All those studying gun politics in Australia should realise how bias and distortion dominate the Wikipedia website entry titled ‘Gun Politics in Australia’. Wikipedia is a free public international encylopedia that anyone with internet access can modify and contribute to. Whilst this allows for a great flow of information it can also allow for a flow of misinformation and we have particular concerns about the contents of the ‘Gun Politics in Austraila’ entry – we believe we can show it to be a childishly biassed and ill-informed entry. Some examples:

(a) Section on settlement to 1980′s

The grave misbehaviour of many settlers who used guns to create havoc amongst the indigenous population is ignored. The tragic consequences of this to relationships with today’s Aboriginal population is ignored.

The high annual gun death figure of the 1970′s and early 1980′s is ignored. The role of licensed shooters in this tragic period is ignored.

(b) The so-called ’1987 spree killings’ section.

In 1987 six gun massacres took place in Australia. These were not spree killings but in most cases well-thought-out shootings where private gun owners infliced the utmost harm on specific innocent people.

The contributors to this entry ignored the immense political consequences of this tragic year where some 35 people died because the wrong people (in some cases legally) owned guns.

The contributors also conveniently ignored the enormously important gun massacre in the Strathfield shopping mall in 1991. Gun politics and gun laws in Australia changed dramatically because of this and the 1987 massacres.

(c) Port Arthur gun massacre section.

Crucial political aspects of the Port Arthur massacre and its aftermath have been ignored by the contributors entry. The attempts by pro-gun interests to blame Australian politicians rather than the culprit of this massacre constitute one of the most disgraceful episodes in Australia’s political history and must be fully known by students of gun politics in Australia.

The consequences of the new gun laws in regard to the reduced annual gun death tally is also ignored by the entry. It seems to us that the organised shooting fraternity hates to admit that strict gun laws might possibly save Australian lives. Every Australian should know that today less than half the number of people die from gun wounds compared to the days when the gun lobby had its tragic way with gun laws. Students should ask themselves the simple question: Are 400 fewer gun deaths each year important?

(d) Major players involved in gun politics section.

This section of the entry is almost a farce. The involvement of the public in attaining stricter gun controls is ignored, as is the crucial involvement of established and reputable community organisations. The role which important governmental groups played is also ingnored. The ‘Americanisation’ of gun groups such as the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA) is ignored, as is the increasing extremism of such groups. The fact is that America’s extremist pro-gun National Rifle Association (NRA) became entangled with the SSAA in the last two decades and the dangers of this extremism to Australian society must be understood by all students of Australian gun politics.

The bias and distortion of facts by this Wikipedia entry on Australian gun politics demands a response.

In February Gun Control Australia will publish a far more useful essay on this subject. We urge students to be aware of the pro-gun bias and distortion in this Wikipedia entry titled ‘Gun Politics in Australia’.

Since the Australian gun lobby is now so strongly influenced by American pro-gun interests and the the gun trade we urge students to examine these American gun control sites to get some idea of the dangers which some Australian gun groups will present if they become further involved with the American gun lobby.

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence: http://www.bradycampaign.org

Violence Policy Center: www.vpc.org

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence: http://www.csgv.org