Looking back at the tragic massacre at Port Arthur in April 1996, and the Legislative response Federal and State several months later, I am surprised how the events and the response still resonate in public memory. It was a shock to the new Parliament and Government. It was for the families of the dead and wounded a tragedy which never left and never will leave them. Government and people put their hearts and hands out to them and said, with integrity and purpose, the capacity to commit this mayhem with the weapons most effective for that evil pursuit will end.
The response was hard and effective. This was partly because we had thought about it. Previous massacres at Hoddle St and Queen St had seen the States and Commonwealth put together a committee on violence. 1990 killings at Strathfield saw the Commonwealth ban importation of automatic and high velocity weapons. The laws swiftly enacted after Port Arthur had been swirling around Attorney General meetings for a number of years. With the buyback scheme the vicious nonsense ended.
I thought the then Prime Minister and Deputy acted with courage. The public was massively behind them. After serving six years as our Ambassador to the U.S I have emerged with an even deeper appreciation of the actions of our governments then and the firm public support. We have become the ‘poster child’ for both sides of the argument in The United States. An example feared and often counter-factually traduced by the supporters of unlimited gun ownership. On the regulated side we exemplify nirvana! Not a week goes by that a "mass shooting", defined as four dead (not including the gunman), occurs. An image in my mind is of a frustrated saddened President Obama with an "our thoughts and prayers go out to the loved ones" theme on a regular basis. A community numbed by the tragedy, overwhelmingly supportive of regulation but politically atrophied. For many young Americans it feeds a perception of ineffectual adult leadership.
Ideologising guns is a new thing. In the 19th century, the second amendment was completely understood in its Defence context. Far from being wild, the West tried to regulate itself. The gun ideology has been fed by recent, not old judicial interpretations. Nevertheless it gives you pause for thought that if every suggested regulation I have seen proposed in the U.S was legislated, the U.S would not have gun laws as tough as we had before the Port Arthur massacre.
It also has to be understood gun regulation does not mitigate the mental issues, anger, criminal intent, despair which creates a murderous or suicidal cast of mind. What it does do is massively mitigate the damage and the spread of misery to the uninvolved. That is major. The families of the victims of Port Arthur know that their suffering drove an exemplary determination in the Australian political class and community. The then Prime Ministers’ and the State Governments’ leadership stands now like a beacon. It is the example to which nations handling this problem aspire.
