A "mass shooting" is not a legal term

but it is generally considered to involve the shooting and death or injury of three or more persons.

According to an article in this morning's paper there have been fifteen such mass shootings in this country since 1971. Those shootings resulted in 113 deaths.

The worst of these was in 1996 at Port Arthur. Thirty-five people lost their lives. 

It was the Port Arthur event which prompted the then Prime Minister, John Howard, to bring the states together and demand a change to gun laws across the country. There was a "National Firearms Agreement" and many of us believed we were on the verge of something good - a national registry of gun ownership with some very necessary restrictions being put in place.

There is no "right to bear arms" in this country. It is not necessary. The vast majority of people have never held any sort of gun apart from a toy - if they have held that. The only people who need guns are those whose occupations demand it - farmers, the armed services, security, police and similar occupations. For many years even our police were not armed.

There are now concerns that the National Firearms Agreement has not been fully implemented, indeed that gun laws could be watered down. The agreed registry has never been established. People can still buy large amounts of ammunition - and do so quite legally. The lower age limit for gun use varies. There are other issues too, especially around licences for people who are subject to apprehended or domestic violence orders. That alarms me.

 We don't want to go the way of the United States where there have been more mass shootings this year than we have had in the last fifty.

Gun ownership laws are a state responsibility under our Constitution. States need to come together so that we have uniform gun laws, laws which are tight and do not allow guns to be used by anyone other than those who need them. Shooting anything should not be seen as a "sport".