Exploring the Case for More Stringent Firearms Laws in Australia

Introduction

In a world grappling with complex issues of safety, security, and individual rights, the question of gun ownership laws remains a pivotal topic of debate. Australia, known for its strict firearms laws, has been a case study in balancing citizens’ rights with public safety. The need to revisit and potentially strengthen these laws raises a contentious question: should Australia tighten its firearms ownership laws even further?

This article delves into the arguments for and against the notion of more stringent firearms ownership laws in Australia, and finally argues for a re-evaluation of firearms laws in Australia, not to reduce the use case, but to ensure that licensed users are more stringently trained.  We believe that this direction will provide greater balance, that prioritizes both individual liberties and the collective well-being of society.

Popular Arguments for Stricter Firearms Laws

1. Reduced Gun-Related Violence: Advocates for stricter firearms ownership laws argue that tightening laws could lead to a significant reduction in gun-related violence. Australia’s previous experience with firearms reform, particularly following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, shows the potential benefits of such measures. A study by Chapman[1] indicates a remarkable decline in firearm-related deaths and suicides following the implementation of stricter laws, emphasizing the potential of stringent regulations to curb violence.
2. Preventing Impulsive Acts of Violence: Stringent firearms ownership laws can act as a deterrent against impulsive acts of violence. A study by Swanson[2] suggests that access to firearms increases the risk of suicide, particularly in cases of individuals experiencing a momentary crisis. By making it harder to acquire firearms, especially during emotional distress, society can potentially prevent irreversible actions that stem from fleeting emotions.
3. Enhanced Public Safety: One of the main arguments in favour of stricter firearm ownership laws revolves around the enhancement of public safety.  A study by Chapman[3] found that measures introduced by stricter firearms laws in 1996 contributed to the reduction in mass shootings, from 13 episodes in the previous eighteen years to just one in the following twenty-five years. Advocates assert that tightening regulations further could lead to an even safer environment for all Australians.

Popular Arguments Against Stricter Firearms Laws

1. Individual Rights: Critics argue that imposing more stringent firearm ownership laws could infringe upon the individual’s rights. However, the “right to bear arms”, does not exist in Australia as it does in countries like the United States. Nonetheless, opponents of further restrictions argue that their right to engage in shooting for sport should not be restricted any further than it already is.
2. Criminal Accessibility: Critics contend that no matter how strict gun ownership laws become, criminals will find ways to access firearms through illegal means. This perspective emphasizes the importance of addressing the root causes of criminal behaviour and focusing on law enforcement strategies rather than targeting law-abiding citizens.
3. Effective Mental Health Alternatives: Some opponents of stricter gun ownership laws claim that most breaches of firearm laws occur because of problems with mental health.  This is a common argument in the USA, particularly following one of the many mass shootings.  However, opponents would propose that resources might be better utilized by implementing effective mental health support systems for those with mental illness.  This argument means that only those with mental health issues would be restricted.   They also argue that by addressing the underlying issues that can contribute to gun-related violence, such as mental health struggles and social alienation, society might achieve a more comprehensive solution.

Future Directions

Striking a balance between personal freedoms and collective security remains the ultimate challenge. Australia’s history with firearm reforms shows the potential for compromise. The National Firearms Agreement was made at a meeting of the Australasian Police Minister’s Council on 10 May 1996.  The Agreement formed the foundation for legislation introduced in States and Territories. 

Amongst other things, the Agreement included measures to restrict access to certain firearms while still permitting licensed individuals to own guns for legitimate purposes such as hunting and sport shooting.

It has been more than twenty-five years since the National Firearms Agreement was first negotiated and, we believe that even though there are arguments for and against the role of more stringent laws, it is time to review the current conditions and make some suggestions about how it could be further improved.

In our experience, there are a number of areas that the legislation and regulations could be improved.  For example:

1. Safety Education Programs. The current programs have existed in their present form for more than twenty years.  However, it is clear to anyone who does the training programs, that the content is very limited; covering bare minimum knowledge requirements.  At the end, you might know enough to answer basic questions to pass the course; though realistically, you could have answered those questions without doing the course. 

Even in the practical component, you will not have handled a loaded firearm, made it safe, loaded, or fired the weapon.  You will not have any practical experience. 

Imagine if this approach was used to driving a motor car?  New drivers with virtually no experience would be expected to operate a vehicle safely.  We argue that the conditions for shooters should be as stringent as it is for those seeking to be licensed to drive a motor vehicle.

2. Ambiguous Legislation. Many parts of the current legislation are ambiguous.  When lawyers can’t agree about what the legislation means in court, how can regular firearms users be expected to genuinely understand what the legislation means to them.  We would therefore argue that the legislation needs to be reassessed, to remove ambiguity, and ensure it is understandable for firearms users.
3. Understanding Related Firearms Legislation. Using firearms involves more than one act of parliament.  Most firearms users know that the Firearms Act[4] is the centrepiece, but other legislation is also relevant.  For example, the Firearms Regulation[5], the Crimes Act[6], and the Weapons Prohibition Act[7].
4. Understanding Related Legislation. While it may not be immediately obvious, firearms  usage can be governed by other legislation.  For example, understanding legislation related to wildlife conservation, particularly for the 80% of applicants who seek a licence for hunting, is essential.
5. Having First Aid and Emergency Resuscitation Skills. While gunshot wounds are relatively rare considering the number of license holders in NSW, and while shooting promotes itself as a safe pastime, it is inherently dangerous.  It makes sense for shooters to have an understanding of first aid practices and how to resuscitate someone in the worst-case scenario.

Conclusion

The debate over gun ownership laws in Australia is multifaceted, encompassing issues of individual rights, public safety, and effective crime prevention.  While advocates for more stringent regulations emphasize the potential reduction in gun-related violence and improved public safety, critics stress the importance of protecting individual liberties and addressing the root causes of criminal behaviour. Striking a balance between these perspectives is crucial.

Australia’s historical response to firearms violence through legislation demonstrates that compromise is attainable. Building upon this foundation by revisiting and refining existing laws could lead to a more comprehensive approach to firearms ownership. By valuing both individual rights and the safety of the community through clarification of legislation and adequate firearms training, Australia can navigate this complex terrain and forge a path forward that reflects the nation’s commitment to a safer and more harmonious society.

[1] S Chapman et al, ‘Australia’s 1996 Gun Law Reforms: Faster Falls in Firearm Deaths, Firearm Suicides, and a Decade without Mass Shootings.’ (2006) 12(6) Injury Prevention 365.

[2] JW Swanson et al, ‘Gun-Related Suicides among Young Men: What Can Be Done to Reduce Death during the High-Risk Period?’ (2015) 105(4) American Journal of Public Health 660.

[3] S Chapman et al, ‘Reducing the Firearm Suicide Rate in Australia: How the 1996 Gun Law Reforms Can Help.’ (2016) 25(4) Australasian Psychiatry 480.

[4] Firearms Act 1996 (NSW).

[5] Firearms Regulation 2017 (NSW).

[6] Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) 206.

[7] Weapons Prohibitions Act 1998 (NSW).