Gun Control: Don’t let a little thing called facts get in the way

At the height of the gun control debate in the United States earlier this year, the middle-sized country of Australia was getting a lot more mentions than was normal.

I happened to find myself in the middle of this peculiar situation when I was interning for a conservative member of Congress in Washington DC. As an Australian answering phone calls from the district during this period of intense focus of gun control laws, I had many bewildered Americans question my accent.

Some recognising the Australian twang would go on to lecture me on the failures of Australian gun control. I remember one man stated for a fact that the Australian laws were a failure. No ambiguities, no ifs or buts, a complete failure. I could not help but explode on the inside – how could people really believe this to be true?

On April 28th, 1996 Martin Bryant walked in a small diner and used a semiautomatic rifle and a semiautomatic assault weapon to kill 35 people in the small Australian tourist town of Port Arthur on the island state of Tasmania. The conservative government’s response to this tragedy – a tax-payer funded buy back scheme of citizen’s guns.

Police surrounded Bryant, who set the building alight with a hostage inside. Image Credit: BBC

There can be little doubt of the effectiveness of this scheme. In the 18 years prior to 1996, Australia experience 13 gun massacres. Following the 1996 reforms, Australia has yet to experience one single massacre.

More than that, Australia’s crime statistics indicate that both gun-related homicide and the suicide rate have declined since 1996. Research showed that the buyback reduced firearm suicide rates by almost 80 percent. The link with gun-related homicide rates is less pronounced, but there has been a noticeable reduction.

This is not to say that gun violence has been eradicated in Australia – in fact far from it. In recent years we have seen an increase in gun shootings in Sydney. But these shootings are concentrated in Sydney’s suburbs, and are largely conducted with illegal guns, and are often gang/drug related.

The 1996 reforms were pushed by the then Prime Minister John Howard, a conservative leader who was only six weeks into the top job when the massacre occurred. The move took significant political courage.

Howard’s Liberal Party was in a coalition arrangement with the National Party who represented the citizens who owned the disproportionate share of Australia’s guns. He knew that his coalition partner, the Nationals, would have the most to lose from disgruntled voters who opposed any gun control. But he moved forward anyway.

The eventual result was a ‘federally financed gun buyback scheme’ which was paid for by a levy imposed on all Australian taxpayers. The scheme was widely accepted across the political spectrum and almost 700,000 guns were bought back and destroyed. As Howard argues this was “this was the equivalent of 40 million guns in the United States.”

At the height of the gun control debate in the US in January, John Howard very respectfully offered his opinion for the New York Times. Mr Howard started by saying that he did not wish to lecture America on the subject but rather contribute constructively to the debate. It was important to get this out of the way early.

From an Australian perspective it seems rare that Howard would criticise the United States. As Prime Minister, Howard was known for his close relationship to the US and in particular to President George W. Bush. In an aside, Bush even referred to Howard as his deputy sheriff in 2003.

US President Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard shared a close relationship. Image Credit: White House/Carolyn Drake

Yet Howard is more than happy to go through the facts of his successful gun control. He concedes that there were many aspects in Australia which made it easier to implement such reform. Firstly, the Australian gun lobby’s power and influence dwarfs in comparison to that of the National Rifle Association in the US. Australia also has no constitutional right to bear arms blocking action.

However, there were significant obstacles which could have been used as excuses for inaction. The federal government, for example, has no control over gun ownership, sale or use. Howard’s only option was to persuade the six states to enact uniform laws prohibiting ownership, possession and sale of automatic and semiautomatic weapons.

This was no easy task – but it was done.

In recent days, Australia has again been the focus of the gun control debate in the US. This time, however, it was Jon Stewart’s Daily Show which aired a series of humorous interviews with anti-gun control proponents and at every turn raising the Australian example.

The best of which saw correspondent John Oliver sparring with gun lobbyist Philip Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Van Cleave’s central point is that gun control does not work, period. Even when told of the Australian case, he goes on a bizarre rant… “But in the real world with human beings it’s not going to work and gun control isn’t going to work.”

In this whole debate, it seems clear that opponents of gun control do not like facts. They do not want to face the reality that is presented before them – especially when it directly contradicts with their existing beliefs. As John Oliver says: “In America we’re told gun control is not possible. But in Australia they’ve shown it is – providing a fantastic lesson for America to ignore.”