Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 05:33 AM Apr 2016

Port Arthur massacre lead to brave decision

It's hard to believe almost 20 years have passed since the Port Arthur massacre. It can’t possibly be two decades since those first images of police and paramedics frantically trying to make sense of what had happened in the small Tasmanian tourist spot were beamed into our lounge rooms.

And surely it was not that long ago that MPs in the new Howard Government took the brave decision to risk their own seats in parliament to fight for tighter gun control across the country.

It’s even harder to believe, however, that a country like America is still waiting for its own Port Arthur moment.

A rabid gun lobby, backed by financial and political power, retains its tight grip on public policy in America, so much so that even Barack Obama – a staunch supporter of tighter gun controls – has been unable to change the culture or the law.

http://www.westernadvocate.com.au/story/3853447/howards-control-saved-many-lives/?cs=117
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Port Arthur massacre lead to brave decision (Original Post) SecularMotion Apr 2016 OP
I certainly could be wrong TeddyR Apr 2016 #1
he did hold up UK and Australia as examples of gejohnston Apr 2016 #3
It wasn't that brave at all, gejohnston Apr 2016 #2
I wonder if the controllers salivate as equally over Howard's WorkChoices and Pacific Solution Marengo Apr 2016 #4
"Port Arthur Moment:" Another myth-in-motion by controllers and ethno-centrics... Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #5
 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
1. I certainly could be wrong
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 06:19 AM
Apr 2016

But I don't think President Obama has ever called for the type of confiscation/bans that were enacted in Australia. People can tout Australia's gun laws all they want but it isn't going to happen here. Get back to me when you have the political capital to repeal the Second Amendment. So long as that constitutional protection is in place there is no need for anyone to worry about any sort of confiscation.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
2. It wasn't that brave at all,
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 07:55 AM
Apr 2016

Howard never believed people should own guns, and the opposition parties, Labour and Greens, generally agreed. MPs didn't vote on it, since Australia really doesn't have any federal gun laws. What the National Firearms Agreement did do was make state laws uniform and to what Howard wanted. Howard and his cabinet told states that pass it or else lose federal funding. States acted after months of government propaganda pushed by government owned media like ABC. Opposition was small mostly because Australia doesn't have that many gun owners per capita and, quite frankly, were not allowed to speak out.

A rabid gun lobby, backed by financial and political power,
The financial power isn't that great. It is about the same as Planned Parenthood, but the grass roots force is much larger. What the writer is really saying, is that he doesn't like democracy when it isn't going his way.

Fact is, Howard didn't save any lives. There were just as many mass shootings as before, still mass murders by arson, gang drive bys.

Mr Howard will always be remembered as the PM who brought gun control to Australia but, as he has always been quick to point out, he could not have done so without the support of senior Nationals in the Coalition.

Men like Tim Fischer and John Anderson had the task of convincing their constituents – many of them farmers who needed their guns – that the government was not unfairly targeting them, and that the new gun laws were for the benefit of all Australians.
Gun control always existed in Australia. The PA shooter didn't have his guns legally because his low IQ and history of violence prevented him from obtaining a license if he were to apply to one. They all required licenses, half of the states had registration.

He was unfairly targeting target shooters and farmers, they are the only ones affected. Biker gangs making their own machine guns are not affected. Neither are drug dealers.
 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
5. "Port Arthur Moment:" Another myth-in-motion by controllers and ethno-centrics...
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 02:19 PM
Apr 2016

Yes, Martha, other nations and cultures are that way, too.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Port Arthur massacre lead...