Life of Riley: Guns and ammo

May 22, 1996
Issue 

Life of Riley

Guns and ammo

What can I say that hasn't already been said? I too abhor violence. The trigger-happy members of our society have been sent a message: you can shoot, but don't strafe. Australia is keen to stay out of the record books, and in future we want our victims assaulted one round (I repeat: one round!) at a time.

Our home-grown murderers should play by these rules and keep within their bag limit. Heavy sustained firing is to be left to the professionals who know what they're doing — the police and the military.

A voice: So it's OK for the professionals to do it, is it?

Myself: Of course, that's what they're there for. Behind our freedoms stands a body of armed men. Without the power to kill and maim, where would we be today?

All the guns and ammo in private hands doesn't hold a candle to the firepower of fortress Australia. Given half the chance, we could wipe out thousands in a day if we had a mind to. All we're missing is an excuse. For the moment, we lack enemies with impeccable bona fides.

A voice: So you make do with the enemy within.

Myself: I suppose we do. We had to rely on atheistic communism for so long, now that that threat has gone, we kind of miss it. It served us well, though. Korea, Malaya, Vietnam — now that's the kind of shootin' I mean. National pride comes alive when the mayhem starts. We Aussies are a great bunch of killers when we set our mind to it.

A voice: We even shoot each other.

Myself: Sure. But that's an unfortunate side effect. War is good for design and development. Why, if you were firing a Thompson machine gun during the Kokoda campaign back in '44, the Japs could catch the bullets in a tea towel 10 metres away. Now you can't even hide behind a brick wall without getting done.

And they've got these cute little bullets now that enter you through a nice neat hole but on the way out they blow away enough flesh to fill a gar bag. Not bad, eh? It increases the chances of a kill.

A voice: I hope we can buy back such weaponry from those who don't know how to use it for the purposes it was intended.

Myself: You mean: killing reds and gooks. Yeah, but isn't it a shame to let such firepower lie idle for so long? My major concern is that the professional killers — everyday coppers, your military type fella and the like — may have their caches scrutinised.

Without a ready-made threat to point to, how will they justify their continuing outlay on hardware? In a new world order and with the supposed triumph of free enterprise, why should we arm as we did before? I tell you, questions are being asked.

If we think we should control the guns owned by Joe Citizen, then what about the armoury run, at great expense I may add, by the Commonwealth? Next thing you know, they'll be levying the military budget to pay for the country's health services!

A voice: — or to cover the shortfall on social welfare or to fund a government program of public works to create jobs or —

Myself: Let's not get carried away, shall we. Someone might hear us.

Dave Riley

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.