The concept of placing limitations on the availability of guns versus the civil right to bear arms is one of the most intensely debated topics in the modern world. Everyday citizens and lawmakers alike constantly point fingers at countries other than their own, citing examples of gun laws in these places in order to make a case for their own. Australia is a nation frequently discussed, and one of the most prominent arguments revolves around its infamous “gun buyback.” The facts of this event are often muddled with false claims, emotional responses, and deceitful statistics, however; the true effects of Australia’s gun control laws appear positive on the surface but have actually created issues surpassing the ones that incited their institution.
After a mass shooting in 1996, the Australian government “banned and confiscated guns” (Bader). The program, which is often called a “buyback,” was not voluntary but rather a “mandatory confiscation of firearms, for which citizens were given compensation by the government” (Bader). In other words, gun-owning citizens had no legal choice but to turn over their property, though they did receive monetary recompense. This was finished by 1998, at which time approximately 700,000 weapons had been surrendered (Sarre 4). Accompanying this buyback were new laws regarding gun licensing, registration, storage, and training (Sarre 4). Following the end of the confiscation period, however, over one million new firearms were legally imported (Vendelago et al.).
The 1996 laws were not the last. In November of 2002, the National Handgun Control Agreement was passed, which “limit[ed] the classes of handguns that [could] be imported or possessed for sporting purposes, chang[ed] licensing requirements, and explor[ed] options for a buyback program for those guns now deemed illegal” (Sarre 4). Only months later, the National Handgun Buyback Act of 2003 was ratified by Australia’s federal Parliament (Sarre 4). This law was similar to the 1996 buyback in that it provided financial benefit to those who turned in handguns that had recently become illegal under the Control Agreement (Sarre 4). Approximately 70,000 handguns along with nearly 300,000 parts and accessories were surrendered as a result (Sarre 4).
Eleven years later, a 2014 terrorist attack in Sydney, during which the terrorist “used an illegally held shotgun,” prompted a “gun amnesty” that caused “normal penalties for holding an unlicensed weapon…[to be] waived, as part of an effort to reduce the pool of weapons available to criminals” (“Why Australians”). This program was not a buyback as it did not provide compensation, but it allowed Australian citizens in possession of unregistered, illegal guns to surrender them without criminal punishment. It resulted in Australians “hand[ing] over more than 26,000 illegally held firearms to police” (“Why Australians”). Today, Australian citizens are allowed certain weapons, but the carriers must be licensed, the guns must be registered, and the storage must be approved by the police.
The Prime Minister at the time of the 2003 buyback, John Howard, made choices based on the idea that he could “send a decisive message about the place of guns in a modern civilized society” (Sarre 4). Australians as a whole were mostly supportive of the 2002 and 2003 laws; the main exceptions were a few protesting sport shooters (Sarre 4). In modern Australia, citizens are overwhelmingly in favor of strong gun control, and the majority of politicians have achieved “bipartisan…consensus” (Sarre 4). Most Australians believe that these laws are of the utmost benefit to their country—and with good reason. Researchers have found “reductions in both gun homicide and gun suicide rates that are statistically significant” in correlation with the most recent buyback (Neill and Leigh). Some estimate that the buyback “has saved between 128 and 282 lives per year” (Neill and Leigh). Gun death rates have been falling regularly in Australia for about twenty years; this matches the timeline that began with the initial buyback (Sarre 5). Though the consistent annual decline in total homicide rates, which began before this legislation, has appeared seemingly unaffected by gun control laws, “the share of murders committed with firearms has dropped sharply” (Sarre 5). Australia claims that, unlike other nations, it is “fortunate that the numbers of legal guns in the community [are] manageable, and that authorities have implemented many policies that guard against the risk posed by illegal guns” (Sarre 10). What, then, is the issue?
The statistics not shown by most mainstream media are the numbers that clearly demonstrate that while gun-specific violence has decreased, violence “of every other variety” has escalated (Kirchoff). Critics of Australia’s gun laws believe that this is because “tak[ing] away people’s means of self-defense” means “they can’t defend themselves” (Kirchoff). Reporters, again, state that gun homicide rates have decreased sharply since the changes. However, total homicide rates have declined slowly in the same way they have been for decades (Sarre 5). With basic logic, it is not hard to conclude that because there has been no statistically significant decrease in total homicide rates, some other forms of homicide must be replacing what gun homicides have been lost. As one percentage drops, another percentage grows to fill the gap.
While it is difficult to find precise data to substantiate what these other causes of homicide might be, it can be assumed that they are occurring because former gun owners now have little to no means of self-protection while criminals still find other ways to attack. Also, “despite Australia’s strict gun control regime, criminals are now better armed than at any time since…[the] buyback scheme” of 1996—many of them with guns, because they, oppositions argue, “have always been available to criminals determined to get them” (Vedelago et al.). This is why Australia has made a grave mistake in disarming its law-abiding citizens.
While homicide has continued to decline normally despite these gun control policies, violent crime has been on the rise. According to data published in 2001 by the Dutch Ministry of Justice, Australia’s contact crime victimization rate in 1999 was 4.1%; this number is higher than the sixteen other “industrialized” countries included in the data, including England, Canada, France, the U.S., and others (Kirchoff). The U.S. sat at only 1.9%—the fourth-lowest on the list, despite the claims of many that it ranks much higher (Kirchoff). Robbery rates in particular spiked after both the 1996 and 2003 buybacks, and interestingly, sexual assault rates also saw a sharp increase after 1996 (Kirchoff). Both numbers have steadily declined since the slow reintroduction of legal firearms into the country (Kirchoff). The rates still remain higher than they should be, however, and this could be due in part to the fact that most types of guns are still illegal. Women in particular might find self-defense in cases of sexual assault much easier if they were simply allowed to carry a handgun in public. Non-fatal shootings, despite the guns’ illegality, “have become almost a weekly occurrence,” and “more than 125 people, mostly young men” were wounded by gunshot during a span of just five years (Vedelago et al.). Violent crime “associated with firearm possession” has increased to more than double its previous rates and has been “driven by the easy availability of [guns] that are smuggled into the country or stolen” (Vedelago et al.). These guns “have been used in dozens of…drive-by shootings of homes and businesses, as well as targeted and random attacks in parks, shopping cent[er]s, and roads” (Vedelago et al.). From January 2015 to August 2016, there were ninety-nine shootings, and most of the weapons used in these crimes were “illicit guns that were not turned over during the 1996 gun buyback—a source known as the ‘gray market’” (Vedelago et al.). As of 2017, “police believe there may be as many as 260,000 more unregistered weapons still at large in the country,” despite the efforts by lawmakers to control them (“Why Australians”). These illicit guns are “fueling a wave of violent crime” particularly in the city of Melbourne, which has seen an influx of robberies and drive-by shootings (Vedelago et al.). In the state of New South Wales, on the other hand, legal gun ownership, which requires license and a tedious registry process, has recently increased by 10%, and this has not resulted in any increase in gun-related crime in the region (Kirchoff). All of these statistics stand to prove the argument that the 1996, 2002, 2003, and 2014 gun control laws have done little but harm to Australia.
Former U.S. President Barack Obama and many other American politicians have recently used Australia’s “buyback”—in reality, confiscation—programs as an example for legislation they could implement in their own country (Bader). However, these men and women “almost never mention that the program was compulsory,” which is one of the main reasons that this would not work in a country that honors its citizens’ constitutional right to bear arms (Bader). Today, there is still an enormous amount of firearms in the hands of criminals, but there are also more legally-owned guns in Australia than there were before the 1996 shooting that catalyzed the first buyback—and homicide rates are still on a steady decline (Vedelago et al.; Kirchoff). Australian citizens and lawmakers alike “tout gun control as an achievement,” but the statistics prove otherwise (“New Report”). Strict gun control, these numbers expose, does not “make people safer” but instead, “in most instances…makes people less safe” (“New Report”). Without a doubt, any amount of gun violence, no matter how large or small the number, is a serious issue anywhere. It is clear, however, that the potential “solution” most frequently campaigned by Australians, Americans, and others alike do not and will not create positive change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
Bader, Jerry. "Debunking the Australia Gun 'Buyback' Narrative, Again." MediaTrackers, Media Trackers, 5 Oct. 2017.
Kirchoff, Courtney. "Australia's Gun Ban Results in More Guns Than Ever...New Findings." Louder With Crowder, Louder With Crowder, 9 Sept. 2015.
Neill, Christine and Andrew Leigh. "Weak Tests and Strong Conclusions: A Re-Analysis of Gun Deaths and the Australian Firearms Buyback." Australian National University Open Research Library, Australian National University, 2007.
"New Report Reveals Just How Badly Australia's Gun Ban Failed." Louder With Crowder, Louder With Crowder, 16 Sept. 2016.
Sarre, Rick. "Gun Control in Australia: A Criminological Perspective." Sales Journal, vol. 3, no. 3, 2015.
Vedelago, Chris, et al. "Gun City: Young, Dumb and Armed." Edited by Patrick O'Neil and Mex Cooper, The Age, Fairfax Media, 2016.
"Why Australians Handed in 26,000 Guns to the Government." PRI's The World, 12 Sept. 2017.
No comments:
Post a Comment