Telling statistics on the effects of gun control. There are now more guns in Australia than before Port Arthur, at least in Western Australia. There were 270,371 registered guns before the 1996 massacre, now there are 282,853. Possible mitigating factor: they’re owned by a smaller number of people (112,620 in 1996, 77,895 now). Still, gun control advocates are using this as an excuse to claim that the post-1996 policies have failed and need to be toughened.
The lesson they need to take instead, of course, is that such policies are absurd to begin with. What is the possible utility in reducing gun ownership among law-abiding citizens? Martin Bryant (the Port Arthur shooter) was NOT in possession of legal guns as he didn’t have a license for the guns he used - had in fact been denied purchase of a gun earlier on the grounds that he didn’t have one. So one of two things about him is true. Either the existing Australian laws at the time would have prevented him from obtaining his AR-15 and L1A1 SLR he used had they been faithfully enforced, or Bryant would have gotten the guns illegally on the black market and gone on his rampage anyway. Details about the case are guarded (leading to the inevitable spate of conspiracy theories), so we don’t really know. But it’s pretty clear from what we do know that Bryant’s rampage was premeditated. This wasn’t the standard media bogeyman case of someone snapping, buying a gun, and running amok. So the enaction of draconian restrictions in the wake of Port Arthur seems unlikely to have had much of an effect in any case. A more rational response would’ve been a call for stricter enforcement of existing laws.
What do the numbers say? Is Australia safer?
Well, maybe. Certainly the number of violent incidents involving guns are down. But there’s a huge caveat here: they were probably on their way down anyway. Have a look at the government numbers on the subject and you’ll see what I mean. For the period 1991 to 2001 (which the survey covers), there is a notable downward trend of gun violence period. The magical year 1996 doesn’t really stand out. Furthermore, as with anywhere else:
Academics and police agree that the vast majority of gunrelated crime is committed with unregistered firearms by people not licensed to carry guns. They also concede that the black market does not appear to have been affected by the stricter rules on gun ownership. In Victoria alone, thousands of illegal firearms are destroyed each year.
So as usual, law-abiding citizens have their guns registered and regulated to appease the public, even though this isn’t the demographic that’s the problem. No criminal worth his salt uses a legally-purchased firearm to commit a crime.
And of course there’s the usual silliness of mistaking a drop in the gun crimes rate for a drop in the crime rate. From the same source:
Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that despite an overall increase in the number of armed robberies, those committed with a firearm have declined. In 1993, 1983 armed robberies involved firearms, compared with 1328 in 2000.
So even though there are fewer armed robberies with guns, there are more armed robberies. When criminals don’t use guns, they use other kinds of weapons. Who knew?
And the police get to have their fun even though everyone knows there’s no point:
Despite the reduction in gunrelated crime, Victoria Police will begin a new inspection regime from July 1. There will be random checks on 10 per cent of firearm storage locations across the state as a further safety measure.
In ohter words, if there’s a massacre at Port Arthur, the government will use it as an excuse to bully gun owners. And if there isn’t a massacre - if, in fact, there is an overall reduction in gun crime, the government will use it as an excuse to bully gun owners.
So let’s sum this up. In 1996, in the middle of a general downward trend in gun violence, a crazed, unlicensed gun owner walks into Port Arthur, kills 37 people and blows up a building. The public panics, so the government enacts a bunch of gun legislation. The downward trend in gun violence that was already underway continues as if nothing had happened, but the government gets to spend $320million anyway in a buyback program to separate people hugely unlikely to commit crimes from their mostly legally-obtained guns. Meanwhile, violent crime in general increases in Australia, notably the kind of crime like armed robbery that is likely to be deterred by general gun ownership (criminals don’t generally attack people who will shoot back). And, just like everywhere else in the world, nearly 100% of gun crimes in Australia were then and are now committed with guns that are outside government control in any case because they were purchased on the black market. 10 years pass, and even with the new restrictions in place, gun ownership starts to rise again, rendering the “point,” to the extent there ever was one, moot in any case.
Does anyone see in any of this an effective argument for gun control? Didn’t think so.