The recent American shooting death of a child, at the hands of another child, has re-ignited the gun control debate in the United States. Fair enough, but every time there is a hue and cry at yet another school shooting or other gun-related tragedy, Australians shake their heads in wonderment. Why, we quite reasonably ask, are these American youngsters allowed access to guns? And at the bottom line, why doesn't the U.S. Government simply outlaw the proliferation of guns and put an end to this continuing insanity?

The terrible events at Port Arthur allowed all Australian State Governments to agree to more severe restrictions on the ownership of guns. And yes, there are laws in the United States that control the ownership and use of guns. In fact there are more than 20,000 gun-control laws that regulate ownership and purchase of guns. But there is a single overriding restriction on the right to prohibit gun ownership, and that is the American Constitution. The Bill of Rights, which are Amendments attached to the Constitution, list the rights to life, liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, religion and due process and equality under the law. The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution states:

The NRA seems to conveniently avoid the full context of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was written on the basis that professional armies, even those founded in the United States, could not be trusted. This was partly a result of the actions of the British troops who enforced inequitable taxes, leading eventually to the American Revolution. The militia was composed of ordinary citizens, a bulwark against tyranny, and generally bore their own arms. You might ask yourself what possible purpose a handgun would serve in the continuation of a state militia? From our perspective that would be a sensible question.

What's the answer?

What sort of logic allows the regulation of automobiles, clearly a "lethal weapon" in the hands of the some drivers, and yet permits nearly half of all American homes to harbour a gun? It seems that in the United States, as a result of history and a dubious constitutional privilege, there is a view that gun ownership is a legitimate "right". No such consciousness exists in Australia. Sure, most of us agree that farmers should be able to shoot feral dogs that stray onto their properties. But we could not contemplate a general right of gun ownership, because we know it would foster a society in which violence would be rampant. How do we know this? Because it is merely common sense - there's nothing magical in this. Okay, everyone should have the right to self-defence - and the best way to curtail the need for self-defensive actions is to stop the proliferation of lethal weapons in the first place. There's no paradox here, just plain common sense.