Papua New Guinea’s policemen and women around the country have been ordered to arrest and charge anyone in possession of illegal firearms — which carries life imprisonment under the amended law — from the May 19 deadline.

Police Commissioner David Manning, who is also the Registrar of Firearms, said that the directives were now being enforced.

Manning is urging all police officers around the country to enforce the law and implement the Firearms Amendment Act 2022 that was tabled and supported by all members of the 10th National Parliament recently.

“I gave a two-week amnesty period for people to come forward and surrender their firearms to the nearest police station,” he said.

“I am now appealing to anyone who has any information about the existence of any such illegal firearms to please come forward and assist your police force to remove these individuals and firearms from our communities.”

Papua New Guinea faces a general election starting in late July and security is an issue.

Miriam Zarriga is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

by Dr Bryce Edwards

As a political commentator, I’ve never experienced anything like it – the phone calls and email requests for interviews from international media have been constant. Broadcasters and journalists all want to discuss the Christchurch terrorist attack and the aftermath. But mostly they want to discuss Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

There is a huge fascination with who she is, what she is about, and how she has managed the events following the attacks on Muslims in Christchurch two weeks ago. For example, yesterday, I spent two hours talking to a German journalist who had flown over here specifically to write a major profile on Ardern for readers in that country.

The strong consensus – both here and abroad – is that Ardern has demonstrated extraordinarily impressive leadership since the terrorist atrocities. Numerous commentaries have celebrated her emotional and empathetic response, combined with her strength and “steeliness” in taking decisive action on matters such as gun control and victim support, her correctness in labelling the murders as “terrorism”, and her ability to project and foster unity (when there is a tendency towards division, even from many of her own supporters).

Below are some of the more interesting articles published in response to Ardern’s handling of the terrorist attacks.

One of the first important international articles praising Ardern’s performance was by academic and Washington Post foreign affairs writer, Ishaan Tharoor – see: The world is watching New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern. In this, he outlined the Prime Minister’s previous progressive credentials, which had “burnished her image as a global feminist icon”, and painted her handling of the Christchurch situation as a continuation of this trend.

Also in the Washington Post, Anna Fifield has written a good overall account of the global reaction – see: New Zealand’s prime minister receives worldwide praise for her response to the mosque shootings.

Writing in India, Ahamad Fuwad puts together a list of seven reasons Ardern’s leadership since the atrocity has been a success – see: How to deal with tragedy: New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern sets an example for world leaders, emerges as liberal mascot.

Writing for the Sydney Morning Herald, Nick O’Malley and Deborah Snow labelled Ardern’s leadership as: A masterclass from New Zealand in responding to terror. They asserted Ardern’s achievements: “If there had been quiet criticism in some circles that she was an inexperienced leader with as much stardust as substance, that has now been put to rest. Ardern has been a commanding figure of poise, compassion and strength, a textbook example to other world leaders about how to respond in the face of mass casualty terrorist attacks.”

I’m quoted in this article, on the strategic nature of Ardern’s careful leadership: “Firstly, she seeks to ensure that the division the gunman sought to sow between New Zealand Muslims and the greater community does not take hold. Secondly, she wants to head off the potential for a culture war inside her country, with elements of the left seeking to identify racism in New Zealand society as the cause of the attack and sections of the right using it to impugn immigration or the Islamic community itself. Thirdly Ardern – no doubt on the advice of police and intelligence agencies – has security implications in mind… By positioning New Zealand itself as the victim of the attack as well as its Muslim community, and by demonstrating unity with that community, Ardern is intent on reducing the potential for revenge attacks.”

Writing on this last point, the Guardian’s Jonathan Powell praises Ardern, saying she has “almost single-handedly managed to avoid the attacks becoming a cause of further tit-for-tat violence around the world” – see: If Jacinda Ardern was in No 10, imagine how different Brexit would be.

Powell’s column compares Ardern and Theresa May, saying both are having “to lead as their countries confront one of the greatest man-made crises they have ever faced.” He imagines a scenario in which the countries have swapped leaders: “If the United Kingdom had been led by Ardern we might still have had Brexit, but we would not have ended up with this national humiliation, a divided society and an imperilled economy. If May had been prime minister of New Zealand at her robotic worst, God knows what would have happened after the massacres.”

Ardern’s very high level of emotional intelligence is cited by Powell as the key strength that has allowed her to triumph. And he explains the importance of this quality for leaders dealing with national tragedies: “That is the sort of intelligence a leader needs. They must be able to understand what people feel and channel it, as Blair did at the time of Princess Diana’s death. Ardern managed that brilliantly in the way she expressed the grief of the people of New Zealand about the mass-murder in the mosques.”

Jamila Rizvi, the editor of Future Women magazine discusses whether Ardern’s “typically feminine behaviour” has served her and New Zealand so well – see: Jacinda Ardern just proved typically ‘feminine’ behaviour is powerful.

Rizvi suggests that Ardern is leading in a very different way to her counterparts, throwing away the “traditional script for a world leader reacting to a terrorist attack on home soil”, which is normally about “power and retribution”. As well as pointing out that Ardern has focused on the victims instead of the perpetrator, and put her energy into fostering unity rather than division, she says Ardern is outwardly-focused, rather than trying to get people to concentrate on her: “Instead, she listens. She comforts not by instruction but by making space for the thoughts and feelings of others.”

And politicians everywhere, male and female, could learn from this: “Authenticity and compassion go beyond gender, or race, or religion, or next week’s polling numbers. Authenticity is an atheist leader donning hijab without thinking about the ‘optics’, but simply because it’s the right and respectful thing to do.”

This leads onto perhaps one of the best international pieces about Ardern’s leadership – Rosa Silverman’s Ardern shows the leadership the world has been missing.

First, Silverman outlines how she sees Ardern’s leadership over this period: “infused with emotional intelligence and warmth, she has thrown her arms around a grieving nation and is visibly striving, with every fibre of her being, to heal its still open wounds. This is what leadership looks like. Sometimes you have to see it up close to understand what it is you have been missing. Ardern has walked hand-in-hand with those affected by the horror – literally, but also figuratively. She has pressed her face against theirs, presenting to the world the most powerful image of unity we could hope a politician might give.”

Silverman also contrasts the New Zealand Prime Minister with Theresa May: “When Britain’s Prime Minister, Theresa May, was confronted with a moment like this – the death of 72 people in the Grenfell Tower fire of June 2017 – her response was precisely the opposite: cold, stilted, detached. She projected none of Ardern’s conviction. She did not even meet with survivors the first time she visited the site. Here was a situation crying out for leadership, which our leader was ill-equipped to offer.”

Other world leaders are also being unfavourably compared to Ardern. The Guardian’s Suzanne Moore said “We have seen the qualities that define leadership in such a way that it is clear she is a lioness and that to call so many of our current leaders donkeys is a disservice to hardworking donkeys the world over” – see: Jacinda Ardern is showing the world what real leadership is: sympathy, love and integrity.

As with many such international pieces, this article seized on Ardern’s smackdown of US President Donald Trump: “Asked directly whether she agreed with Donald Trump that rightwing terrorism was not growing, she answered clearly: ‘No.’ How could the US help? ‘Sympathy and love for all Muslim communities.’ Sympathy and love, what kind of leader talks like that in a world where to be tough is to build walls and imprison children or, on our own shores, elevate intransigence and prevarication to new heights?”

In the international media, Ardern is once again being positioned as the “anti-Trump”, and the Financial Times’ Jamie Smyth elaborates on this saying her recent leadership has “cemented her reputation globally as a standard bearer for progressive politics” – see: Jacinda Ardern’s ‘solace and steel’ seen uniting New Zealand.

This article also emphasises that she “confounded domestic critics by displaying a toughness that some doubted she had, publicly criticising Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan for attempting to exploit the attacks ahead of the country’s upcoming election.”

All of these actions and words have led to many suggestions that Ardern should receive the Nobel Peace Prize. For the best discussion of this, see Stephanie Mitchell’s International petition pushes for Jacinda Ardern to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

There’s no doubt that Ardern’s moral mandate and authority has been enhanced in the last two weeks. Even critics and opponents have been full of praise for her. See, for example, 1News’ Judith Collins praises Jacinda Ardern’s handling of Christchurch attack, showing respect by wearing headscarf.

Rightwing political commentator Matthew Hooton has expressed his huge admiration for Ardern’s performance and has even compared her to his own political heroes: “For the Prime Minister, it is as if all her past life has been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial. In the last week Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated the empathy of Ronald Reagan after the Challenger disaster and the steely resolve of Margaret Thatcher after the Brighton hotel bombing. Consequently, New Zealand will heal faster than it may have otherwise” – see: After Christchurch, Ardern’s moment has come.

As a result, he says, “the political context has changed. The Prime Minister has an opportunity to use her new-found ascendancy to act decisively across a range of issues. If she really believes in a CGT, for example, she can now be more assertive in demanding Winston Peters fall into line. Similarly, she need no longer defend failing programmes like KiwiBuild but has more freedom to replace them.”

This doesn’t mean that there are no criticisms of Ardern at all, and some are now starting to emerge, as reported by Tracy Watkins in her column, Will Jacinda Ardern keep her ‘halo’ once domestic realities resume?

This mainly covers a column this week in The Australian newspaper, in which economist Judith Sloan criticises the “deification” of the New Zealand prime minister while “selectively” ignoring failures of leadership – such as allowing only a relatively small increase in refugees, and very little progress on the flagship KiwiBuild housing programme. You can see Sloan’s critique of Ardern here: Remove the halo and Ardern is ordinary.

Watkins herself notes that such questions “will only get louder” and politics will return to usual for Ardern: “Once the realities of domestic politics intrude – and they have already, after a week-long political truce – those expectations may run far ahead of what Ardern can realistically deliver.”

Finally, there has been one particular photograph of Jacinda Ardern that has stood out in the aftermath of the Christchurch atrocities – a poignant image of a sorrowful leader in mourning behind coloured-glass. The story behind the image is also very interesting – see Glen McConnell’s Face of empathy: Jacinda Ardern photo resonates with the world after terror attack.

by Dr Bryce Edwards

As the Christchurch terrorist debate has unfolded, there has been astonishment that New Zealand’s gun laws are so lax. Loopholes and liberal gun laws have been highlighted as a key factor in allowing the alleged gunman to murder 50 people.

Helen Clark has been at the forefront of this concern, complaining with incredulity that the laws could possibly be so bad. She asked: “How can people like these killers be able to have five guns, to legally have five guns? Why do we allow semi-automatics? What is sporting, hunting or recreational about semi-automatics?”

When challenged about her own role in allowing these laws to remain unreformed in the nine years that she was prime minister, she responded by claiming that it wasn’t an issue when she was in power: “I was Prime Minister for nine years, and it never came to the top of the pile… It’s a pity that it wasn’t top of the priority list” – see Vita Molyneux’s Helen Clark reveals why she didn’t change gun laws as Prime Minister.

When it comes to making gun law reform a priority, Clark says “unfortunately someone has to put them there” and “then there has to be the votes for it.” And even if it had been a priority, she claims that the numbers weren’t there to support it while she was prime minister: “With these coalition governments and confidence and supply agreements, sometimes you just don’t have the numbers”.

Clark’s former government colleague, Alliance Cabinet Minister Matt Robson, also says the numbers were a problem under the Clark-led administration, but he remembers things very differently. Robson says he had reform legislation ready for the Clark-led Government to implement, but the Labour caucus decided to block it. This is all recorded in Derek Cheng’s article, Past gun law reform attempts by Labour and National have failed.

This article explains how Robson had been pushing strongly for law reform while in opposition, primarily with a private members’ bill in 1999, and: “When Labour won the election later that year, Robson thought the new Labour-Alliance Coalition would strengthen the bill with the provisions that Labour had previously supported in his own member’s bill. He said he was shocked when he was told that wouldn’t happen because Labour MPs feared losing rural votes.”

According to Robson, “It was our policy. It was their policy. I was very shocked we couldn’t get it through. We had the opportunity. We were the Government. There’s no excuse for not doing it.” The article notes that two Labour ministers from that time – Phil Goff and George Hawkins – dispute Robson’s account.

Cheng’s article also details how other political parties and politicians – especially “Labour, National and NZ First” – have thwarted gun law reform over recent years, “likely in part due to a fear of losing rural votes”.

According to Tracy Watkins, this has all amounted to “years of shameful political self-interest of successive Governments over gun controls”, which the current Government is finally having to clean up after – see: Jacinda Ardern’s gun reforms needed to strike a delicate balance – and they do.

She writes about the shocking fact that it has taken politicians so long to act, when they knew about the problems: “There have been countless warnings sounded about our lax gun laws, including successive inquiries, select committee reports and police investigations.”

There is now a drive to understand why and how gun law reform has been stymied by the politicians for so long. As Michelle Duff and Tom Hunt state: “For almost three decades, successive Governments have missed opportunities to tighten gun control. New Zealand’s gun laws haven’t changed substantially since 1992. But why have we been so relaxed about semi-automatic weapons, and what’s halted change?” – see: Australia took action with its gun laws. Why didn’t New Zealand?

They put forward an answer: “Sustained pressure from gun lobbyists and the reluctance of politicians to push through tougher measures that were not considered a priority – despite a high-powered enquiry and multiple warnings – has meant the status quo has remained.”

Also writing on this question, Laura Walters points out that reform only occurs when public pressure makes it hard for politicians to ignore: “New Zealand has made numerous attempts to change gun laws in recent years. Ardern cited attempts in 2005, 2012 and 2017. There has not been a significant change in more than 26 years. The issue of guns is constantly bubbling away under the surface, with debates rising to the top every time there’s a high-profile incident involving a firearm” – see: Why changing gun laws isn’t that simple.

Walters has also written about this in another important article, saying “It always takes a tragedy. Like many countries, New Zealand has tried on numerous occasions to implement meaningful gun law reform. The Arms Act was introduced in 1983. Changes in the past 26 years were more like tweaks. Since the attack last Friday, politicians – on both sides of the House – had faced hard questions on why it had taken the death of 50 people to get change” – see: Time for full overhaul of gun laws.

She cites law professor Alexander Gillespie arguing that this is by-and-large how law and reforms are made: “Legislative change was usually reactionary, rather than precautionary”.

Hence, it was the 1990 Aramoana shootings that led to the last serious gun law reforms. And the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Australia led to major change over there, and it influenced an important inquiry here – the Thorp Inquiry. This resulted in major recommendations for reform, which were then largely ignored by subsequent governments.

According to Duff and Hunt, “Thorp’s 1997 report made 60 recommendations to improve gun control, including a ban on military style semi-automatics, controls on handguns, registration of all firearms, and improved security and vetting.”

The then National-led Government decided against implementing the recommendations. Derek Cheng reports: “in response to the Thorp inquiry, then-Police Minister Jack Elder declined to ban MSSAs [military-style semi-automatics] because he wanted to keep gun owners ‘on board’, rather than ‘waving a big stick’ by threatening to seize their guns.”

One of those involved in the Thorp inquiry, Queen’s Counsel Simon Mount, now says: “Tragically, I believe if the Thorp recommendations had been implemented in 1997, the Christchurch attacker would not have been able to obtain the semi-automatic weapons he used in this country.”

The most recent example of a government ignoring recommendations for reform came less than two years ago, after the law and order select committee held a year-long study of firearms rules. According to Duff and Hunt, “The committee came up with 20 recommendations, which were supported by the Police Association. But in June 2017 police minister Paula Bennett accepted only seven recommendations, rejecting 12.”

The National Government’s dismissal of the reforms was, according to Cheng, “applauded by Federated Farmers. One of the dropped recommendations was to investigate a new category of restricted semi-automatic rifle and shotgun. Bennett said many of the recommendations would unduly affect legal firearm users.”

According to Cheng, “Labour’s police spokesman Stuart Nash supported Bennett’s decision ‘100 per cent’, even though he was on the committee that endorsed all the recommendations.”

Laura Walters writes that Bennett “is understood to be a keen hunter”, and that the “Police Association President Chris Cahill said the minister had given into the pressure of a lobby which he believed represented fewer than 10,000 of the then-240,000 licensed gun owners”.

New Zealand First is also often identified as an ongoing impediment to reform. According to Cheng, writing about the 2016 select committee recommendations, “The only dissenting voice was NZ First MP Ron Mark, who said the recommendations would restrict ‘legitimate ownership of legally-held firearms’ and would do nothing to stop criminals from committing offences with illicit firearms.”

That party is said to have a long-standing close relationship with pro-gun lobby groups. Richard Harman wrote on this a few days ago, saying “It has close connections to the gun lobby. During the last election campaign, the Kiwi Gun Blog, a popular gun owners site, rated the NZ First firearms policy: ‘We will just say that the NZ First party has been supporting us – it would be good if a lot of shooters supported them – Even with a tactical party vote’, the blog said during the last election” – see: The gun control compromise.

But politicians and their parties are changing fast. Former Police Minister Judith Collins was hardly a staunch advocate for gun control when she was in government, but has come out this week to say that she is deleting all the lobbying communications that gun groups are sending her – see Nick O’Malley’s Judith Collins tells US lobby group NRA to ‘bugger off’ over New Zealand gun reform.

Finally, in terms of individual responses by politicians to the current gun reform campaign, it’s worth reading Lucy Bennett’s Former minister Rick Barker targeted by gunman backs register, and Jason Walls’ Deputy Labour Leader Kelvin Davis has handed one semi-automatic rifle over to police.

by Dr Bryce Edwards

Although important questions remain about the Government’s firearms law reform programme, at this stage there is a broad consensus that Jacinda Ardern and her colleagues have successfully navigated the first tranche of change.

 
Praise is coming in from all quarters, including internationally. And when praise for gun law reform also comes from farmers’ groups, hunters, the police, and a variety of political commentators, then you can be sure that the Government has dealt with this major response to the Christchurch terrorist attacks in a highly adept fashion.

What the Government announced on Thursday was definitely a compromise, which is perhaps why it’s been politically successful. Instead of announcing a complete ban on all semi-automatic guns, the Government chose to make a number of exemptions, which makes the ban less radical than that implemented by John Howard in Australia following the Port Arthur massacre.

This is explained best by the Herald’s Jared Savage: “Exempted from the ban in New Zealand are semi-automatic .22 rifles (with a magazine which holds no more than 10 rounds), as well as semi-automatic or pump action shotguns with internal magazines (holding no more than five rounds)” – see: Why the gun ban was a smart compromise but needs to go further.

He explains the logic and political sense in this: “This is also a sensible move. These firearms are regularly used by farmers for pest control, as well as hunters. Banning them would cause great unrest in rural communities in particular, so politically speaking, the exemption makes it hard for critics to argue legitimate firearms owners are being unfairly targeted. I suspect most won’t complain.”

Savage argues that “banning dangerous weapons while reaching out to those who will be most affected – will go a long way to unite most people behind the changes.”

Stuff’s political editor, Tracy Watkins, agrees that a politically adept balance has been struck in what she calls “one deft move” by the Prime Minister to avoid either being too radical or moderate in reform – see: Jacinda Ardern’s gun reforms needed to strike a delicate balance – and they do.

She says it means Ardern will “be criticised by those at the opposite ends of the gun debate as not going far enough by some, and too far by others.” But Watkins argues that the Government needed to find a compromise that would keep some of the gun lobby on side: “Ardern’s challenge was in striking a balance between the more lethal and MSSA weapons, and the types of shotguns popular among duckshooters and hunters, which the tide of public opinion could have easily swept into the list of guns that should be banned.”

This wasn’t just about electoral calculations, but also ensuring that the reforms would actually result in compliance from gun owners: “the risks of a backlash and black market from non-compliance are also factors that have to be weighed up.”

It’s therefore of great interest that groups such as Federated Farmers, the Police Association, Rural Security, Fish and Game and Trade Me have come out in support of the changes. For example, Police Association president Chris Cahill has said: “It’s a good mix of reforms that balance the practical requirements of firearm owners in New Zealand with the need to protect society, we’re very pleased” – see RNZ’s Wide support for government’s move to tighten gun laws.

For detail from a hunter about why this is the right decision, see Lew Stoddart’s Gun law reform strikes a fair balance. He is full of praise for the Government’s decision: “The government’s gun law reform package is notable because it balances three factors that in previous reforms have proven irreconcilable: it removes the most dangerous firearms from legal circulation immediately; it does so without being a knee-jerk overreaction; and it does so quickly, without extravagant cost, and without much legal vulnerability.”

For Stoddart, the key is that changes to the legislation are “based on power, action type, and magazine capacity”, thereby allowing for some less-dangerous semi-automatics to be exempted from the ban. For example, guns that only have a calibre barrel of 0.22 or less, and which can only hold up to 10 rounds, are still allowed. And Stoddart says: “The object of the reforms is to get the largest number of most-dangerous firearms out of circulation in the shortest possible time with the least hassle, and the only way that works is with the consent of firearms owners.”

For more on the technical details of the ban, see Stuff’s Q&A: A closer look at New Zealand’s new weapons ban.

Inside the Government, this appears to have been a carefully designed compromise to keep both politicians and gun owners on side. This is explained well by Richard Harman: “The decision to ban military-style semi-automatic firearms yesterday does not go as far as Australia did in 1996 after the Port Arthur massacre and was not the first preference of the Greens. Instead, it is a political compromise designed to get the vote of NZ First and National when it is presented to Parliament in a fortnight. What the Prime Minister clearly wanted to avoid was provoking a full-on fight with the rural community and the gun lobby” – see: The gun control compromise.

Harman says that he “understands the Greens wanted all semi-automatic firearms banned. That would have been consistent with their manifesto for the last election”. But this more radical ban would have been opposed by both New Zealand First and the National Party. Therefore “Ardern knew that if she wanted bipartisan support for a ban, she would have to reject the Greens policy”.

The international news media has reported surprise at the “lightning speed” and ease with which the New Zealand Government has been able to achieve this initial reform. The contrast with fights over gun control in the United States has been particularly highlighted. For the best item explaining to an international audience why New Zealand was able to push this through, see Rick Noack and Shibani Mahtani’s Washington Post story, New Zealand just banned military-style firearms. Here’s why the US can’t.

Similarly, see Matt Kwong’s Canadian report, New Zealand promised and delivered a gun ban. Here’s why the US can’t do the same.

All of the congratulations and hailing of the Government’s success doesn’t mean that there are no criticisms at all. Most importantly, the various gun exemptions still have some people worried. And there’s continued questioning about how much farmers really need these types of guns anyhow – especially when farmers cite “animal welfare” justifications. One answer is that it’s about the slaughter of bobby calves.

One writer, from a family of gun-owners, says: “The whole issue is so obnoxious to me that I can hardly write about it, but unfortunately it’s a regular part of the dairy farming process. A year or so ago dairy farmers were banned from ending their bobby (male) calves lives with hammers or bits of wood. Essentially the calves would be clubbed to death. Thankfully semi-automatic guns are now the accepted method. Firearms make this abhorrent job easier for both the calf and the farmer” – see: I’m from a farming family: Owning a gun isn’t a right.

And how well will the buy-back scheme even work? The Government is projecting that the scheme will cost up to $200 million. Lobby groups, say it could be much more, based on the fact that “Military style semi-automatics can cost from $200 to more than $10,000 and there are at least 15,000 registered in New Zealand” – see Maiki Sherman’s Firearm buyback scheme could cost $500m, twice the Government’s estimate, lobbyist group says.

Already some gun-owners are apparently indicating that they won’t hand over their now-illegal guns. According to one news report, “The Gunshack owner Peter Watson said while he was not personally affected by the ban, he had spoken to at least 10 recreational shooters who said they would refuse to hand over their weapons” – see Jennifer Eder’sGun shop owner warns recreational shooters won’t buy in to buy-back gun control legislation.

One gun lobbyist, Mike Loder, has even written an “open letter” questioning whether the government should really compel “shooters, in a supposedly free nation, to hand in private property on the promise of later compensation” – see Tom Pullar-Strecker’s NRA calls for stop to NZ’s ‘socialist disarmament’ alongside appeal for donations.

Another gun lobbyist, Bill O’Leary of the Deerstalkers Association, is campaigning to have compensation amounts determined by negotiation on a one-by-one basis: “It would mean every firearm would have to sit on a table, and on one side would be the person from the government and on the other would be the owner” – see Rob Stock’s The ban of military-style semi-automatics will cost millions – here is how the Australians did it.

Similarly, another gun-owner is reported today saying “If we hand in our firearms without assurances that compensation will be appropriate, what cost $20,000 will suddenly turn into $5000 of compensation” – see Cecile Meier’s Gun owner happy to hand in rifle for free, others say law change is causing anxiety.

Although there are obviously a variety of responses from gun-owners, another one says: “With the stroke of a pen, the Government has made some of my firearms illegal… I am anxious that the police may turn up at my house and seize my property in front of my whole neighbourhood. I am losing sleep.”

There are also a number of criticisms about the legislative process that the Government is attempting to take. The best arguments against this have been put by the Otago Daily Times’ Mike Houlahan, who says that haste in lawmaking can lead to bad law, which might even include loopholes, making the new rules less effective – see: Composure needed before creating new laws.

Finally, regardless of laws, are you personally complicit in helping the arms industry and the production of guns? Rob Stock explains, How to go weapons-free in your KiwiSaver portfolio.

Police have charged a man with murder after the death of his security officer colleague in a shootout. Both men were Filipinos and investigators are working closely with the Philippines Embassy in Port Moresby. Video: EMTV News

By Michael Arnold in Port Moresby

A shootout in a supermarket in the Papua New Guinean capital of Port Moresby last Thursday has sparked a nationwide debate on gun control and calls for civilians to be banned from carrying firearms.

The shooting, which happened in Moresby Northeast, resulted in two gunmen firing off 15 rounds in the crowded Boroko Foodworld supermarket, leaving one man dead and two children injured after being caught in the crossfire.

However, both EMTV News and Loop PNG website reported three people had been wounded, including two boys.

Reports from the Pacific International Hospital (PIH) said one young boy was being treated for grazes to his leg and his back.

Doctors also confirmed that apart from the flesh wounds the boy also suffered psychological trauma after the shooting.

He is currently in a stable condition but is being kept under observation at the hospital.

PIH representatives also said the hospital had admitted a high frequency of gunshot cases over past years.

Reckless firarms use
Thursday’s incident has been yet another demonstration of the reckless use of firearms by people in public spaces.

The current moratorium on gun licences is already in place, and there has also been a call for a total ban on private firearm ownership.

The issue of gun control has been high on the government agenda over the past week, with several parliamentarians having already called for improved gun licensing processes and the imposition of heavier penalties for illegal possession of firearms.

Earlier in the day last Thursday, Police Minister Jelta Wong told Parliament he believed the government must totally eradicate illegal weapons.

Presenting his ministerial statement on the status of gun-related issues, he said the report pushed for a total ban on licences as well as illegal guns.

Established by a parliamentary committee headed by former member of Goroka Bire Kimisopa, the report on guns control proposed banning guns and increasing penalties for offenders.

Wong signed a moratorium on October 4 last year, banning the purchase and issuing of new gun permits to citizens.

MPs were able to debate the issue, with many suggesting changes should be made for more assistance on the education of youths, allowing them to change for the better.

Michael Arnold is a PNG Post-Courier reporter.

• Earlier report on the shootout

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz