has been editing the page with approving framing to co-operate in creating a good, encyclopaedic entry.

I am aware that John Crook has written some articles on the history of gun control organisations, and would be interested to have the contribution of the activists to understanding their history and development of their somewhat unique ideas. ChrisPer (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone has added a 'dubious' tag to the referenced outcome of the judgement(or settlement?) after John Crook's apology to the SSAA. The reference is an SSAA publication, and GCA have not published anything to the contrary. I am removing the dubious tag, because there is no good reason to believe it is untrue. ChrisPer (talk) 08:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have restored the "dubious" tag, as it is not a reliable source. If this claim is, in fact, true, then you shouldn't have any trouble finding an independent reliable source. Otherwise the whole paragraph has to come out, or be substantially re-written.
 * --NSH001 (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, will look for a source that meets the 'reliable sources' standard. However, there are very few references in these controversial, activist-infested topics that meet such standards.

ChrisPer (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

''In a media release on 8 April 2002, titled "Hail Carr, Hail the Great Pretender" John Crook made a claim that the SSAA had "produced" a person convicted of a firearm-related manslaughter in Victoria. Mr Crook subsequently apologised unreservedly and agreed to meet the SSAA legal costs. Mr Crook also agreed to forward a copy of his apology to everyone who received the original media release
 * ''Bill Shelton, Australian Shooters Journal, 2002 | http://www.ssaa.org.au/asj/asj-2002-v4-4.pdf

Despite the above conversation eight years ago, no suitable source has been found for this material. Obviously, an editorial published in the newsletter of one of the parties is not enough. So I have moved the material here. Felsic2 (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed content

 * "Total membership numbers may be more than those four persons." This is a worthless comment that provides no information.
 * "Despite Mr Crook's views there is clear evidence that shooters in Australia are normal people in all ways.[ref][/ref]" This is off-topic editorializing, since this article is about the group Gun Control Australia, not about Australian gun owners (perhaps added by an opponent of gun control as a defense against GCA claims). Also, unless the paper directly says that Australian gun owners are "normal people in all ways", it's original synthesis.

Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The membership comment was changed by an unregistered user to: "Total membership numbers are considerably larger than just four persons as claimed by some members of the pro-gun lobby." Again, neither the data on the total membership nor who claims otherwise is referenced, so the comment is worthless. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Mike Rosoft edit 'Removed off-topic comments/editorializing' intent is fair enough, but removed the rational, RS-supported response to a loony-tunes activist's unhinged quote about a large proportion of Australians. There is no reason to give undue weight to activist rants but it is appropriate to point out that they are contradicted by evidence.

The other comment removed was that "Total membership numbers may be more than those four persons." This is supported by the press release itself, which named four members but provided no information on total membership or structure at that time.

However, the merger of two activist organisations has a structural problem which the press release does not address. NCGC was a small group of activists,operating similarly to a British organisation Gun Control Network which had just six members, so as to eliminate problems with people who disagreed trying to join the organisation to be heard. GCA on the other hand purported to be a membership organisation, but over many years has not responded to emails asking for membership joining information. It is therefore likely that membership is slightly less than the 150,000 members of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia. Best evidence is four or more. ChrisPer (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have disproven any of my comments. I maintain that 1) comments purporting to disprove the claims from GCA are off-topic, and 2) unless the paper directly supports what you claim, it's original research. Also note that the paper is more than 30 years old. (For an extreme example, take the article Jew Watch. Does the article go out of its way to disprove the organization's allegations? No, it mentions what kind of material the organization publishes, and describes the organization itself as anti-Semitic in the article lead - supported by reliable sources, of course.) As for membership, all your speculation on how many members the GCA may or may not have is also original research (unless the organization publishes data on its membership size, which they probably don't). I don't know what press release you refer to (the article doesn't reference one), but the situation is probably like this: The organization announced the merger and the press release mentioned four spokespersons, so you concluded that it has at least four members. And you are technically correct, but it's a truism that does not belong in the article. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it is not clear why the "Our logic is that shooters are the most ill-disciplined group..." quote is a part of the "Litigation" section - was it a part of the dispute with Sporting Shooters Association of Australia? If so, the article should clarify that; if not, it's off-topic and should be moved to a different section or removed altogether. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In the SSAA magazine that is used as a reference for the legal disputes between SSAA and GCA, the statement is mentioned as an example of supposedly "completely off the planet" musings from Mr. Crook. This seems to be the sole connection with the litigation, so I am removing it. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)