Australian Media Frames Easing Gun Control As A “Kick in the Face” To Survivors

The Australian media was of the major proponents of the extreme firearm restrictions put in place in 1996 after the Port Arthur shooting. Today, despite the fact that the restrictions have been shown to be largely ineffective, the media fight against any attempt at reform.

So the headline of a post today at tenderly.com.au shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone: Gun Law Changes ‘Kick In The Face’ For Port Arthur Survivors:

Australia’s gun laws have long been admired by countries across the world. Following repeated mass shootings in the United States, it was Australia’s response to its worst mass shooting, in Port Arthur, that many have pointed to as a best-practise for dealing with gun crime.

Strict gun laws heavily restricted the sale and use of shotguns and other long arms, and many have since called on America to follow Australia’s lead. But this public praise has not stopped the Tasmanian government from looking to change these very laws.

The Tasmanian government has come under fire for proposed changes to firearm legislation which would widen access to pump-action shotguns and semi-automatic rifles, reforms which police say could breach the landmark National Firearms Agreement.

Australia’s National Firearms Agreement is the framework used by former Prime Minister John Howard to create the extremely strict gun control scheme passed in record time after the shooting. It was a never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste,  all-out emotional push egged on by the unanimous Australian media.

The agreement gutted Australians’ traditional right to self defense, creating an interlocking scheme that made it virtually impossible to legally use a firearm for self defense.

It declared that no one had a right to a gun, that guns would only be allowed to be possessed as a privilege granted by the state. This was in direct in contradiction with an Englishman’s right to arms, which existed at the time the Australian Constitution was signed in 1916. One of the primary stated purposes of the 1996 law was to gun that, declaring that there was no longer a right to own, let alone bear arms.

The 1996 law didn’t stop at firearms. It created a national category of prohibited weapons that include slingshots, crossbows, nunchaku (nun-chucks), side-handled batons, TASERs, telescoping batons, and more. Essentially, Australians aren’t allowed to carry any device that might be used for self defense. Permits to possess these weapons may be issued by the State Commisioner of Police, upon his discretion.

Australia is an incredibly law-abiding country. There is very little crime there, and a very low homicide rate. That’s one of the reasons the extreme gun control law was able to pass. Few felt any need to defend themselves, and voices speaking up for Australians’ right to self defense were ignored, drowned out, or denied a platform.

One of the more draconian aspects of the 1996 law was to require the confiscation of civilian-owned firearms and the loss of a firearms license, for even the smallest breach of the law’s strict firearm storage requirements. The law requires all ammunition be locked up separately from firearms, and that all firearms and ammunition be locked up at all times they are not in actual use.

As the effects of these draconian laws became more apparent, some Australian states began to listen to their voters and to enact reforms to some of the worst aspects of the law. Here are a few:

Longer terms for gun licenses have been enacted

On-line renewal of licensing.

Trained private citizens administer firearms tests for profit instead of wasting police resources that are costly and provide poor service;

Reform of the storage laws to allow civil fines for minor storage breeches.

Tasmania is now considering a number of these reforms, including allowing pump-action shotguns and semi-automatic rifles for those directly involved in pest control, instead of only for farmers.

Proposals from the state’s Liberal government to allow greater access to Category C weapons — which include pump-action shotguns and semi-automatic rifles — for farmers and sports shooters, double the licensing period for gun licenses, and relax some penalties for storage breaches.

The reforms may pass. Which is why we’re now seeing the “kick in the teeth” opinion pieces in the media pushing back against the effort.

(Sam) Lee said Gun Control Australia did not believe measures to better arm farmers were needed.

The laws already allow for farmers to have access to high powered firearms when required, Lee said.

“We’re not asking for the dismantling for what’s occurred already, but this new proposal is about new access for larger numbers of these higher powered firearms,” she said.

“For us, the whole reason for the Port Arthur agreement was limiting access to these high powered firearms… We’re not saying ‘no guns’, but these firearms need to be limited.”

The Liberal party, which had agreed to support the reforms, won the Tasmanian election with a majority. That’s unusual given the complicated Tasmanian election set-up. We will see who controls the Australian state of Tasmania. The Liberal government, or the media.

©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

comments

  1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    The new world order needs universal civilian disarmament to achieve it’s goals.

    1. avatar henry bowman says:

      ““For us, the whole reason for the Port Arthur agreement was limiting access to these high powered firearms… We’re not saying ‘no guns’, but these firearms need to be limited.”

      But you are….You can say anything you wish, but your actions speak louder.

  2. avatar Rocketman says:

    Standard tactic for the left. Use a crisis to get what they want and then fight tooth and nail to make sure they hold onto what they have, even when the restrictive laws are shown clearly not to work.

    1. avatar Art out West says:

      Standard tactic for the “Statist”. G.W. Bush and the Republican Congress did something similar with the “Patriot Act” after 9/11. The Left is worse, but the fake Right isn’t very good either.

      1. avatar Nigel the expat says:

        ^That. Right there.

  3. avatar L says:

    A Liberal party that actually supports personal Liberty. Wish we had that in America.

    1. avatar tmm says:

      “Liberal” hasn’t been quite to perverted elsewhere as it has here.

  4. avatar RCC says:

    In Queensland we have 10 year licenses (none before 1996), on line renewal etc and it was supported by police to cut down paperwork for them. Pump action etc still legal. Other states went further.

    Gun Control Australia will not even release their membership numbers. Sporting Shooters has tried to find out. At one time it was estimated that it is under 100 people out of 24.5 million. But the main media gives them space and makes them seem important.

    Too many police are taught though that they are the only one who should have guns.

    1. avatar Nigel the expat says:

      “But the main media gives them space and makes them seem important”

      As you’ve probably seen, not only does the leftist media in the US follow that same play book, they will often frame video and pictures to make it appear that gun-control crowds are larger than they actually are, and pro-gun crowds smaller than actuality, if, and a very strong “IF”, they are even acknowledged at all.

  5. avatar Joe R. says:

    Austrailia hasn’t banished or eradicated ‘arms’, it has only forced the largest arms-modernization program in its hemisphere.

  6. avatar JasonM says:

    Allow pest control professionals to apply for license to purchase pump action shotguns and semiautomatic rifles? Everyone in Australia will be dead in weeks if that passes!

    1. avatar former water walker says:

      Hmmm…I used to have a casual FB “friend” from Tasmania(weightlifting related). Deleted the fool when he went on a “I hate nasty guns” rant. Is there something specifically retarded about Tazmanian’s?!?😩😖😧

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        It is said those who live in the Apple Isle can have family trees that are either straight or take detours.

        I’ve heard similar jokes about this in parts of Scotland, Ireland, and various locations in the USA.

  7. avatar RCC says:

    I don’t know if I would call it “modernisation” but lots of people cashed the cheque for semi auto .22 at gun shops for new bolt or lever action.

    Unlike USA events with $100 gift cards the government overpaid for firearms. I made about 400% on a 10/.22.

    Official firearm numbers are now more than before 1996. Estimates of how many were never surrendered vary. But range in the 100 000’s to the millions.

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      “Estimates of how many were never surrendered vary. But range in the 100 000’s to the millions.”

      Call it an easy 100 million ‘vanished’ if they ever tried a gun ‘surrender’ in the USA…

      1. avatar Ironhead says:

        I think it would be more than that. I would bet that it would less than 10% compliance. And the only one turned in would be non functional.

      2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

        “..Call it an easy 100 million ‘vanished’ if they ever tried a gun ‘surrender’ in the USA…”

        Guns? Me? Heavens no. I lost all mine in a terrible boating accident last fall.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          Although i remain a staunch Second Amendment supporter I have been disposing many of my firearms because I see confiscation coming on the horizon. I can get more from my fellow gun nuts than I will get from the government. I am going down to a minimum set of guns which I might get to pass down to my son when I check out.

  8. avatar Southern Cross says:

    We hear this from the media every time a proposal to improve the system is made is presented as “watering down” the gun laws which will result in blood in the streets. This is also presented as an insult to the memory of the victims and a “slap in the face” to the victim’s families.

    And heaven forbid anyone actually proposes enforcing the law on criminals. Under the Marxian dialectic, and in practise in the former Soviet Union, criminals were a protected class.

  9. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    So…you can carry a bat(baseball or cricket)…spray paint…crushed ghost peppers…alcohol…lighters…drain cleaner…bleach…gasoline…acid…etc etc etc
    Just have to get creative and improvise.

    1. avatar rob says:

      Well said.
      In motivated and imaginative hands, many items can be a formidable weapon.
      I hear that, many years ago, Samson did some damage with the jawbone of a donkey.

    2. avatar fred says:

      IDK, those ghost peppers are some bad stuff, might need to add them to the NFA.

      1. avatar Nigel the expat says:

        Atomized ghost peppers suspended in gasoline with a spray dispenser.

        And matches.

        😉

    3. avatar Dingo baby says:

      No you cannot, the wording of the law is that you cannot use anything prepared in advance for self defence. This explicitly includes bug spray, cricket bat and whathaveyou. There have been defensive firearm uses by licensed shooters but in very dire situations where they fetched tea firearm from their safe first. It’s worse than you think. A woman in WA was recently charged for possession of pepper spray.

  10. avatar Ing says:

    If you don’t quit trying to remove my natural human right to the means of effective self-defense because someone else hurt you 30 years ago, then you deserve the kick in the face I’m going to be forced to give you.

    That goes double for the “journalists” and assorted activists who are pushing this emotional blackmail. I’ll defend myself against them too, by any means necessary. So far, free speech and voting are (mostly) working here in the USA.

    They’d better pray to whatever god they worship to grant them the good sense to back off before they force the rest of us to escalate matters. The USA isn’t Australia, and they won’t like what happens when everyday Americans find out who their true enemies are.

  11. avatar John Q Public says:

    All THEY NEED to do is make is next to impossible to “Purchase/Possess/Own/Carry ” like in States like N.Y., CT., Massachusetts, NJ., MD., etc…Obviously, in places that are very similar to Australian Gun Control “Privileges” like Massachusetts. Massachusetts already has a Draconian Local/State Police Licensing Scheme in place. Making it sometimes next impossible for a lawful Massachusetts resident to exercise their 2nd Amendment Constitutional Right. Which of course, requires mandatory 2-4 week Firesarms Safety Training courses, Mandatory Application system from YOUR Local “maybe NOT so friendly Police Department.” Once applied for–a MA. Resident has to wait ✋ to have an interview with a Local Police Licensing Officer *without an attorney present, be asked invasive interrogation questions–“on your reasons for wanting to *purchase, keep and bear arms.*” Are subject to “Fingerprinting, and your personal information be placed into a State police created database outside of the Leglistative process! Pay your fee—“if everything went ok with your interview , your not detained or arrested for some reason…” Your instructed to wait…And you should be notified by mail with your LTC/FID, or by the Local Police Department if THEY care ❤….Or you Receive a denial letter….And you wait till whenever–“You wait till whenever because nobody gives 2 Shits about your constitutional rights cause you have none in Massachusetts. According to DemoCommies/and some RINO Globalists, a Massachusetts resident doesn’t have a “2nd Amendment Constitutional Right in this state. Only a Barely Tolerated Privilage…” So, there you go…A place similar to Australia right here in the USA…And when the time comes to “refresh the tree of LIBERTY.” I will be pointing out the traitors that usurped our freedoms. So that THEY receive the Justice that THEY deserve!!!

    1. avatar Warlocc says:

      I must live in a different version of Massachusetts. As bad as the situation is, it’s not nearly as bad as you’ve just described it.
      I applied for a license with the reason “because I can” and after taking an hour long course and an interview with my local police that consisted of “Hey, how’s it going?”, I had it after my background check completed.
      Now I can buy any gun in any LGS, just by flashing that card, no wait period or background check.

      Maura Healey threatening gun stores to make them stop selling rifles though… That’s another story.

  12. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    What I wonder is how many DGUs in Australia end with quietly rolling the bad guy up in the carpet he ruined and hauling him off for the wildlife to dispose of. The human right of self defense is not within the purview of any government to abrogate. No thug attacking me within my home would be likely to survive unscathed, if he survived at all, the point is for me to survive as undamaged as possible, Any government interference in the human right of self defense is a tyranny.

    1. avatar henry bowman says:

      Tell that to the judge/God King……Until they face actions for going along with the system nothing will change.

  13. avatar frankw says:

    You nailed it Rusty. No one has the right to place another in danger to satisfy their political or social views. We do what ever is necessary to protect our own.

  14. avatar m. says:

    gun control = ahole.

  15. avatar Oz says:

    Don’t understand. Why don’t law by citizens of Australia just become all outlaws. Problem solved. Government can’t handle the outlaws they got now. Having millions an millions more outlaws. Government would be so out number.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email