
April 29th of 1996, a day that would change Australia forever. Martin Bryant went on a killing spree where he killed 35 people in the tourist site of Tasmania, Australia. The massacre in Port Arthur pushed gun control to the forefront of politics in Australia, and the man in charge of change was Prime Minister John Howard. Although Australia's constitution gives limited power to its national government Howard was determined to come up with a plan that he thought would limit the use of guns. This prompted the Australian parliament to enact a plan to prohibit automatic and semi automatic guns in Australia.  All of this leads to one main question, what are the effects of gun control laws in Australia? I will clarify the gun control laws in Australia and their effects on the country. 

Australia used the tourists massacre of 1996 to create a legal policy on firearms. After the massacre the government implemented the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), which resulted in more than 700,000 weapons being surrendered to the Australian government. This agreement also created a federal ban on the import of all firearms and parts to those firearms. The NFA also made it harder for people to obtain licenses for firearms through legislation; the applicant required a genuine reason for owning the firearm and the reason could not include self defense. In 2002 a few years after the NFA was created, Australia activated the National Firearm Trafficking Policy which increased the border protection to help eliminate the illegal trade of guns into Australia, along with activating new laws that limited a citizen's ability to own a firearm. After a school shooting in 2002, Australia made the laws of handguns stricter while also enacting the National Handgun Buyback Act in 2003 resulting in 70,000 hand guns being returned to the government. Howard said 17 years after the Port Arthur shooting "The fundamental problem was the ready availability of high powered weapons, which enabled people to convert their murderous impulses into mass killing.  ...  It is easier to kill 10 people with a gun than with a knife" ("Sure and swift reaction" Businessinsider.com). 

Nearly 20 years after the massacre at Port Arthur the effects of Prime Minister Howard's gun control policy are more clear now than ever.  The studies of GunPolicy.org showed that nearly a decade after the NFA was introduced, the firearm homicide rate had fallen by 59% (GunPolicy.org). Analysts from two different Australian universities have also studied and found that the suicide rate in Australia by result of a firearm has fallen by 65% over the last decade ("Sure and swift reaction" Businessinsider.com). These reports also state that there have been no increases in other types of deaths since the buyback of nearly one sixth of Australia's firearms that were in circulation during the time of the Port Arthur massacre. One effect that stands out the most from the Australian buyback and the enactment of the NFA is that since the massacre in 1996 there has been no massacre even close to that of Port Arthur. 

In an article written by Australian professors, their main objective was to determine whether Australia's 1996-gun law reforms were associated with changes in rates of mass firearm homicides, they used observational studies using official statistics and a formula to represent the changes in firearm death rates and compare the trends of pre-post gun law reform with firearm-related mass killings. In their studies they found that in the 18 years before the NFA there were 13 mass shootings in Australia. There have been none in the years since 1996. "The studies also showed that the rates per 100,000 firearm deaths, that firearm homicides and firearm suicides both doubled their existing rates of decline after the NFA was enacted into Australian government." (S Chapman, P Alpers, K Agho, M Jones, 365). During 1996 and 1997 the two years when the NFA was finally implemented, Australia saw the largest percentage decline in homicide rate of any two-year period in its history. 

Contrary to the pros that are presented by many statistics and many researchers, many researchers tell the tale that the gun control is not all that it is made out to be. A University of Melbourne researcher concluded in 2008 "that there was little evidence to suggest that the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program had any significant effects on firearm homicides." (2008 report, nationalreview.com). The report goes on to say that the evidence found shows that the funds for the 1996-gun buyback has not turned into any reductions in terms of firearm deaths. In a 2007 report by Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran also concluded that the buyback program didn't have any long term effect on the Australian homicide rate. Reports show that the Australian gun-homicide rate was already really low and was steady falling up to 15 years before the Port Arthur massacre. As much as it appeared the buyback program seemed to reduce the rate of accidental firearm deaths, both Baker and McPhedran found that the buy-back and restrictive legislative changes really had no influence on the firearm homicide in Australia. Baker and McPhedran say in their report that "Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA ... " (Gun Laws and sudden death, 463).

 As said above that the Australian gun buyback model led directly to a fall in the gun-suicide rate, these claims are disputable. When a piece was constructed attempting to show the gun buyback model led directly to a relationship in the Australian suicide rate it was disputed by showing statistics that all though there was a steady decline in gun-related suicides this reduction also occurred at the same time as an overall reduction in Australian suicide. Also statistics show that firearm-related suicides had been declining in Australia nearly ten years before the restrictions on gun rights. 

Consequently, this all leads to the controversy of how the Australian model would or would not work in the United States. President Obama, after the mass shootings in the past year, always would bring up the Australian model as what could be a representation of what we as America could do. He has said "We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings, Friends of ours, allies of ours ...  Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it" (Australia's gun confiscation, nationalreview.com). As much conversation that is brought up about gun control in America, researchers have come up with a model that explains statistics of what the United States would look like if they modeled themselves after the NFA and gun buyback programs of Australia. The report says that in America there are almost as many guns as there are people (National Review Online). If the United States were to buyback the amount of guns that Australia did which was about a fifth or sixth of the guns in Australia's circulation at the time, then they would have to confiscate as many as 105 million firearms from American citizens (National Review Online).

 The controversy of guns in America lies within politics as some candidates believe it is better to step in between citizens and their firearms, while others believe that the world is safer with citizens controlling their own guns. As many American politicians have tried to come up with a plan after the many mass shootings that have come to the forefront in the past few years, many proposals have been found with flaws and turned away just like Obama's "Australian" proposal. Thus all creating a controversy American's want answers too, answers such as: "How would the government get the guns?", "What are the consequences of going door to door in America for a gun buy-back proposal?", and "If democratic states wont obey buy back laws, how would republican states respond?". These are just a few questions that compose a whole bunch of congestion on the entire idea of gun control in the United States. 

Concluding the statistics of Australia's NFA and gun buy back program pose both many pros and many cons. Each stating why Australia's gun control laws have worked in some analysis, and why it has not worked in others. Gun control is an occurring topic in the United States mainly as a political concept, the controversy is widespread on what we as Americans should do and if we should follow suit to many nations before us just as Australia did in response to the Port Arthur Massacre. 

