Australian conservative former PM encourages tightening of gun laws

[Tigers!]

Most Americans are moderates and take the labels "conservative" or "liberal" to reflect their initial reaction to change. By European standards most Americans, including Obama and Hillary, are right of the centre and an oddity considering that America has driven a lot of the progress and change in the world. We are science and technology liberals and social conservatives.

Americans have certainly driven a lot of change. Whether that change is progress is another question entirely.

I notice that you do not give a definition of progressive in your otherwise comprehensive list. Care to try again?

 

[Angry Floof]

Good morning, Tigers!

Thank you! I also ask questions about the problem at hand. #3 is interesting in that after your two questions about the problem itself, you then move to your assumptions about other people. I admit, I also tend to expect certain behaviors from others, depending on the situation and what they have already revealed about their way of thinking. However, what I'm really curious about most is what questions you ask yourself about your own thinking.

For example:
Am I starting my examination of this issue by automatically applying my opinion of other people involved?
Is it useful to make judgments of others first and then apply critical thinking to the facts or would the other way around work better? I try to avoid that but sometimes it is more fun to judge first

Am I reacting emotionally first and then justifying what I already believe?
Is this reaction of justifying my preformed opinions a useful framework in which to solve problems?

Stuff like that.

Also, fascism is not an ideology. It's a way of thinking that can apply to a great many ideologies. Communism is just one belief system that can easily be poisoned by fascism, much like Christianity and conservative political ideologies.

Are you curious as to why that is?

For example:
Am I starting my examination of this issue by automatically applying my opinion of other people involved? Since my opinion is one of the reasons I am examining the issue then it would be hard avoid exercise my opinion

If your opinion has never been peeled back and your underlying assumptions and motivations examined, then how do you know it’s even worth keeping? After-the-fact justifications do not equate to examination.

Is it useful to make judgments of others first and then apply critical thinking to the facts or would the other way around work better? I try to avoid that but sometimes it is more fun to judge first

Fair enough. I fully admit that I do love me some delicious moralizing at times. I think it’s important to be honest with ourselves about such motivations. If we pretend we’re not enjoying a little self righteous gratification from time to time, we fall into the trap of believing those justifications that tell us we’re right and we're awesome and we're super smart and that there is no need to give our preconceived conclusions a good old socratic beating.

Am I reacting emotionally first and then justifying what I already believe? Emotion is hard to avoid but I try to avoid it too much. It can cloud the thinking.

Precisely why it is wise to examine emotional drivers. Suppression actually makes emotion more powerful as a subconscious driver of your choices and behaviors.

Is this reaction of justifying my preformed opinions a useful framework in which to solve problems? Why you assume that that my preformed opinion is incorrect? Sounds like you are breaking the 1st rule above. Opinions can change but they have to be there first before they can change.

I'm not assuming they're wrong. I'm saying how can you know they're right or wrong if you don't question them.

These 2 sentences

Also, fascism is not an ideology. It's a way of thinking that can apply to a great many ideologies.

seem disjointed. Could you clarify please?

Sure. Fascism can be described in cognitive or psychological terms (now called right wing authoritarianism):

Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

Even liberal ideological groups contain some fascist thinkers. It's much more rare than it is among conservative groups, but it does happen. Reading that description, you can see how conservative ideologies attract people who think this way and why there would be a much stronger overlap of right wing thinkers with right wing ideology.

Ideology in general terms just means the set of views and beliefs about the world and ourselves that we each operate under. But obviously, ideology is also a set of views and beliefs about the world that we learn from others and affect us extrinsically. “Ideology” covers all such sets of views. “Fascism” as a form of government or social structure is just one example of an ideology whereas “fascism” also describes a specific set of cognitive processes and tendencies. An individual with fascist cognitive tendencies living in a culture of fascist ideology is going to be a right winger. Barring some unusual circumstances and experiences, that’s just about guaranteed.

There’s also a distinction to be made between an authoritarian follower and an authoritarian leader if you’d like to explore this further, but it’s not especially relevant to what we’re talking about here.

Communism is just one belief system that can easily be poisoned by fascism, much like Christianity and conservative political ideologies.

If communism is poisoned by fascism or vice-versa they would die.

By "they" do I assume you mean ideologies? If so, sometimes they die, sometimes they don't. Fear and ignorance provide a rich soil for fascist thinking in individuals and therefore support for fascist views and policies. There's tons of research on how brains respond to fear. Fascism thrives on it.

Education, challenging our own beliefs (as opposed to automatically justifying them) and standing up to authoritarianism are the antidotes to fascism.

We all share the capacity to feel like we need to be correct in our stances and to avoid the social humiliation of admitting we might be wrong. The right wing authoritarian mind is more likely to respond to this conflict by digging in and further justifying inhumane views. The left leaning liberal mentality is more open to change. Cultural values play a strong role in fostering or discouraging our responses as well.

Challenging our beliefs includes questioning our intrinsic regard for our fellow human beings. Demonization is how fascist-leaning minds justify their punitive attitudes toward others. Some people are open hearted toward all other humans and not as likely to support punitive or divisive policies toward whole groups of people, and some people don't really have the wherewithal to even consider that all those horrible people on the other side of their pet issues are fully human. It's very easy to whittle away the rights of people you already believe are evil or somehow inferior to your in-group, and when this kind of thinking is encouraged by whoever or whatever you believe to be your authority, you’ll likely go along with all manner of injustice toward others. We humans are capable of a great deal of irrational and inhumane behavior when our in-group encourages it.

Looking at history and current events around the world, it seems hit or miss as to whether these antidotes will be effective. Whole nations of people can be caught off guard when war and other violent events happen quickly, or when worn down by stress of continued poverty and hardship. Even those who are fully aware of the danger of fascist leaders and policies and are very conscious of their opposition to it are often helpless to do anything or too afraid of consequences. "Might is right" is the mantra of fascists.

Humanity is adapting to a tribe of billions with brains that have evolved in much smaller groups. For many of us, it takes effort and glucose and wrangling with powerful emotional drivers to overcome the tendency to stick to the comfortable monkeysphere and take the easy, energy-efficient route of allowing billions of human lives to remain as two dimensional abstractions in our mental world.

 

[Tigers!]

Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

I could replace right-wing with left-wing above and it would read no differently.

Even liberal ideological groups contain some fascist thinkers. It's much more rare than it is among conservative groups, but it does happen. Reading that description, you can see how conservative ideologies attract people who think this way and why there would be a much stronger overlap of right wing thinkers with right wing ideology.

I would expect a strong overlap of right wing thinkers with right wing ideology. Just like I would expect a strong overlap of left wing thinkers with left wing ideology. No surprises there.

By "they" do I assume you mean ideologies? If so, sometimes they die, sometimes they don't. Fear and ignorance provide a rich soil for fascist thinking in individuals and therefore support for fascist views and policies. There's tons of research on how brains respond to fear. Fascism thrives on it.

Communism also thrives on fear and ignorance. Fascism is not the only ideology at risk.

Education, challenging our own beliefs (as opposed to automatically justifying them) and standing up to authoritarianism are the antidotes to fascism authoritarianism of all stripes.

FIFY

The left leaning liberal mentality is more open to change. Cultural values play a strong role in fostering or discouraging our responses as well.

I've not noticed in Australia that the left leaning liberal mentality is more open to change. Could you sent some of your water over here?

Challenging our beliefs includes questioning our intrinsic regard for our fellow human beings. Demonization is how fascistauthoritarianism-leaning minds justify their punitive attitudes toward others. Some people are open hearted toward all other humans and not as likely to support punitive or divisive policies toward whole groups of people, and some people don't really have the wherewithal to even consider that all those horrible people on the other side of their pet issues are fully human. It's very easy to whittle away the rights of people you already believe are evil or somehow inferior to your in-group, and when this kind of thinking is encouraged by whoever or whatever you believe to be your authority, you’ll likely go along with all manner of injustice toward others. We humans are capable of a great deal of irrational and inhumane behavior when our in-group encourages it.

FIFY

Looking at history and current events around the world, it seems hit or miss as to whether these antidotes will be effective. Whole nations of people can be caught off guard when war and other violent events happen quickly, or when worn down by stress of continued poverty and hardship. Even those who are fully aware of the danger of fascist leaders and policies and are very conscious of their opposition to it are often helpless to do anything or too afraid of consequences. "Might is right" is the mantra of fascists.

That's quite a large bee in your bonnet about fascism, presumably in the USA. I must play more attention as I have missed the explosive growth of fascism therein.

(Unless of course anyone who disagrees with you is a fascist then your concern becomes understandable.)

 

[Angry Floof]

Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

I could replace right-wing with left-wing above and it would read no differently.

No, you could not. The difference is significant. I'm surprised that you would even try to put forth that response.

For your consideration:

Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. [1][2][3][4] They typically involve concern for those in society whom they perceive as disadvantaged relative to others and a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

Also:

Liberalism, is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The former principle is stressed in classical liberalism while the latter is more evident in social liberalism.[1]

• Classical liberalism, a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
• Conservative liberalism, a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, representing the right-wing of the liberal movement
• Economic liberalism, the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist lines, such that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by private individuals and not by collective institutions.
• Social liberalism, the belief that liberalism should include social justice and that the legitimate role of the state includes addressing issues such as unemployment, health care, education, and the expansion of civil rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal

I'll post the rest of my response separately. The quote tags were getting messy.

 

[Angry Floof]

Even liberal ideological groups contain some fascist thinkers. It's much more rare than it is among conservative groups, but it does happen. Reading that description, you can see how conservative ideologies attract people who think this way and why there would be a much stronger overlap of right wing thinkers with right wing ideology.

I would expect a strong overlap of right wing thinkers with right wing ideology. Just like I would expect a strong overlap of left wing thinkers with left wing ideology. No surprises there.

Thank you. But the point is to illustrate specifically that group ideology begins with individuals. Individuals whose cognitive repertoires lean toward us vs. them, authoritarian, fear-based, conformist, punitive mentality give rise to fascist group ideology. These are also individuals who are perfectly capable of questioning their own thoughts and contributions to the group ideology, but who find that more difficult as their own mentality AND the group ideology itself discourage questioning.

Individuals whose world view is inclusive, open, empathetic, open to change, and respectful of fairness and autonomy tend to form liberal, inclusive group ideologies, and will not likely support any form of fascism.

It seems you agree that fascist group ideology is not optimum for any society of human beings. Am I wrong to assume this? If not, then is it not useful to understand the roots of such ideologies? If my comment was merely stating the obvious, then we agree on the obvious and can we just move on with discussing the mentality that gives rise to fascism?

By "they" do I assume you mean ideologies? If so, sometimes they die, sometimes they don't. Fear and ignorance provide a rich soil for fascist thinking in individuals and therefore support for fascist views and policies. There's tons of research on how brains respond to fear. Fascism thrives on it.

Communism also thrives on fear and ignorance. Fascism is not the only ideology at risk.

You may be right. But I'm not defending communism here or anywhere. Narrowing the goal posts or changing them altogether is not helpful if we are to explore what gives rise to fascist ideologies. Again, that would be individual minds that see the world in us vs. them, authoritarian, fear-based, punitive terms. And again, such a mentality can exist under any ideology, although it is rare among left wing, liberal ideologies.

Education, challenging our own beliefs (as opposed to automatically justifying them) and standing up to authoritarianism are the antidotes to fascism authoritarianism of all stripes.

FIFY

You prefer the word authoritarianism to fascism? I don't see the point, but fine. Makes little difference to me. What does make a difference is understanding the distinction between an individual fascist mentality and inherently fascist group ideologies, and the relationship between them.

It's easy to point out authoritarian ideologies that have made history in the disastrous and tragic results they brought to humankind. Anyone can do that.

It is not so easy or intuitive to acknowledge the source of such ideologies in our own heads, and in not acknowledging the fact that we all share the capacity for such thinking, those who cannot or will not question their own world view inadvertently create an environment in which authoritarian ideologies can arise and thrive (until the more humane minds among them rise up and fight to change the system OR enough people suffer and die that the system breaks and its failure cannot be denied).

The left leaning liberal mentality is more open to change. Cultural values play a strong role in fostering or discouraging our responses as well.

I've not noticed in Australia that the left leaning liberal mentality is more open to change. Could you sent some of your water over here?

:laughing-smiley-014
As you damn well know, Tigers, "Liberal" in Australian politics refers to the party of conservatives. Please. You know that when I say "liberal" I am using the general definition in describing a liberal mentality and world view (see description above), which, in Australia, is prevalent among the Labor party politicians and supporters. The Labor party in Australia is a democratic socialist party. How this semantic switcharoo came about in Australia, I don't know, but I'm not at all confused by it. Are you?

I'd like to add that what I see from liberal minded, left wing Australians is stuff like fighting to free refugees from Nauru, and fighting against the authoritarian policies that allow abuse and the continued inhumanity of their captivity.

Challenging our beliefs includes questioning our intrinsic regard for our fellow human beings. Demonization is how fascistauthoritarianism-leaning minds justify their punitive attitudes toward others. Some people are open hearted toward all other humans and not as likely to support punitive or divisive policies toward whole groups of people, and some people don't really have the wherewithal to even consider that all those horrible people on the other side of their pet issues are fully human. It's very easy to whittle away the rights of people you already believe are evil or somehow inferior to your in-group, and when this kind of thinking is encouraged by whoever or whatever you believe to be your authority, you’ll likely go along with all manner of injustice toward others. We humans are capable of a great deal of irrational and inhumane behavior when our in-group encourages it.

FIFY

Again, an irrelevant semantic peeve on your part, unless you'd like to explain further why you want to distance the definition of "authoritarianism" from "fascism."

Looking at history and current events around the world, it seems hit or miss as to whether these antidotes will be effective. Whole nations of people can be caught off guard when war and other violent events happen quickly, or when worn down by stress of continued poverty and hardship. Even those who are fully aware of the danger of fascist leaders and policies and are very conscious of their opposition to it are often helpless to do anything or too afraid of consequences. "Might is right" is the mantra of fascists.

That's quite a large bee in your bonnet about fascism, presumably in the USA. I must play more attention as I have missed the explosive growth of fascism therein.

(Unless of course anyone who disagrees with you is a fascist then your concern becomes understandable.)

Nice try. I suggest you do pay more attention.

I do, however, freely admit that I am as subject to negativity bias as anyone, and my strong distaste for us vs. them, fear-based, authoritarian, conformist ideology probably does serve to exaggerate the problem in my mind.

When faced with the reality of numerous states going broke due to right wing economic policies, women in red states dying and suffering on par with Afghanistan, El Salvador, and South Sudan, hate for gays written into state legislation, states under Republican policy sinking in terms of education and health, etc., yes, I often need to stop and remind myself that the US also includes a great deal of inclusiveness, openness, disinclination to punishment, capacity for questioning, kindness, intelligence, and curiosity in our population.

 

[Tigers!]

For your consideration:

Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. [1][2][3][4] They typically involve concern for those in society whom they perceive as disadvantaged relative to others and a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

When I read comments like that above, presumably believed sincerely by you I shake my head in wonder. Left-wing politics lead to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Castro etc. None of them were the least interested in social equality and egalitarianism. They were after raw power and used those who believed in social equality and egalitarianism as pawns.
I read of the blood soaked history of left wing achievements and wish it were so different.

Also:

Liberalism, is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The former principle is stressed in classical liberalism while the latter is more evident in social liberalism.[1]

• Classical liberalism, a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
• Conservative liberalism, a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, representing the right-wing of the liberal movement
• Economic liberalism, the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist lines, such that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by private individuals and not by collective institutions.
• Social liberalism, the belief that liberalism should include social justice and that the legitimate role of the state includes addressing issues such as unemployment, health care, education, and the expansion of civil rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal

I'll post the rest of my response separately. The quote tags were getting messy.

By the list you have above I would like to class myself as a Classical liberalist or a Burkean conservative. Remembering that conservatism is not an endpoint rather a modus operandi.

I keep editing out fascism and putting in authoritarianism as I deplore and dislike such behaivour and attitudes regardless of which direction of the spectrum it may come from.

 

[Tigers!]

I would expect a strong overlap of right wing thinkers with right wing ideology. Just like I would expect a strong overlap of left wing thinkers with left wing ideology. No surprises there.

Thank you. But the point is to illustrate specifically that group ideology begins with individuals. Individuals whose cognitive repertoires lean toward us vs. them, authoritarian, fear-based, conformist, punitive mentality give rise to fascist group ideology. These are also individuals who are perfectly capable of questioning their own thoughts and contributions to the group ideology, but who find that more difficult as their own mentality AND the group ideology itself discourage questioning.

Individuals whose world view is inclusive, open, empathetic, open to change, and respectful of fairness and autonomy tend to form liberal, inclusive group ideologies, and will not likely support any form of fascism.

It seems you agree that fascist group ideology is not optimum for any society of human beings. Am I wrong to assume this? If not, then is it not useful to understand the roots of such ideologies? If my comment was merely stating the obvious, then we agree on the obvious and can we just move on with discussing the mentality that gives rise to fascism?

I agree that fascist group ideology is not optimum for any society of human beings. I also state that communistic group ideology is not optimum for any society of human beings. I am opposed to any authoritarianism regardless of what direction viz. left or right from which it comes.

The left leaning liberal mentality is more open to change. Cultural values play a strong role in fostering or discouraging our responses as well.

I've not noticed in Australia that the left leaning liberal mentality is more open to change. Could you sent some of your water over here?

:laughing-smiley-014
As you damn well know, Tigers, "Liberal" in Australian politics refers to the party of conservatives. Please. You know that when I say "liberal" I am using the general definition in describing a liberal mentality and world view (see description above), which, in Australia, is prevalent among the Labor party politicians and supporters. The Labor party in Australia is a democratic socialist party. How this semantic switcharoo came about in Australia, I don't know, but I'm not at all confused by it. Are you? ]/quote]

No I am confused. In Australia most of us can distinguish before the Liberal party and the liberal mindset, despite the similarities. The Labour party in Australia is not very democratic nor socialist (thank goodness. Sometimes I could almost vote for them).

I'd like to add that what I see from liberal minded, left wing Australians is stuff like fighting to free refugees from Nauru, and fighting against the authoritarian policies that allow abuse and the continued inhumanity of their captivity.

Which were (unfortunately) introduced by and supported by the 'democratic socialist' Labour Party.
I wish there were a better and quicker way to process those claiming refugee status.

I do, however, freely admit that I am as subject to negativity bias as anyone, and my strong distaste for us vs. them, fear-based, authoritarian, conformist ideology probably does serve to exaggerate the problem in my mind.

Good to admit that. Occasionally my dislike of communism has caused me to exaggerate the problem too.

 

[Angry Floof]

I don't think you've read anything I've posted.

Fascism, or authoritarianism as you prefer, comes from our human heads. We all have the capacity for the cognitive shortcomings that give rise to fascism. We all also have the capacity to recognize this and strive to be grownups in forming our own world views.

If your own personal view of your fellow human beings is inhumane, your ideology will be inhumane and you will contribute to inhumane group ideologies and you will go along with all manner of inhumane treatment of people you consider to be your out-groups.

It is not at all controversial or new information to point out that human beings not given to self reflection or questioning serve as petri dishes for fascist cultures and all kinds of abuses.

It is not controversial or new information to point out that people who have the inclination or conditioning for questioning authority and their own preconceived beliefs are not bloody likely to go along with authoritarian ideologies or abusive policies. They are bloody likely to challenge and even risk their lives to fight fascist regimes.

It is not controversial or new information to point out that right wing, conservative, Republican (in the US, or Liberal in Australia) ideologies foster authoritarian, us vs. them thinking, and that individuals given to authoritarian, us vs. them thinking strongly tend to adopt and follow right wing, conservative ideologies.

It is not controversial or new information to point out that fear and fear mongering contribute to authoritarian ideologies. It is also not controversial or new information to point out the effects of fear and anxiety on human brains - that is, it diminishes problem solving ability, reduces empathy for other humans outside of the in-group, and fosters aggression and violence.

It is not controversial or new information to point out the difference between a mind that values human beings over ideology and one that values following rules over human life.

You can point to any ideology or historical event you like and find many fearful, intellectually diminished humans perpetuating fascist policies, some of them also fat and smug on the rewards for the few that often come with such regimes, while the rest suffer for their conformity.

You can also find groups and individuals within those larger groups who refuse to hate their fellow human beings and who will fight and challenge not only the regime but individuals like you who don't seem to have the wherewithal to recognize their own contribution to fascism, whatever ideological form it takes.

There's about seven billion of us now, each and every one of us with the capacity to suffer. There is no such thing as a perfect ideology, but there damn well is such a thing as an individual with the wherewithal to start from empathy, willingness to change your mind, not allowing fear to run you, and fearlessness in questioning oneself and others.

 

[Angry Floof]

The traits of right wing authoritarian followers have served as effective survival mechanisms in the past, but they do not work well in global numbers in a world of many cultures. Those with an unwillingness or inability to overcome fear of change and to adapt to a world of billions only perpetuate suffering on this inevitable path.

 

[bigfield]

Which were (unfortunately) introduced by and supported by the 'democratic socialist' Labour Party.
I wish there were a better and quicker way to process those claiming refugee status.

There is: process them onshore.

Doing so would provide significant economic benefits to Australia by decreasing the cost of processing asylum seekers and would expedite the process of settling refugee once their claims are verified, meaning that they can start contributing to the economy sooner than they otherwise could.

And instead of committing human rights abuses, we can 'stop the deaths at sea' by posting patrols near Indonesian waters and picking up boats before as they leave Indonesian waters. This would also protect our sovereignity (which is important to the LNP for some reason).

We could also set up asylum-seeker processing centres in Indonesia where asylum seekers can apply to travel to Australia on a temporary visa and stay in Australia until their claim is processed. In practice this is the same as people who fly into Australia on a tourist visa and request asylum. This would also 'stop the deaths at sea' by providing a cheaper, safer route for asylum seekers seeking to move from Indonesia to Australia.

It doesn't help that the right wing media and politicians insist on telling lies, such as claiming that the asylum seekers are mostly non-refugees seeking to migrate here for purely economic reasons, and stirring up irrational fear of Middle-Eastern Muslims.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This is all interesting, but how the hell can Australian gun laws get any tighter?

 

[bilby]

This is all interesting, but how the hell can Australian gun laws get any tighter?

What an odd question; Absent an outright ban on all guns of any kind in any circumstances, gun laws can (obviously) always be tightened, by further restricting who can have what guns under what circumstances and with what requirements.

Although it may not seem that way from an American perspective, legitimate gun ownership in Australia is quite widespread; lots of people here have guns for hunting, for target shooting, and for the culling of pests.

 

[Angry Floof]

This is all interesting, but how the hell can Australian gun laws get any tighter?

What an odd question; Absent an outright ban on all guns of any kind in any circumstances, gun laws can (obviously) always be tightened, by further restricting who can have what guns under what circumstances and with what requirements.

Although it may not seem that way from an American perspective, legitimate gun ownership in Australia is quite widespread; lots of people here have guns for hunting, for target shooting, and for the culling of pests.

Looks just fine from this American's perspective.