I am writing this as it is tricky to put through a voice comment from here.

In reference to your comments about gun owner ship in Australia, as you might expect, the situation is not that simple. I grew up with guns, was able to buy ammunition at my local department store, and was able to pack my .22 rifle in my school bag, hop on my bicycle and ride out into the bush to blow away a few bunnies. That was the 1960s. the idea of guns as some sort of proxy for a political stance or personal protection was unheard of.

Australia’s constitution is silent on the issue of guns, and so there is no equivalent of your second amendment to fuel a debate.

The gun debate here was sparked by a massacre in the state of Tasmania in 1996 when 35 people were killed and a further 23 injured. At the time the government was held by a coalition of 2 conservative political parties. Also at the time there was a developing culture of gun ownership along the US model of the need for protection. This is not the culture that I grew up with.

Our conservative prime minister, who generally appalled me, had the courage to determine that something had to be done, and by sheer good luck the leader of his coalition party felt the same.

I believe that in the debate that followed, the image of the prime minister standing in a flack jacket in front of a howling mob might have changed the sensibility about guns in this country. The need for that type of security was unprecedented. He was able to get a suite of gun control measures through parliament with very little opposition. What opposition there was came from his own conservative side of politics. He had full support from the centre-left political opposition party.

The main measures were a program to get rid of old guns from the community, and rules about gun ownership.

There is no real restriction on the ownership of sporting guns. You have to register the gun, and to do so you need to pass a police check. The type of guns you can own is restricted, but any normal sporting rifle or shotgun is allowed. Assault weapons are not allowed. You must store them in an approved cabinet, and the police may knock on your door to check. This is now very well accepted. You can join a gun club and shoot your handgun there, where it is stored.

The man responsible for the massacre turned out to be marginally mentally defective. He used to catch planes to anywhere so there was someone to talk to. In other words, he was not a rugged individualist standing up for some set of rights, just a pathetic loser with no friends. He was jailed, and from time to time he is examined by a psychologist who reports that he is still a loser with no friends. He says he does not like jail. Fortunately Australia has no death penalty, so he did not become some sort of martyr.

There are now as many guns in Australia as there were when the massacre occurred in 1996, but they are controlled. There have been gun deaths, often family murder suicides, and occasional criminal acts, but no massacres as we see all too often in the US and as occurred here in 1996.

The growing culture of gun ownership for personal protection, individual rights and the like have simply disappeared, and such a position is now viewed with contempt by most Australians.

In debates about guns it is often stated that the changes in gun ownership and culture here could only have happened under conservative leadership.

Notwithstanding the tragedy of the massacre, there is some serendipity in the courage of the prime minister at the time, his leadership colleague, and the nature of the shooter.

While I often hear Australia’s gun laws referenced in US debates, it is very hard to see how the experience here might be mapped to the US.