WHAT REALLY HALTED THE MASSACRES?

Since writing the article A New Approach to Media Engagement I have received a considerable number of mostly inarticulate and non-sequitur emails demanding I justify various claims.

Despite inviting skeptics to post their challenges on the Blog in the space for comments provided, all have so far declined, claiming (in so many words) they "do not wish to expose themselves to crazy gun nuts."

Clearly these are open-minded types who don't understand the function of the 'Anonymous' option.

The comparatively large number of email challenges combined with their common thread, would tend to suggest I’m the subject of a coordinated campaign to discredit my opinions.

I guess this means I’ve hit a nerve.

I’ve also received a number of messages of a sincere and sane tenor, requesting I elaborate a little on what I believe to be some of the generally unacknowledged influences behind the past two decades free from substantial mass shootings.

While I have done so in past articles, most recently in The Man Who Ended Australian Gun Massacres, it perhaps doesn't hurt to have a slightly more focused crack at it.

In doing so I want to state at the outset, I do not claim to have identified all contributing factors.

Had I done so, I’d hardly be sitting on the information given its potential to undermine many of the anti-gunners’ traditional arguments.

I hope by sharing my thoughts/suspicions, law-abiding firearms owners with far better analytical minds than mine, might also put their heads to the business of researching and identifying other driving factors.

As we know, the downward trend in the frequency of spree shootings or ‘massacres’, had begun well before Bryant’s escapade. This is a generally accepted fact, even in the Antis' camp.

Following 1996 gun control there was an initial plunge in the rate of firearms related deaths, primarily attributable to a fall in the rate of firearms related suicides.

This is hardly surprising. 

Many people at the time had firearms hanging around the house they couldn't quite explain. They weren’t used, maintained or event wanted. They’d simply fallen into ownership when dad or grandpa passed away.

Howard’s buyback and associated amnesties provided an opportunity for people to get rid of grandad’s old .22 laying on top of the wardrobe, hanging on a wall in the shed or  even leaning against the wall behind a door.

As a result, people intent upon taking their own lives were forced to rely on other means and this had a dramatic impact on the death by firearm statistics.

It did not, however, significantly lower the suicide rate over all; a fact the media and gun abolitionists habitually refuse to acknowledge.

The most influential innovation we must thank for ending the public shooting spree ‘phenomenon’ is something that was relatively uncommon 20 years ago, but over the ensuing two decades would come to pervade every aspect of daily life.

It is the humble computer.

In the years prior to Port Arthur, police services had begun to computerise systems. However, these systems were very limited. 

They were more glorified file storage and retrieval systems than anything else and they were prone to constant breakdown and software compatibility issues.

Over the years and thanks to the intra/internet they developed into systems capable of cross-referencing data held within various internal departments and indeed police services across Australia.

Computers also made possible the tagging and automatic flagging of certain information that prior to the computer age simply did not happen. For instance, when entering the name of a person before the courts on domestic violence matters, police systems would automatically advise if s/he was a firearms owner.

In turn, this allowed police not only to confiscate guns, but to know exactly how many guns the subject owned, along with their exact nature, making their confiscation more efficient and effective.

As the years passed, government agencies began to standardise systems and develop inter-agency accords of co-operation with non-government agencies and health professionals and this further aided in the flagging and identification of high risk subjects.

In 2001, just 5 years after Port Arthur, the 9/11 terrorist attacks unfolded on US soil. This also contributed to far more complex computer systems being introduced in Australia, including those facilitating the public reporting of a wide variety of suspicious activities.

These systems introduced the capacity to report concerns anonymously too, via web based single use email accounts and anonymous 1800 numbers.

Ergo, the public was more inclined to report a variety of concerns because there was little chance of identification and retaliation.

Mandatory Reporting of people suffering mental illness or making threats of violence also had a huge impact on the spree phenomenon, but only because computers made it possible to ascertain if a subject had a firearms licence and how many guns she/he owned.

While Mandatory Reporting was a formal initiative, there was likely another, less formal reporting motivation in train too - that of conscience. 

The nation's obsession with Port Arthur was all pervading. Media reports of the carnage, both physical and emotional, would be our constant companion for some years to follow.

I know from my own discussions with friends who are doctors, psychologists, lawyers, counselors and even ministers of religion, that following Port Arthur many professionals would come to place limits on privilege and confidentiality that was previously absolute.

Having seen the carnage of events like Hoddle Street and Port Arthur unfolding live on television, preserving client privilege at any cost was simply a burden too great for many to bear.    

Prior to all this computer based reporting, information sharing and risk flagging, which was of course facilitated by the internet, Australia was a very different place.

A person subject to a domestic violence order was unlikely to have his firearms privileges revoked and not just because the laws empowering the State to do so hadn’t yet come into play.

The systems making it possible, dependable and even totally automatic, simply didn’t exist, or hadn’t been implemented.

This would change gradually over the next two decades, affording the Australian public levels of protection never before experienced.

I could fill a book with scenarios outlining the many and often obscure ways in which computers,  the internet and even more obscure factors contributed to the end of spree shootings in Australia, every one of which having had a far greater impact than Howard ‘s 96 ban on semi-automatic firearms.

Every one of Howard’s gun reform strategies depends upon computer systems, without which they simply would not have been possible. 

The vast majority of those systems did not exist prior to 1996 and every one of them has steadily improved, becoming ever more efficient to the present day. 

Even if semi-automatic firearms had not been banned we would still be experiencing the level of improved safety today, that people insist on attributing to their abolition.    

Of course the one thing computer systems cannot manage efficiently is the control of illegally owned firearms, which remain the preferred tool of the criminal.

However, even in this case computers store information compiled on suspicious characters, gangs and so-forth, enabling authorities to monitor, update and share information on potential threats in an instant, and in the remotest locations.

Improved community responses to domestic violence, the advent of more equitable Family Law and associated court outcomes, high-profile mental health/depression campaigns particularly those focused on men’s health, zero tolerance bullying policies in schools, more tolerant views towards issues of gender and sexuality, and of course mandatory criminal background checking for firearms applicants all contributed to ending the shooting sprees.

All these things and many more I have not listed, were initiated in the past 20 years.

Anyone who believes forcing maniacs to contend with a .5 of a second slower rate of fire, ended massacres completely and instantaneously, simply does not possess the intellectual acuity required for responsible participation in the gun debate.

It's simple common sense. If one finds the head of a nail sticking out of the floorboards, one does not leave it in that state forever, simply because one doesn't own the perfect hammer for the job. 

One simply takes to the task with the next best option and in the case of firearms, there are literally hundreds of thousands of alternatives to choose from, their inferiority to semi-automatic firearms measured in fractions of a second. 

If Australian’s owe a debt of gratitude to any one man for bringing the spree-shooting phenomenon to a halt – so far – that man is Bill Gates, not John Howard and the organisation responsible is Microsoft, not the Liberal Party.

If you can think of any other drivers of change I have not outlined above, I encourage you to share them in the comments section below, regardless of how "out there" they may seem.

The more comprehensive the list we compile, the more compelling our advocates will be when they engage with the media carrying the message “banning semi-automatics did not end massacres in Australia. John Howard is no savior.”

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now....
©gmallard2016 all rights reserved



Follow the Hunters' Stand on Twitter @Hunters_Stand

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/what-really-halted-massacres.html

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.


If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com This service will not include notification of new comments. 

All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.