IN the wake of the Martin Place siege, a call for Australia to relax its gun laws, so ordinary civilians can arm themselves, is as flawed as it is offensive.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Granted, it has been made by a lone federal MP who has a long history of opposing gun control, but it is a view that is no doubt supported by others in the community.
New South Wales Liberal Democratic Party Senator David Leyonhjelm said denying Australians weapons had made the country a "nation of victims".
Via Twitter, the senator called on "hoplophobes" to explain how Switzerland had more guns per capita than the US but fewer gun deaths than Australia per capita.
Hoplophobia is a neologism for an irrational fear of guns.
Or as the Senator put it, a fear, "in which being killed by a lunatic is preferred to having the means to save your own life".
What appalling timing by an MP to use this tragedy to push his own personal agenda.
The argument that, "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" is probably true in many cases.
The trafficking of guns only goes in one way - from lawful owners whose guns are stolen by criminals. A vicious circle of fear then ensues where honest people feel they need to protect themselves against criminals.
But the good guys are the police or army; people highly trained and who face greater scrutiny of their skills and consequences for their actions.
Not someone who has fired a few shots at a gun range and fancies himself or herself as a peacekeeper, guardian angel or, heaven forbid, judge, jury and executioner.
The fact is gun laws introduced after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre have made Australia a safer place.
There have been no massacres since, homicide rates involving guns have fallen significantly and suicide involving firearms has fallen almost 80 per cent.
The gun control laws introduced within months of the Port Arthur massacre were the high-water mark of former prime minister John Howard's government.
It was the type of unwavering leadership, of determination against massive criticism, that has never been evidenced in the US's ongoing gun debate.
Facing immense political pressure not to crack down on certain types of guns, the Howard government pushed ahead anyway.
Semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump action shotguns were banned and tighter licensing and ownership laws were introduced.
Under the buyback, more than 631,000 firearms were destroyed.
People against gun control will point out that it was only the law abiders that handed in their firearms.
Martin Place gunman Man Haron Monis had no gun licence yet still managed to get hold of a sawn-off pump-action shotgun, one of the types of firearms outlawed.
It is no comfort to the family of those killed, but perhaps the damage was limited by the fact that he did not have the type of military weapon that Martin Bryant did at Port Arthur.
Should gun laws be strengthened? Should they be weakened?
Neither, is the right answer.
As shown by this incident, and many others, it is not the lawful gun owners committing the crimes.
But allowing even responsible owners access to more firearms only puts more guns in circulation.
The trafficking of guns only goes in one way - from lawful owners whose guns are stolen by criminals.
A vicious circle of fear then ensues where honest people feel they need to protect themselves against criminals.
Get tough on those who possess guns without approval and get tougher on those who have banned firearms.
