“We have an opportunity in this country not to go down the American path.”
Those were the words of former Australian Prime Minister John Howard before he radically changed Australia’s gun laws and – many believe – rid the country of gun violence on a large scale.
After another mass shooting in the US – the recent one in San Bernardino killed 14 and brought the number of mass shootings in that country to over 350 this year alone – America finds itself very far down that violent path.
But could it change course the way Australia did?
In April 1996, 35 people were killed by a gunman, Martin Bryant, wielding semi-automatic weapons at a former prison colony and tourist attraction in Tasmania.
This became known as the Port Arthur massacre, and it was a turning point for Australia.
Image copyrightAFP/Getty ImagesThe event appalled and galvanised the nation, helping to push Australia to enact some of the most comprehensive firearm laws in the world.
President Barack Obama has often pointed to Australia as an example for the US to follow.
“Couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said: ‘Well, that’s it, we’re not seeing that again,’ and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since,” he said last year.
So what exactly did Australia do, how did it work, and could it work in the US?
Drop in shootings
Less than two weeks after the Port Arthur massacre, all six Australian states agreed to enact the same sweeping gun laws banning semi-automatic rifles and shotguns – weapons that can kill many people quickly.
They also put more hurdles between prospective gun owners and their weapons.
Australia has 28-day waiting periods, thorough background checks, and a requirement to present a “justifiable reason” to own a gun.
Unlike in the US, self-protection is not accepted as a justifiable reason to own a gun.
In the 19 years since the laws were passed, about one million semi-automatic weapons – roughly one third of the country’s firearms – were sold back to the government and destroyed, nearly halving the number of gun-owning households in Australia.
Image copyrightAFP/Getty ImagesThe number of Australia’s mass shootings dropped from 11 in the decade before 1996, to zero in the years since.
And although the laws were designed specifically to reduce mass shootings, the rates of homicide and suicide have also come down since 1996.
Philip Alpers, a professor at Sydney School of Public Health, has done studies showing that aside from the victims of the Port Arthur shooting, 69 gun homicides were recorded in 1996 compared with 30 in 2012.
Despite the reduction in incidence though, gun violence has not disappeared in Australia. And gun ownership is actually on the rise.
Since 1996, Australians have been steadily replacing the outlawed firearms they sold back with legal ones, and gun ownership here has now risen back to pre-1996 levels.
Guns per capita in Australia and US: 1996 vs now
Australia
- 1996: About 17.3 guns per 100 people
- 2007 (most recent numbers available): Approximately 15 guns per 100 people
United States
- 1996: Approximately 91 guns per 100 people
- 2009 (most recent numbers available): Approximately 101 guns per 100 people
Sources: AIC Australian institute of Criminology, Small Arms Survey, and US Dept of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Australian firearms rights groups say that the laws go too far and restrict personal freedom.
They argue that gun violence was on a downward trajectory before the 1996 laws were passed, and reject any link between lower incidence of gun deaths and the tighter legislation.
Diana Melham, executive director of the Sporting Shooters Australia Association in New South Wales, argues the 1996 laws fuelled a sense of alienation among gun owners, which, she says “rallied the shooters”.
The organisation, which is the country’s largest gun lobby group, has grown rapidly since 1996 and its numbers are still on the rise.
But Tim Fischer, who was Prime Minister Howard’s deputy in 1996 and instrumental in getting the National Firearms Agreement passed, argues the US should follow Australia’s lead.
“Plain and simple, what we’ve done works,” he told the BBC.
The big question
So could it work in the US?
The simple answer is – probably not.
Although Australia does have a long history of hunting and sport, there is no equivalent to America’s Second Amendment right to bear arms here.
Another significant difference is the speed of government action. In 1996 John Howard managed to get all six Australian states to agree to and pass uniform sweeping gun control legislation in just 12 days.
It is hard to fathom the US government ever being able to get all 50 states to agree to something, let alone act that quickly.
Image copyrightGetty ImagesBut according to Prof Alpers, the bigger difference is the cultural mindset.
“I don’t for a moment think it would happen in the US,” he says. “Australia already had a pre-disposition to doing something about it.”
He explains that although by far the deadliest, the Port Arthur shooting was not the first Australia had experienced.
He says the country had lost nearly 150 people in the years running up to 1996 in mass shootings, and the national mood was changing.
“Port Arthur was the straw that broke the camel’s back. You have to go back to those years to remember how visceral that backlash was.”
Mr Fischer is more optimistic. He believes meaningful change could come to the US, but only when a “silent majority” are “sprung into action”.
“Of course all mass shootings are a bridge too far,” he says. “But there is going to be one that really tips the balance. Watch this space.”
“Are Australia’s gun laws the solution for the US?”
Grade AAA BULLSHIT… 😡
Just the fact that all these recent incidents were orchestrated discredits this line of thinking Prof Alpers. Get your head out of yer a$$….
Anyone who admires and yearns for the Australian gun banning way of life is more than welcome to move to Australia. Please take Obama, Pelosi, Boxer, Schumer, and the rest of the “We should be a nation without guns” traitors with them. If you don’t like the American way of life, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, go live somewhere else. We sure as Hell don’t need or want you here! You egg suckers can get to Hell out!
There will be hardly any mass shootings when we arrest and hang the real perps.
Someday they might pass Australian-style gun laws in the US. What they won’t do is successfully enforce them — at least not without a bloody fight.
Somebody better tell Katie Beck that in THIS country those scum bags in DC get to pretend that they are in control only until our patience runs out. We are not serfs and “laws” don’t dictate what we allow.
The gunman rose from his chair at one of the tables in the Broad Arrow Cafe, removed the AR15 and spare magazine from a sports bag, immediately killing Mr. Yee Ng with a shot to the upper neck, and Miss Chung with a shot to the head.
Swiveling on the spot and firing from the right hip, the gunman fired at Mr. Sargent who was wounded in the head, then killed Miss Scott with a shot to the head. The gunman continued through the Broad Arrow, next killing Mr. Nightingale with a shot to the upper neck and Mr. Bennet with a shot to the upper neck, with the latter bullet passing straight through and hitting Mr. Ray Sharpe in the head with fatal results. Next Mr. Kevin Sharpe was killed by a shot to the head and was also hit in the arm, with shrapnel and bone fragments from the second intermediate strike on Mr. Kevin Sharpe then apparently wounding Mr. Broome, and possibly Mr. and Mrs. Fidler.
Still firing from the hip the gunman swiveled and killed Mr. Mills and Mr. Kistan with single shots to the head, with shrapnel and skull fragments from those shots apparently wounding Mrs. Walker, Mrs. Law, and Mrs. Barker. Again the gunman turned, shooting and wounding Mr. Colyer in the neck, before swiveling and killing Mr. Howard with a shot to the head. Next he shot Mrs. Howard in the neck and head with fatal effect. The gunman turned back, killing Miss Houghton with a shot to the head, and wounding Mrs. Loughton in the back. Moving towards the rear of the building the gunman shot Mr. Elliot in the head, causing serious injuries.
The above sequence is the best the forensic scientists could deduce from the crime scene and there may be small variations, but in the final analysis they matter little. What does matter is that at this precise juncture the gunman had killed twelve victims and wounded a further ten in 15 seconds flat, using only 17 rounds fired from the right hip. Such a staggering performance is on a par with the best combat shooters in the world, and two retired counter-terrorist marksmen ruefully admitted they would be hard pressed to equal such awesome speed and accuracy. Both agreed that attributing such a performance to an intellectually-impaired invalid with an IQ of 66 and severely limited cognitive functions, amounts to nothing less than certifiable insanity on the part of Bryant’s accusers. In military terms a fatal shot to the upper neck counts as a head shot, so for all practical purposes those who died during the first 15 seconds were killed by head shots fired with lethal accuracy from the gunman’s hip.
The populace gets excited when 4 or more are killed in a one case shooting in what is typically a “gun free’ environment.
NONSTOP shootings nation wide are of little or no concern. Of no interest are the ones that occur in the cities and areas with the strictest gun laws.
Only when these “mass shootings” happen (usually in [already] “safe zones”) does the murmuring of more gun laws and bans rise up once again.
Common sense, laughable, I know, mandates enforcement of existing laws are required prior to rushing in new laws is the true solution.
We know the gun push is a tool used by the tyrants to remove the defense’s of citizenry. The progressives (aka useful idiots) follow their leader in blind support to their eventual as well as assured demise.
History is very clear about tyranny & tyranny.
“The number of Australia’s mass shootings dropped from 11 in the decade before 1996, to zero in the years since.”
Of course. Once they passed the gun ban, there was no need for anymore government-staged mass shootings. This confirms what I’ve been saying….”people just don’t do this kind of stuff”. There are still plenty of guns in Australia.
Don’t just count the shootings, Aussie. Stop drinking lousy beer long enough to figure out who was behind them.
The main reason it wouldn’t work here is because Americans have figured out the scam rather than being fooled by it.
“Are Australia’s gun laws the solution for the US?”
The jews’ solution.
Unlike Australia, however, nobody is giving up their guns, so it’s a moot point, imo.
Exactly,
They can pass whatever crap legislation they want, good luck enforcing it…..
Yup.
Words on paper never killed anyone.
“Unlike in the US, self-protection is not accepted as a justifiable reason to own a gun.”= COMPLETELY MORONIC STATEMENT, said by an obvious brain dead zombie.
“Mr Fischer is more optimistic. He believes meaningful change could come to the US, but only when a “silent majority” are “sprung into action”.
“Of course all mass shootings are a bridge too far,” he says. “But there is going to be one that really tips the balance. Watch this space.”= WATCH THE USA CRIMINAL CABAL PULL A REAL DOOZY OF A FALSE FLAG TO GET THAT SILENT MAJORITY SPRINGING INTO ACTION.
Aussies, stay down under with your retarded advice, we don’t want it
From my cold dead hands