AS the US continues to grapple with its gun laws, reform advocates are citing Australia’s stance after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre to ban semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pump action shotguns.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
US gun lobby group the National Rifle Association counters Australia lost its “freedom”.
Ordinary Americans scratch their heads in disbelief that Australians would sacrifice willingly their “arms” under the perception, we share the same constitutional right to bear them. We do not.
This writer feels safer knowing the potential of a crazed drongo, making an unannounced entry into a school, hospital or workplace was hampered after most “big guns” were destroyed in the late 1990s.
Having a gun is not a problem. To fear an inanimate object is nonsensical. In themselves, guns cannot do anything. It is a person, who points the weapon and pulls the trigger, deciding the bullet’s path.
To the pastoralist, guns are not weapons they are tools like hammers. They need them to defend their stock from duffers and dingos, and in the certain instances, put down sick or injured animals.
Opponents to gun laws would say the current ones are strict enough. Owners are less likely to get robbed, hurt or raped, they argue.
The only way Australia could prevent them from getting into the wrong hands was ban completely all sales. This is not practical.
Lindt Chocolate Café siege gunman Man Haron Monis did not buy his gun from a licensed dealer. Port Arthur massacre perpetrator Martin Bryant did.
The reforms, such as better background checks, magazine limits and specific model bans, have stopped a repeat of Bryant’s actions in the past almost two decades. Fewer people have died.
They would not have stopped Man Haron Monis.
Still, they slowed him down.
