WE ARE no longer horrified by mass shootings in the United States. We are saddened, but far from shocked. It’s hard to say when it happened. Was it after Sandy Hook, when 20 young children were gunned down in their classrooms? Or was it the Orlando night club, where the death toll hit 50? By the time of last year’s Las Vegas shooting, the worst in US history with 59 dead and a staggering 851 people injured, our reaction was different. It’s just another day in America; another tragedy in a country with an insane gun culture. We do not lack compassion for the victims and their families, but we cannot comprehend the refusal to do anything meaningful; to change the laws. We shake our heads at the news that not only is nothing done, but the fear it might drives up gun sales in the aftermath of every massacre. The US experience invariably makes us think of our own, and of how we acted more than 20 years ago to make our country safer. Our gun laws are celebrated as an achievement of John Howard, even by some of his harshest critics. Today, the almost routine reports of mass shootings in America have likely helped to galvanise Australians’ support for those reforms. A 2015 poll found 85 per cent of people believe our gun laws are either “about right” or “not strong enough”. The backlash to a perception the Tasmanian government wants to weaken our laws demonstrates this passionate public support for the status quo. It was also reasonable given the way the proposed changes first came to light. In the midst of the state election campaign it emerged then Police Minister Rene Hidding had written to stakeholders – firearm owners, basically – promising a re-elected government would look to make several changes. Laws and regulations were to be reviewed, and Tasmania Police’s Firearms Services division was to be improved. Whether it was a deliberate Liberal strategy to narrowcast the message or not, the government looked sneaky, even though it insisted the policy was on the party’s website. Funnily enough, as it also pointed out, Labor had a similar policy. This week, a group of Tasmanian health professionals formed a new group, Medics for Gun Control, to lobby for, appropriately enough, gun control. Members made very clear their strong opposition to any changes to the state’s existing laws. “We want the Premier to drop any changes to our laws,” GP Dr Phil Pullinger said, while emergency specialist Dr Bryan Walpole warned people would die if the laws were changed. Social worker Pru Peschar said change would serve nobody’s interests. Premier Will Hodgman was forced to again promise his government would do nothing to compromise the National Firearms Agreement. “We will not do anything to water down Tasmania’s gun laws,” he said. A Legislative Council select committee, chaired by Ivan Dean, will consider the proposed reforms, with submissions now coming to a close. The inquiry was an initiative of Mr Dean, a former police officer who would likely have a better understanding than most of all the issues. The inquiry will have to grapple with the view our gun laws should not be tampered with in any way, and no doubt more than a few people have made submissions demonstrating such thinking. Unfortunately, this argument shows no interest in the practical application of our laws on those who own and use them. Given why they were introduced in the first place, and those tragic reminders courtesy of the US, it is understandable many are fiercely protective of our gun laws and don’t want to see any backward steps. But legislation can always be improved. And what needs to be remembered, but is so often forgotten, is law-abiding firearm owners – for whom a gun is but a tool of their trade or the equipment of their sport – are bound by this legislation. Their concerns about how legislation or regulations work, or don’t work, should not be dismissed out of hand. Rather, there should be a considered, measured review of proposed amendments. This should not be seen as a push to water down our laws, and, in fact, it presents an opportunity to strengthen penalties against, for example, those deliberately breaking the law and putting lives at risk. The Legislative Council inquiry should open the door to a more informed discussion on the need, or otherwise, for specific changes to our gun laws. We are not the US. We can have a balanced and sensible debate on guns that considers all perspectives.

https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/ftA38LcLm6zPPferaZ3FKy/92a86475-adbe-4f5f-914a-d5ff93337012.JPG/r5_44_1994_1168_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg