Australia’s gun laws, reconsidered
By: William Thorpe
Tags: Gun Violence, Australian Politics, Gun Control, Firearms, Guns

St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office on Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Australia’s tight restrictions on civilian ownership and usage of firearms is often noted, generally in favourable terms, for its efficacy in reducing violent crime. This presumption is certainly a common one – Australia’s homicide rate is lower than America’s, so the reforms of the 90s surely must have succeeded in making people safer.

This narrative doesn’t take into account several factors at play. It’s worth considering that Australia’s homicide rate was lower than that of the United States before the 1996 buyback & reforms that followed the infamous Port Arthur Massacre. Furthermore, the decline in the homicide rate began prior to 1996 as well and is a trend that was seen elsewhere in the Western world, including in the United States. This article from the Foundation for Economic Education, an American libertarian think tank, correctly points out that:

“…homicide rates have been in decline throughout western Europe, Canada, and the United States since the early 1990s. The fact that the same trend was followed in Australia is hardly evidence of a revolutionary achievement. Second, homicides were already so unusual in Australia, even before the 1996 legislation, that few lessons can be learned from slight movements either up or down in homicide rates.”

Also worth considering is that the relationship between US states with the highest rates of gun ownership and states with the highest levels of violent crime is questionable at best. Idaho, which has one of the highest rates of gun ownership, had the 9th lowest number of total murders of any state in 2019 and a homicide rate of 2.3 per 100,000. North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming all have homicide rates below the national rate despite ranking highly for gun ownership. This goes to show that the causes of violent crime are complex, and that widespread civilian ownership of firearms doesn’t necessarily produce a more violent society. Tragically, in Australia, massacres have continued to occur at an identical frequency to before the 1996 reforms.

Nor is America the only model of a nation with comparatively lax gun laws. Switzerland has conscription for male citizens, which entails them being distributed firearms and trained in their proper usage. While considerable restrictions do exist concerning the acquisition of firearms and concealed-carry permits are difficult to acquire, there are still 2 million privately-owned guns in the country.

Australian policy toward self-defence is needlessly restrictive. Though there is a right to exercise it, the means by which one can do so are limited. Not merely are guns illegal, but in every state except Western Australia, so is pepper spray, a non-lethal method of defence. Individuals ought to have viable means by which they can exercise their right to defend themselves and others around them.

Former Liberal Democratic Senator David Leonhjelm addressed the consequences (or lack thereof) that followed from the 1996 reforms:

Ultimately, firearm laws remain a minor issue in the Australian political landscape. Australians are, understandably, thankful for their safety and wish not to see any legislative change which may lead to more violence. We have certainly gotten most aspects of public safety right, as few nations are as peaceful as our own. Regardless, it is worth pondering if we went slightly too far, and whether or not the reforms of the 90s have had the desired effect. Irrespective of what conclusion one comes to, it is worth investigating this issue for oneself.