Shooters Party threatens Australia’s gun laws

In the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, it’s worth remembering what the Shooters Party stands for.

While most media attention comparing Australia and the United States since the deadly Las Vegas mass shooting has focused on why the US needs to adopt Australian guns laws, there is a dangerous undercurrent permeating here which threatens the sanctity of those laws.

Two little known by-elections in NSW are in full swing, with locals in the rural seats of Murray and Cootamundra going to the polls next weekend.

The Nationals, who in lock-step with John Howard tightened Australia’s gun laws back in 1996, are under serious threat from the Shooters Party. Now the official name of the Shooters includes “Fishers and Farmers” simply to soften its severity, but the focus of their policy attention is on weakening gun laws.

In the wake of the Las Vegas shooting it’s worth noting some of their policy specifics. They don’t merely want to roll back Howard’s 1996 changes. They also want to make it possible for children to register guns, allow for easier access to silencers on weapons, and they even argue for the return of semi and in some cases fully automatic weapons.

It would send a terrible message to the broader electorate, indeed internationally, were Shooters candidates to knock off Nationals candidates on Saturday week. The symbolism of it would highlight that even laws largely supported across the Australian community are always up for legislative review. And the architects of those laws, defending them in the regions, are at risk. We don’t want the Nationals weakening their stance.

Two Shooters Party candidates entering the lower house of the NSW parliament would give this radical party a foothold from which they could make a more full blown assault on the Legislative Council. It’s lower threshold for winning seats (4.55%) has already seen candidates for the Shooters elected, but more would follow.

The risk is that this radical, gun-toting party builds mainstream support simply because it acts as a portent for protest votes in the regions. The next step will be it (perhaps linking with the likes of One Nation) moving into outer metropolitan seats and building constituencies there too.

Nationally Australians are proud of our gun laws, and as deputy PM, Tim Fischer did an amazing job holding his party together when they were legislated. But the fight to maintain them isn’t over, and the lack of shame from a party spruiking more guns on the streets is breathtaking. Only the other week a 12-year-old boy was shot in the face in one of the electorates going to the polls, yet the Shooters candidates continue to push for softer gun laws.

Lines like “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” are designed to miss the point. As America proves, indeed as Australia has proven with the decline in gun crimes as well as accidents since Howard’s laws came into effect, more liberal gun laws means more violence. Fewer guns and tighter restrictions saves lives.

Of course regional communities need greater access to firearms than do people living in the cities. But they already have that, and they have a party in the Nationals who are part of government (or capable of it when they are not) always willing to take a fresh look at the laws. Fringe dwellers like the Shooters Party, however, need to be shunned. Not just at a time like this, but for all time.

Peter van Onselen is a professor of politics at the University of Western Australia and a presenter on Sky News.