comment, editorial

Senator David Leyonhjelm is the latest in a long line of individuals and organisations who have tried to unpick Australia's gun laws since their introduction almost 20 years ago. His efforts are extremely unlikely to gather traction outside the ranks of a small, but vocal, minority who disconcertingly suggest their "right" to bear large-calibre, rapid-fire weapons outweighs public safety. This is a bizarre position to adopt given Australia's record of no mass shootings for two decades is the envy of much of the world and is rightly regarded as John Howard's greatest achievement. The latest cause celebre is the ban on the importation of the Adler A110, a lever action, rapid-fire, seven-shot,12-gauge shotgun into Australia. A five-shot version of the same weapon, rated as a Category A firearm, is currently available for less than $1000 in many Australian gun shops. Moves to import the seven-shot version, which can reportedly fire eight shells in eight seconds, were put on hold following a review of gun classifications in the wake of the Martin Place siege. Thousands of orders had apparently been taken by the time the ban came into effect. Pump action shotguns, such as the one used by Man Monis during the siege, which have a similar rate of fire to the Adler A110, are rated Category C and D. This means they can only be bought by primary producers and professional shooters. Given the availability of both the five-shot Adler and pump action shotguns for those with a legitimate need for them, it is hard to follow the reasoning used by those, including some National Party members, who say Australia's rural community has a pressing need for the seven-shot version of the weapon. There appears to be absolutely no community benefit to be obtained from allowing it into the country. This has to be balanced against the absolute certainty that if the gun activists did get their way numerous examples would soon be in the hands of criminals and turning up at armed robberies and in gangland shootings. This would further increase the already high level of risk members of the law enforcement community face as they work to protect the public. While some, including Senator Leyonhjelm, would have us believe this is a technical dispute over what classification should be placed on a particular weapon, the issue should be seen for what it is; the thin end of the wedge. Australians, unlike Americans, do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. Gun ownership in this country is, and always has been, a privilege sanctioned and controlled by state and federal governments. The first responsibility of those governments must be to protect the community. If this means some boys, and girls, have to do without their preferred toys then so be it.

https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/silverstone-ct-migration/9ba6dba4-3086-423c-8e59-e24f98ef40ad/r0_59_353_258_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg