By Pip Hinman
Following the horrific killing of 35 people at Port Arthur on April 28, the establishment media have carried ghoulish accounts of the events and the aftermath. Given this and comparisons to the shootings at Dunblane in Scotland last month, it is not surprising that opinion polls register a solid majority in favour of tougher gun laws.
The alleged gunman used two semi-automatic military-style weapons — an American-made Armalite AR-15, also known as an M-16, and a Chinese-made Simonov SKS-46. Both have 30-shot magazines and both have the ability to fire through concrete. AR-15s can be bought over the counter or even by mail order in Queensland and Tasmania.
The shock and horror being expressed across the country are understandable. The first, instinctive, response is to want to take such weaponry out of circulation.
Prime Minister John Howard has moved forward a meeting of state police ministers to discuss the issue and to draw up a national plan for firearm registration. With the exception of a few Liberal and National MPs (mostly in Queensland), all of a sudden there seems to be bipartisan support for toughening the gun laws.
Most Labor MPs and senators, and the Green and Democrat senators surveyed by the Sydney Morning Herald on May 1 agreed that: Australia should have uniform national gun laws; there should be national registration of all firearms; and civilians should be banned from using semi-automatic weapons.
The Australian Medical Association, the Public Health Association of Australia and the NSW Council of Churches have called on Howard to act. The Democrats have also called for all sporting guns to be stored in a gun bank or other form of secure premises by a registered gun club. They have warned that they will introduce legislation for a referendum if the PM does not act.
The vice-president of the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties, Terry O'Gorman, told 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly that the organisation supported the compulsory registration of all firearms and that "it was appropriate that greater inquiry be made into the mental health and suitability of the applicants for the licence". He said that there is "no reason for private civilians to own rapid-fire long arms", and he is "yet to be convinced that there is a case for such weapons be used by anyone, including sporting shooters".
O'Gorman said while there is no country comparable to Australia which has yet adopted such a practice, he believed that the question of keeping firearms in armoury depots rather than in individuals' homes "must be put on the agenda".
Queensland Greens spokesperson Mark Taylor called on Premier Rob Borbidge to "pull [police minister] Russell Cooper into line". Cooper is resisting the PM's call for the outlawing of automatic and semi-automatic weapons and the introduction of a national weapons register.
"The Queensland Greens have always opposed the private ownership of guns in cities. The only people needing guns are primary producers. Shooters' clubs should keep all members' weapons and ammunition locked at club premises. A national gun register and a more stringent licensing system are long overdue. No civilian should have access to automatic and semi-automatic weapons. They were manufactured specifically for killing on a mass scale ... and as such should be banned", said Taylor.
Firearm regulation
Restrictions on the sale of military-style automatic and semi-automatics would make massacres like Port Arthur less likely. Such restrictions should be imposed. There is no reason why people — the police and military included — should require such dangerous weapons in any context other than war.
But would tougher licensing and a national register of all firearms really prevent these random acts of violence?
Consider the following:
- Most of the 500 or so gun deaths in Australia a year are due to careless or drunken shooters mishandling "licensed" firearms.
- In 11 multiple shootings between 1987 and 1993 in Australia and New Zealand, 84% of the 70 victims were shot by licensed gun owners, according to New Zealand researcher Philip Alpers. Using the US Justice Department's definition of a "mass murder" — five or more homicides — 86% of the deaths were carried out by a person with no previous history of violent crime or mental illness.
- Gun laws will not stop professional criminals from laying their hands on weapons. In the case of organised crime, the money will always be there to obtain weapons on the black market or from police.
- In the rush to buy "law and order" votes, politicians have given police a lot more powers including allowing them to carry ever more dangerous weapons. Police shootings of unarmed civilians are on the rise — especially in Victoria; from 1988-1995, police killed 28 people, one of which had recently escaped from a mental institution. In NSW, following the recent shooting of a police officer, police have been issued with semi-automatic pistols.
- There is no fixed relation between the level of gun possession and the level of violence in society. In Switzerland, all males from the age of 20-42 are required, by law, to keep an army-owned automatic weapon and ammunition in good working order in the their home. Yet Switzerland's crime rate is much lower than Australia's.
Police violence
The tougher gun laws to be proposed by Howard and the police ministers on May 10 will most certainly involve an increase in police powers. This, in turn, will increase opportunities for police corruption and police oppression.
Give the police more powers? Just think about it. The Fitzgerald inquiry into the Queensland police and the current NSW Royal Commission into Police Corruption reveal that far from there being "a few rotten apples", the police, from the very top, are involved in graft, corruption and intimidation. They are organised crime. The record of corrupt NSW police officer Roger Rogerson should serve as a powerful reminder of this.
Among the federal government's gun control proposals, there is no mention of imposing tougher controls over what weapons the police and, to a lesser extent, private security service personnel can carry. A 1994 Victorian coroner's report revealed that between 1987 and 1989 Victorian police shot 11 people dead. In 10 out of the 11 cases, the police were not themselves being shot at.
While it's possible that, in a best case scenario, tougher and uniform gun laws may stop some deaths, it would not eliminate the misuse of guns and certainly not stop violence.
This doesn't mean that we should accept the line promulgated by John Tingle and others of the NSW Shooters' Party and the pro-gun lobby. We should not defend the right of individuals to procure whatever type of gun they want. Tingle says that a national register wouldn't work and that the social and psychological causes of violence need to be examined. But he doesn't answer the most important question, which is why individuals should have the right to possess automatic and semi-automatic weapons.
The right to bear arms has been raised by the gun lobby. Historically, this has been an important democratic right; during the bourgeois revolutions in Europe and the United States, it was seen as a means for citizens to protect themselves from tyrannical governments. That is, it was a right to be exercised collectively against oppression — and not a matter of individuals carrying weapons and using them to settle differences in the style of a "wild west" movie. Thus the US Bill of Rights in 1791 clearly put the right to bear arms in the context of "a well-regulated militia" intended to defend the people's liberties.
The right of revolution against dictatorship is a right we should continue to defend. So we should oppose laws which give the state (which helps the rich rule) more powers to infringe our rights. As we have seen, these powers have been and will continue to be used against innocent people.
Community control
This does not mean that there should be no controls on firearms. In a society in which increasing economic hardship invariably leads to greater alienation and crime, it is clearly dangerous and undesirable for individuals to keep dangerous weapons in their homes.
Access to guns by anyone — including the police — should be placed under community control. There is no reason why the police and private security guards should carry arms as a matter of course. Rural and urban community associations could sanction the use of guns for legitimate purposes such as the killing of vermin and for sport. These organisations would be made responsible for safely and securely storing weapons and ensuring owners' responsible use of the weapons. This would be a much more effective way of controlling the use of dangerous weapons without giving the state any more powers.
Of course such community organisations would have to run in a democratic, accountable manner, not only to their members but to the broader community as well.
Legitimate fears about living in a society which seems to be becoming more violent are being exploited by politicians calling for more "law and order". This is simply an excuse to put more power into the hands of the state which is more concerned to protect privilege and wealth than working people's democratic rights.
But capitalist politicians haven't the slightest intention of tackling the real sources of violence in this society — unemployment and poverty and the social and personal frustration that these breed. Where are the new jobs? Where is the money for women's refuges? Where is the commitment to provide adequate services for the disabled?
The way to counter violence is not for working people to arm themselves individually, but to join in collective action to better their lives, and ultimately replace capitalism with a society that is based on human solidarity. Of course that reality — a society free from oppression — is still a long way off. But until we get there, let's not increase the power of the state at the expense of our democratic rights.