Differences in the law

I must be a very naive person.

When we had the so called "Port Arthur Massacre" in Tasmania the Australian people and government reacted by introducing gun laws that very narrowly restricted the ownership of small arms like pistols, shot guns and rifles.

The concept that citizens of this country could possibly freely own, much less use, more serious military weapons like automatic weapons, rocket launchers, military explosives or missiles was simply outside the realm of consideration.

It appears that the way in which the Australian government reacts to a "massacre" by one mentally ill individual is very different from the reaction that seems to happen in other countries.

We have recently seen the issue arise in East Timor, in the Solomons where our PM has reacted quickly and decisively when those governments asked for assistance. Australia sent in Australian soldiers and their first act was to start to try and disarm the locals and put out of circulation the weapons that were being held and used to terrorise civilian populations.

This brings us to Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon as examples of countries where it seems the notion that is prevalent in the USA namely the 'right to bear arms' has been taken beyond any reasonable use of that notion.

Not only are people in these countries armed to the teeth with the basic weapons that are strictly controlled in this country - things like hunting rifles or pistols. They actually are armed with uncontrolled numbers of modern automatic weapons, and far more dangerous toys like rockets, missiles, and who knows what else.

Small wonder then that in these countries deadly violence is a daily occurrence.

I seem to recall a saying that went something like "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword"

Until the people and governments of countries make and enforce laws that restrict the ownership and use of weapons they will continue to be exposed to the risk of uncontrolled use of those weapons and the consequences that flow from this use.