Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Australia gun control in Australia

Here in the United States the gun control is flaring up again. Australia seems to come up on both sides. Pro gun groups claim crime is on the rise there, even gun crimes. Gun control groups claim it helps since guns were banned. Is the crime problem getting worse? Is it really hard to get a gun in Australia? and how hard is it. Are there so many loop holes that it doesn't matter. What is the scoop? I dont know cause both sides are using your country for propaganda.

Cost over a billion, effect on homicide rates nil. See for example: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/bakersamaraijcjs2015vol10issue1.pdf

The rate of homicide has been in decline here since more than a decade prior to the big changes to gun laws after 1996, and that rate of decline has continued, unaffected both by the "buyback" and destruction of roughly 640,000 firearms in about 1997-98 and by the steady increase since then in firearms in legal ownership to a level higher than that before the buyback.

Rates of robbery peaked between about 1998 - 2001, but have declined substantially since. Rates of assault have risen over the past couple of decades. The best source of data on this stuff is either the Australian Bureau of Statistics or the Australian Institute of Criminology.

One other effect of the buyback, which is increasingly being acknowledged, is that it created a very substantial pool of firearms which were never handed back and never registered. The most optimistic estimate is that this comprises over 250,000 firearms, but there's very good evidence that it is much larger, and more than likely in the millions. After all, the buyback was supposed to capture semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, and pump-action shotguns, and several million of these were imported as well as a good number made here. For example, one importer estimates they brought in up to 500,000 M1 Carbines, and there were about 350,000 SKS/SKK rifles brought in. Just these two models alone account for more than the total of all types destroyed in the buyback, most of which were .22s and shotguns.

How hard is it to get firearms? Not at all difficult if you have money and contacts of course, but legally there are more hurdles than there used to be when I was a kid - back then you'd go to the gunshop, or even Kmart, and in the case of longarms it was "I'll have that one please, wrap it up, I'll take it now".

Now you have to have a licence, which requires a clean record and completion of a (fairly simple) test on safety, together with a "genuine reason" such as hunting, target shooting, collecting, or farm use (but not self defence), and there's a 28 day waiting period. You also need secure storage (like a steel cabinet) and the police may well want to inspect it. Licences for longarms which aren't semi-auto, or for pump shotguns, need no more than that, but the others are harder to get licenced for.

Once you have the licence you then need to apply for a permit to acquire, and there's another 28 day waiting period (many states waive this wait for firearms after the first one).

Depending on the category of genuine reason you offered, you may also have to attend the range a few times per annum too, but that's about it.

For pistols there's a bit more involved. For target shooting for example you have to do a proficiency course and be signed off by a club, and there are mandatory range attendances too. The old personal protection (concealed carry) licences were abolished in the reforms which followed 1996 too.

Compared to perhaps most parts of the US this is going to sound like a massive PITA, and compared to what used to be the case only a couple of decades ago it certainly is. It targets those least likely to be a problem, and has cost a fortune. All that, for no beneficial effect. It hasn't stopped us owning guns though, and it has seen people elected to the legislatures of several states on a pro-gun platform, so the battle's not over.

Dan
Do you have any good links to articles discussing the implementation of the buy back program, the willingness of citizens to turn their guns in, and estimates of guns in country unaccounted for?

My daughter returned this month from spending the last semester in Australia and NZ. One of their teachers brought up the gun ban and made it sound as if people voluntarily turned their guns in and that it was fully supported by gun owners. I'd love to direct her to some more factual sources than her teacher.

She laughed and told one of the other students they would have had a hard time getting her guns.

http://www.foaa.com.au/ammunition-t...alia-stock-of-firearms-compiled-in-1998/

There was a Senate inquiry in 2014, instigated by the Greens (a left wing minority party). It was quite overtly politicised, so note the dissenting report included in the attached, which contains the following passage:



http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...tutional_Affairs/Illicit_firearms/Report

In other words, no one really knows the actual number of firearms which were diverted to the grey market, but is likely to be more or less large. FWIW from my own experience certain sizes of poly pipe and endcaps were sold out across the country for months while the buyback was underway, a fact that excited a good deal of comment in the plumbing industry in particular. Clearly there was not universal support for the buybacks. We also saw the biggest public demonstrations since the Vietnam War, protesting against the new laws.

You might also find this useful, in relation to how effective all this was: https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf

That teacher is full of crap, the coppers nearly wet themselves if they can shaft some poor soul that has inadvertently trespassed some pointless rule or by-law.

The whole thing is an abject pointless failure, and this is borne out by the ease of which the crooks can get their hands on illegal weapons...and by how the courts refuse to jump on any professional crook or raving lunatic.

Case in point, that piece of rubbish in the Lindt café, the filth in the judiciary kept letting the so-and-so off.

The reality was that prior to the 1996 Port Arthur tragedy there were varying firearm laws across our states. Some states had gun registration and some already had some restrictions on semi autos.

After the tragedy the Federal govt introduced the National Firearms Agreement and forced the States to adopt essentially uniform gun laws, including registration. Self defense was no longer an acceptable reason to own a firearm. Overnight the Australian govt had created a nation of victims.

There was a national gun buy back which the Federal govt funded via a Medicare levy. Firearm owners in states that had gun registration essentially had no choice - either you handed the banned firearms in or they would be confiscated. In order to assist in compliance there were generous buy back terms. Those states that had no registration had less compliance and as others have stated, there is an unknown number that were not handed in and are still around.

We lost all our semi autos, not just assault rifles - this includes shotguns and rimfire rifles. We also lost pump shotguns. Currently there is a review of the National Firearms Agreement. This time they are after lever action shotguns and possibly other repeaters like leverguns and pump rifles and a raft of more draconian laws are mooted.

The lesson to learn here is don't let your 2nd amendment be watered down in any way. Not that we had a choice, but once gun laws are tightened you are on a slippery slope.

jSTUART did they allow any loop holes for vintage guns or family guns that had been in the family for years, or did you have to cough up grandfathers vintage colt woodsman or model 12 shotgun?

No grandfathering was allowed and quite a lot of nice older guns - Browning A5s and such - went to the scrapyard. Quite a lot more simply, ahem, vanished into thin air.

The only way you could (legally) retain a firearm which was subject to the new laws was if you qualified for a licence for it based on "genuine need" criteria. For example, a person who owned a farm and had a need for a semiautomatic .22 or shotgun for on-farm pest control could qualify, but they'd need to have secure storage facilities and could only use it on their farm. A clay target competitor who had a medical certificate to the effect that they needed a self-loading shotgun (eg due to shoulder reconstruction) might also qualify to keep that shotgun, but only for competition use.

Semiautomatic centrefire rifles ware, and are, a good deal harder to get a licence for - largely restricted to professional shooters of large pest species.

Are muzzleloading guns exempt from the firearms laws or are they regulated the same as centerfire modern firearms?

The rules may vary slightly as between states, but generally speaking a muzzle loader (or any firearm not made for metallic cartridges) made before 1900, save for a percussion revolver, is exempt from licencing and registration requirements. You'd need a firearms licence or explosives licence to buy black powder though.

A post-1900 muzzle loader will generally be subject to the same licencing and registration requirements as a cartridge firearm, and if a longarm it will fall under the same classification as .22s and shotguns.

Here in QLD, the original black powder cap and ball revolvers made before 1900, are exempt from licencing but you must register it with the firearms branch of the police.

A few years back I bought a 1849 model C&B Colt from a gun show and walked out with it.

Too much of the debate on Australian firearms laws focuses on the firearms themselves.

The key measures introduced that made a difference are;

1/ A background check is performed before the issue of a firearms licence. This has largely prevented those of unstable mind, or dubious background (ie criminals) from legally acquiring firearms.

2/ Mandatory safe storage. Literally all firearms and ammunition must be stored in a locked cabinet. The requirements for semi-auto and pistols are higher than those for bolt actions, etc.

3/ Mandatory notification by healthcare professionals when the person they are treating loses the ability to safely control a firearm (demetia, anger control, depression, etc.). The licence is suspended pending review.

4/ Fast and merciless removal of firearms if subject to a domestic violence, apprehended violence order. This is intended to prevent domestic disputes from becoming tragedies. Sadly, this measure has been abused by some during divorce negotiations and increasingly the courts take a dim view of vexatious applications for orders.

5/ Removal of 'personal protection' as a genuine reason. Simply put, Australia is nowhere near as violent as the USA, and whilst it has social problems they are quite a bit less of an issue than the social problems in the USA such as racial, homelessness and organised crime.

Applying US social norms outside the USA is a flawed approach. Similarly Australian norms should not be applied elsewhere without careful consideration. To be honest many Australian shooters wonder why the US states cannot introduce measures 1/ through 4/. From our perspective it is likely to have a beneficial effect.

The focus on firearms themselves by shooters, antis and politicians distracts from the real issues of the person holding the firearm. It has prevented reasonable discussion on handgun hunting (even with single shot T/C or XP100 type pistols) and moderators.

The reality is that many old firearms are still out there, but the real interesting part is that organised crime (such as outlaw motorcycle gangs) generally utilise old, rubbish firearms as the supply of modern firearms leaking out of the legal market into the black market is clearly limited. The public position of the police for most populous state in Australia (New South Wales or NSW) is that their concerns for firearms are NOT law abiding firearms owners. Their concerns are central on the blackmarket and illegal imports.

Like these old pieces of crap, just a few of those picked up by the police in Sydney alone over the course of the past year:










The reality is that crims have little difficulty getting guns, and very obviously these aren't sourced from law abiding shooters. There are plenty out there, and a good number of new ones coming in. That much was confirmed in evidence given to the Parliamentary Inquiry referenced above.

How have these made a difference though? They haven't made a difference to homicide rates, nor the rates of other crimes. They have created some new crimes though.

With regard to Item 1, prior to the changes post 1996 almost all jurisdictions already had a background check. It applied when you got your licence. Post-1996 it has been made into a deliberate embuggerance, by reason of being applied, with a waiting period, not only to the granting of the licence, but again at every permit to purchase and at licence renewal. There's simply no good basis for this other than causing maximum inconvenience. If my record was clear when I got my licence there's no rationale for any new background check after that, because if I'd acquired a criminal record my licence would have been suspended or cancelled.

It is also easily circumvented by the determined: witness for example the Lindt Cafe shooter, who would never have passed a background check, or the boy at Parramatta Police Station, or any number of others who have simply circumvented it by procuring a firearm outside the legal market.

Items 2, 3 and 4. seem like a fine idea too, and in principle they are, but they are also subject to abuse. Look at the court lists at your local court, and see the extent to which they are used - and abused. I have personal experience of the police trying to talk family members into letting them in "just for a look", and it is no secret they'd have seized everything for a breach if an unlicenced family member knew where the key to the gunsafe was. It is no secret because they have done exactly that to others.

There's other examples too - you go away on a hunting trip, and there are roadblocks on the main routes to popular hunting areas where you get stopped and have all your gear turned out on the road to "check compliance". And that is aside from the use of AVOs and tactics applied in divorces - you'll even stand to lose licence and firearms if you are the subject of the threat of violence, or if your partner or a member of your household is even suspected to be "unsuitable".

And 5? Removing personal protection as a genuine reason? Why was that a good thing? When was the last time a holder of a personal protection handgun licence (what the US audience would know as a CCW licence) ever did the wrong thing with it? They were so far from being an issue most Australians probably didn't realise they existed. And more broadly, why shouldn't a free citizen be entitled to arms for their own defence? A police officer carries a sidearm for defence of himself; politicians, who made these laws, have armed guards; we even allow money to be defended by armed guards. Why is my life, and that of my family, worth less?


Yeah, you're right to bring this up. These changes have made a difference. Not a good one.

That is very interesting and sad to hear that police and politicians have guns and protection when they decide we can't. Very much like in the states. You Austies still seem to have some real good hunting . I still never shot a hog, an slots of other things you all post on the fire. I would be terribly upset if I got pulled over and searched while going hunting or had police knocking on the door to " take a look".

The big advantage America has over Australia is a far greater percentage of your population live in rural or semi rural areas. With Australia Sydney metro area alone is well over 4 million, Melbourne about the same, Brisbane over 2 million so those three cities have about half our population. In addition another very large percentage of our population live on the coast from Melbourne through to Sydney and Brisbane.

Then Adelaide and Perth are probably 3 million combined.

Think of this way. If the US population was distributed like Australia then New York metro would have about 65 million and Los Angeles and Chicago would be similar.

While the area of Australia is almost the same size as your lower 48 the country is very arid once you move in from the coast which in turn is why the privately owned cattle stations are so large.

In short probably about 90% of our voters live in one of the 5 major cities or near the out bounds of those cities.

All of this results in Australia being far to the left politically as compared to the US.

As usual, Dan_Oz is being melodramatic and is a typical example of a minority of Australian shooters who want no regulation at all (truthfully all would like that, but recognise that it is a necessary part of the sport). People like him fail to realise that they are a tiny minority within the population, and that without any constitutional guarantee such as provided in the 2nd Amendment you have to walk a fine line between standing up for reasonable provisions and being banned outright. The majority of people (ie voters) would happily allow removal of firearms because it does not affect them. You can see from the photos Dan_oz posted that with the exception of the Glock of indeterminate age, the remainder are firearms at least 20 years old, many far older. What Dan_oz didn't post was the more usual photographs of old cut down side by side shotguns, shortened single shot 22s and 38 special revolvers from before WW2. Like too many on both sides of the debate, Dan_oz presents a partisan view.

The truth is that the laws surrounding ownership of firearms (rather than the regulation of firearms) have almost certainly made a difference to Australia (it is hard to prove effectiveness of a law by the absence of events the law was intended to prevent). The sad fact is that one Sandy Hook event in Australia would result in complete removal of public shooting in Australia, much like Dunblane caused removal of pistol shooting in the UK.

Police pulling people over is all about illegal hunting on certain public holiday weekends. Just like the USA, illegal hunting, poaching, whatever you call it, is an endemic problem which costs landowners money every year. I'm not entirely sure how pulling people over on the highway for a random breath test which turns into a Q&A session on your weekend intentions makes a difference but the police seem to think it will. Every year arrests are made for unlicenced firearms, prohibited firearms, unlicenced vehicles and outstanding warrants so it seems that there is something in it.

As for 'popping in' to check your safe storage. In most states the police must make an appointment. If they just turn up at your door unannounced you have a right to refuse entry.

Hunting in Australia is good. No bag limits on deer, pigs, goats, etc. Access to private property is always difficult to gain, but some states permit hunting on public land with the appropriate permits. No matter how they are portrayed, horses, donkeys, wild cattle, deer, pigs, goats, foxes, rabbits and hares are introduced animals that have no place in Australia. Trouble is, they are the least destructive animals when compared to the domestic cat, the cane toad (bufo marinas) and the indian myna.

The facts speak for themselves. No melodrama in it.



Well, which is it? A minority, or all? Where do you get your numbers from? And where have I said I want no regulation at all? Or are you just being melodramatic?

Sure, I'm not a fan of the post-1996 regulation of firearms in Australia. A massive waste of money and resources, targeting the wrong thing, and with no measurable benefit. Enough people share that view to have members elected to the upper houses of NSW, WA and Victoria, as well as the Federal Senate, on an explicitly pro-gun platform



Almost certainly made a difference? For over a billion dollars so far, and counting? Well, what difference have these laws actually made? What did we, as taxpayers, actually get out of the deal? Murder rates were unaffected, crims still able to get guns (including any number of shiny new Glocks), what did we actually get? There's been nearly 20 years for these laws to show some benefit, so where is it? You are apparently pretty keen on these laws, so surely you have something?

That is actually very close to how it works in the big area, less populated states. Hell it works that way in EVERY state, and in effect nearly all the voting in the country. Here in Colorado, 3 counties control the entire voting agenda. And guess what, they're extremely left. The only STATE with an extremely large population, which is not totally dominated by liberal votes due to the big cities being leftists, is Texas. In New York or California, once you get away from the big urban areas, its very conservative. Our current system of how many "votes" each state gets towards the general election is reflected by population. Those most populated states are controlled by the big cities, which are all VERY liberal, which means they control everything.

Not all that much different! I can sympathize with our DEEP southern brethren!

You say these things "make a difference". Unless you have some quantitative evidence that the homicide rate decreased significantly due to gun restrictions I would say that the restrictions did not make a difference. You may feel that the new laws make people safer but there is no real evidence that they do. You are using the standard sort of arguments that gun control proponents often make. The problem is that the evidence does not support them.