Headlines

John Howard

Australia banned assault weapons. America can, too.

Because Australia is a federation of states, the national government has no control over gun ownership, sale or use, beyond controlling imports. Given our decentralized system of government, I could reduce the number of dangerous firearms only by persuading the states to enact uniform laws totally prohibiting the ownership, possession and sale of all automatic and semiautomatic weapons while the national government banned the importation of such weapons.

To make this plan work, there had to be a federally financed gun buyback scheme. Ultimately, the cost of the buyback was met by a special one-off tax imposed on all Australians. This required new legislation and was widely accepted across the political spectrum. Almost 700,000 guns were bought back and destroyed — the equivalent of 40 million guns in the United States. …

In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Journal of Law and Economics found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

Read the Article

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « Previous 1 2

gryphon202 on January 17, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Nono, it was a relevant point, and a good thing to think about.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Gun banning leads down the road to a global aristocracy.

The rich and politicians will have the power, the wealth … and the guns. We won’t.

That’s what banning guns is all about. They want to ban guns to protect themselves.

darwin on January 17, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Didn’t you get the memo, Dar? Obama’s important. He needs armed guards. And the aristocrats out in Hollywood can afford professional protection. We’re not that important, or likely to get attacked or something./

gryphon202 on January 17, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Which is why I don’t understand why the extreme leftists here don’t just move someplace that is already set up the way they want to live. I can’t believe they have the gumption to do what they are going to have to do to make this country a socialist utopia.

Night Owl on January 17, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Well it is kind of their home too. They just want to make it the way they would like it. I see nothing wrong with that as long as they do it properly according to the Constitution but, their way just doesn’t fly so they use the courts and every other method they can to bypass the Constitution. I for one do not like that approach.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 17, 2013 at 10:01 AM

I love the Aussies, I really do. But some of them, like some Americans, are simply not too bright except when it comes to playing games with words. As Mark Twain famously observed “There are lies, damned lies and statistics.” And then there are liberals.

clippermiami on January 17, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Ignoring for the moment the constitutional issues, the reason this could never work in America is that we are not an island nation that is far away from other nations. It is much easier to control what comes into Australia, by an enormous magnitude, than it is in the U.S.

So, assuming we adopted this policy but kept the liberals favorite policy of not policing the borders, what would the policy accomplish. It would reduce the number of guns criminals have to the same extent that the war on drugs as reduced the amount of drugs pouring into the U.S.

Which leaves me with a question – why are people such idiots?

Try to use common sense every once in awhile. At least think things through before spouting off.

Monkeytoe on January 17, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Well it is kind of their home too. They just want to make it the way they would like it. I see nothing wrong with that as long as they do it properly according to the Constitution but, their way just doesn’t fly so they use the courts and every other method they can to bypass the Constitution. I for one do not like that approach.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 17, 2013 at 10:01 AM

I raised Sequi’s dander quite a bit yesterday by suggesting that the 2nd amendment’s protection of my right to keep and bear arms is not open to debate or interpretation. It’s not. But if libs would like to tack an amendment on to the constitution to repeal the 2nd, they’re welcome to try.

gryphon202 on January 17, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Always liked Howard, but here he sounds like a nitwit Statist. Suicide?! I have never heard a single story about a suicide-by-assault rifle. Ever.

Jaibones on January 17, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Always liked Howard, but here he sounds like a nitwit Statist. Suicide?! I have never heard a single story about a suicide-by-assault rifle. Ever.

Jaibones on January 17, 2013 at 10:14 AM

He is a nitwit statist. The admiration many in the United States have for him is the same kind of admiration we also have for our own politicans in the Republican Party who don’t deserve it, either.

If it quacks like a duck…

gryphon202 on January 17, 2013 at 10:19 AM

LOL. This same sort of government buy-back program would net about 7 broken weapons in the U.S. – it is not going to happen.

Pork-Chop on January 17, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Australia doesn’t have issues with the following:

- early release of violent prisoners
- a culture of welfare-dependent druggies who willingly kill to get money for their next crack fix
- a hip-hop culture that promotes violence against law-abiding citizens, positive contributors to society, and the successful
- an elected official who wants to become dictator

jediwebdude on January 17, 2013 at 10:25 AM

One thing these progressive ninnies don’t like to talk about is that firearms are the great equializer for women in defending themsevles.

War on women indeed.

gwelf on January 17, 2013 at 9:39 AM

This.

In my mind it’s similar to Obama using children as props, saying he cares, while voting against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

visions on January 17, 2013 at 10:30 AM

As an Aussie righty here, I’d like to point out to y’all that Australia’s gun murder rates were falling throughout the decades including during the time of the infamous Port Arthur Massacre, which prompted Howard to enact the laws. Australia also happens to be a country with far less violent crime anyway.

And anybody who tries to tell you that Australia is a goodexample of gun control should visit our brothers across the Tasman, the country of New Zealand. It has some of the highest gun ownership per capita and has very soft gun laws, somewhat akin to what you have in the states (not a lot of people know this, particularly a lot of Aussies who scoff at you guys for having so many guns). What the Kiwis did was instead of banning guns outright like us Aussies, they restricted gun ownership to people who didn’t have bad criminal records or poor mental health. Instead of gun control, it was people control.

Now, I know a lot of you are wary of regulations in such matters, but it’s either the draconian banning of guns like in Australia, or the common sense regulation of them in New Zealand. Me, I prefer the latter.

Omega_Rage on January 17, 2013 at 10:34 AM

For the record, I think Howard was our best Prime Minister for the last half-century, but on this, he was dead wrong.

Omega_Rage on January 17, 2013 at 10:37 AM

What the Kiwis did was instead of banning guns outright like us Aussies, they restricted gun ownership to people who didn’t have bad criminal records or poor mental health. Instead of gun control, it was people control.

Now, I know a lot of you are wary of regulations in such matters, but it’s either the draconian banning of guns like in Australia, or the common sense regulation of them in New Zealand. Me, I prefer the latter.

Omega_Rage on January 17, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Appreciate your post.

I would point out that we already do have lots of gun control laws including those that do prevent criminals from getting weapons – every gun dealer must perform a background check.

gwelf on January 17, 2013 at 10:39 AM

The successful case in Australia is reality which has a liberal bias and is therefore communist and will bring 10 million years of darkness.

/ Conservative word salad

lester on January 17, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Not only did the Aussies have to bend over, they had to pay for the pleasure.

TexAz on January 17, 2013 at 10:44 AM

The successful case in chicago is reality has a liberal bias and is therefore a utopia in which gun crimes will never happen for the next 100 years, praise Obama’s holy name.

lester on January 17, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Liberal logic.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

•In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

•Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.

•Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

•Between 1995 and 2007,without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.

•During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

•Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.

•Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

•At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.

•Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

Exactly what happened in the UK, which now has a higher violent crime rate than even South Africa and where the reported rape rate per 100,000 residents is now 140.71 compared to 30.88 in the US.

Proggies to women: “Just lay back and enjoy it. Whatever you do, DON’T SHOOT THE POOR RAPIST!!!”

War on women…indeed.

Resist We Much on January 17, 2013 at 10:51 AM

The successful case in chicago is reality has a liberal bias and is therefore a utopia in which gun crimes will never happen for the next 100 years, praise Obama’s holy name.

lester on January 17, 2013 at 10:42 AM

I’ll take Otis McDonald’s logic over your pukings anyday…

“Like the millions of law abiding gun owners in America, I am a peace loving person. I own firearms so that I can defend myself and my family, should that need arise. While I sincerely hope that I am never in the position of having to fire a gun in self defense, I rest easier at night knowing that I could stop an armed robber, racist attacker, terrorist, or home invader if the need arose. I also rest easier knowing that my wife could stop a rapist or murderer, rather than becoming a victim. The simple fact is that gun control laws don’t stop criminals from getting guns, and instead only disarm the law abiding citizens, making them easier targets for the criminals. Nor is it justifiable to deprive law abiding citizens of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self defense, just because criminals misuse guns, just as criminals misuse other tools…Given those facts, I would encourage my fellow law abiding citizens who do not yet own a gun to do the following: go shooting for the first time, choose the proper gun for self defense, purchase that gun, store the gun in a responsible manner, and become proficient at safely using that gun. Next, join the NRA to protect your right to have a gun for self defense. Doing so may save your life one day, and can also benefit society as a whole.”

– Otis McDonald, former sharecropper, veteran, retired maintenance engineer, American Patriot, TRAILBLAZER…and, by the way, African-American (not that it matters, but it does blow away the racist argument)

Resist We Much on January 17, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Resist We Much on January 17, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Should have read:

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime and certainly did not lead to less crime:

Resist We Much on January 17, 2013 at 10:56 AM

In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.
Semantics games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

Two were shot do death and 5 injured.

gwelf on January 17, 2013 at 9:26 AM

From the wiki link….

Gordon-Brown and Boast were assisted by a passing lecturer from a nearby room, Brett Inder, to restrain Xiang for thirty minutes until police arrived,

WTF MATE!!?

StompUDead on January 17, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Which of these two is different? America, Australia.

Bmore on January 17, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Which of these two is the same? America, Australia.

Bmore on January 17, 2013 at 11:11 AM

You know what really struck me about this article, and it had nothing to do with gun laws?

It is the fact that the leader of Australia actually recognized the limits of his power and what he could and could not legally do at the national level, and realized that if he wanted to accomplish his goal, he would have to convince the individual states to go along. Rather than overstep his authority and attempt to impose a gun ban by national fiat, he instead worked to do it the way Australia’s governmental structure provides for.

If there is any example the President of the United States can take from Mr. Brown’s example, it’s that.

Shump on January 17, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Almost 700,000 guns were bought back and destroyed — the equivalent of 40 million guns in the United States. …

LOL…which would only leave us with, oh, 260 mil or so…

ddrintn on January 17, 2013 at 11:13 AM

LOL…which would only leave us with, oh, 260 mil or so…

ddrintn on January 17, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Yeah and that’s the ones we KNOW about!

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 11:18 AM

We’re. Not. You.

trigon on January 17, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Gun banning leads down the road to a global aristocracy.

The rich and politicians will have the power, the wealth … and the guns. We won’t.

That’s what banning guns is all about. They want to ban guns to protect themselves.

darwin on January 17, 2013 at 9:58 AM

How right you are! What they want is a bunch of UN “soldiers” killing us or holding us at bay while they bugger our children, You see, it’s all for the children, our children. Only not in the way they lead us to believe. You don’t believe me – check Africa and Haiti, et al.

Old Country Boy on January 17, 2013 at 11:38 AM

I’m sure its juts as easy to acquire serious hardware in Australia as it is in the UK…Those Eastern European and Asian drug gangs are not firing spit balls at each other.

CorporatePiggy on January 17, 2013 at 11:51 AM

The successful case in Australia is reality which has a liberal bias and is therefore communist and will bring 10 million years of darkness.

/ Conservative word salad

lester on January 17, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Successful? Have you been following this thread at all?

gwelf on January 17, 2013 at 11:53 AM

“Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights…” Well then, f**k off!

HerneTheHunter on January 17, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Successful? Have you been following this thread at all?

gwelf on January 17, 2013 at 11:53 AM

What he needs to follow is a semi while wearing a pair of roller skates…and with a rope going from him to the truck.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 12:00 PM

I’m sure its juts as easy to acquire serious hardware in Australia as it is in the UK…Those Eastern European and Asian drug gangs are not firing spit balls at each other.

CorporatePiggy on January 17, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Exactly. And Australia is a big hunk of desert, most of which sees a LEO once in a blue moon unless someone calls 911. There are literally millions of hidey-holes – and that’s not counting the ability to bury something under a foot of sand, fill the hole up, note your GPS position on a piece of paper and drive off.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Australians live their lives as slaves without knowing what it’s like to live as a free men. Americans can, too!

CrustyB on January 17, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Because Australia is a federation of states, the national government has no control over gun ownership, sale or use, beyond controlling imports. Given our decentralized system of government, I could reduce the number of dangerous firearms only by persuading the states to enact uniform laws totally prohibiting the ownership, possession and sale of all automatic and semiautomatic weapons while the national government banned the importation of such weapons.

LOL No. 1

Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control.

LOL No. 2

Who knew an Australian could be so funny…

William Eaton on January 17, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Who knew an Australian could be so funny…

William Eaton on January 17, 2013 at 12:14 PM

I really wonder if being out in the desert sun and drinking like a fish your whole life doesn’t do something to your grey matter. Unfortunately, liberalism does more brain damage than both.

MelonCollie on January 17, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Comment pages: « Previous 1 2