Integrity in the face of influence.
On the 28th April 1996 in Port Arthur
Tasmania, with the aid of an L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle and a colt AR-15, Martin
Bryant shot dead 35 people and injured 23. The Port Arthur massacre not only
shocked Australia, it captivated the interest of the world. The senseless
carnage of that day is still regarded worldwide as one of the deadliest
massacres orchestrated by one individual, and is a dark moment in Australia’s
history.
 |
| martin bryant |
I have had the opportunity to stand at the
spot near the Broad Arrow Café Port Arthur where Martin Bryant shot dead twelve
people and wounded ten in a time span of twelve seconds, the thought almost inconceivable that so many could lose there life so quickly.
However cold blooded and needless these
deaths were, the incident was used as a precedent by the then Howard Government
to pass strict new gun laws with bipartisan support. The new laws banned and
heavily constrained the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles,
self-loading and pump-action shotguns, and heavily tightened controls on their
legal use. A Market Value buy back scheme funded by a short term raise in the
Medicare levy saw 643,000 firearms handed in at a cost of $350 million, whilst
thousands of other firearms were voluntarily handed in with no financial
reimbursement.
In the decade preceding the tragic events
at Port Arthur, Australia had lost 33 people to massacre style shootings as a
collective of three considerably smaller yet equally disturbing shootings.
However the scale of Port Arthur was unprecedented in modern Australia and it
took only 12 days to enact the proposed amendments to gun laws, which was
progressively legislated. Those amendments wich came to fruition in August 1998
has undoubtedly made Australia a safer place.
The sorts of weapons that could see 22
people killed or wounded in a matter of 12 seconds were now banned. In the 17
years that have passed there has never been a Port Arthur style massacre &
the decrease of gun relate homicide & suicide has greatly accelerated.
In the face of “advocation Groups” the government worked with integrity,
not bowing to the high influence of the minority, instead using the deaths as a
means of positive change and not a means of trepidation as they so easily could have
done.
Recent Events in the United States of
America have escalated the continually heated argument surrounding the United
States second amendment “A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed” a constitutional right advocated by the highly politically
influential group the NRA (National Rifle Association) and millions of
Americans.
However when 20 primary school students are
killed executing their right to an education it makes you wonder what “right”
out weighs its reason. The right of the people to keep and bear arms in 1787 in
contrast to now might not have changed but a questions appears by replacing
the word “right” with “necessity”. Is it a necessity for the people to keep and
bear arms? A Subjective argument and the grounds of heated debate in my opinion, no. Is it a necessity to
have a safe and effective education? Absolutely, and this has never and will never change.
 |
| Scenes outside of Sandy hook Elementary School during
the Newtown Massacre Dec 14 2012
|
Governments have a right to enact judgments
with the support of the people or in spite of the people. Decisions are not
always popular; the 1996 decision in Australia to ban self-loading rifles,
self-loading and pump-action shotguns was admirable change in the face of
vociferous opposition by NRA style organizations, although the public support
was in favor of change, without the actions of Port Arthur change might never
have happened. It is never the hope for tragedy to occur for change to come to
pass however historically governments act out of retrospect and not foresight.
The United States has lost 210 people (not
including the perpetrators) to massacre style shootings in the past ten years.
That’s 23 opportunities to ride the wave of public tragedy to enforce policy
that would benefit future generations.
Instead they’ve gone the other way,
fighting fire with fire and erupting its population into a state of apprehension.
In the small Texan town of Harrold teachers
are allowed to wear concealed pistols to protect their students. In Australia a
teacher carrying a gun would be incarcerated in America it’s considered
OH&S.
How can a society function when the basic levels of authority are blurred to the point of nihility.
What a chilling and grim prediction of Americas progressive decent should this sort of vigilantly style protection be encouraged by it’s own government.
How can a society function when the basic levels of authority are blurred to the point of nihility.
What a chilling and grim prediction of Americas progressive decent should this sort of vigilantly style protection be encouraged by it’s own government.
 |
| Seung-Hui Cho perpetrator of the Virginia Tech Massacre |
Although I don’t always respect the actions
carried out by all police officers, I always respect the power they encompass.
When push comes to shove they have the authority to ensue lethal force. I
wonder though in the mind of an American civilian with a gun at their side…what
power does a police officer really have in the moment?
Now I’m not daft enough to believe gun law
amendments could be implemented to completion at anywhere near the cost, time
or ease than it did in Australia, but there is nothing other than the bully
& under handed tactics of “advocation” groups from stopping the topics
serious consideration. It’s a call on integrity.
I have never in my life thought myself
“dispossessed of my rights” because I’m not allowed to carry a gun. I have not
felt unsafe to sleep in my own home or at risk going to crowded events. Instead of allowing teachers to have a gun, at the very least try to create a functioning modern society like the one we as Australians live in where a teacher doesn't have a gun not because it's illegal but because they don't feel the need to carry one.
It’s true guns don’t kill people, people
kill people…however those who aren’t guided with any moral compass shouldn’t
have the ease of access to instruments that can perform the slaughter of dozens
in a matter of seconds.
-Caleb Sutherland.
