The Port Arthur massacre of 1996 remains one of Australia’s saddest moments, not only because of the loss of lives, but because of how it altered Australia’s approach to gun policies. On April 28, a gunman opened fire at the historic Port Arthur tourist attraction in Tasmania, and 35 and injuring dozens more.
The attack, which had been carried out using high-calibre weapons, outraged the country and initiated an instantaneous national debate about gun ownership and national security. Within weeks, Prime Minister John Howard, to the unprecedented extent of having bipartisan support from all states and territories, jammed through extreme reforms that would be the watershed moment in Australian history.
At the heart of this revolution was the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), which created uniform legislation regarding gun ownership across the country. The carrying of automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns was banned, mandatory licensing and registration laws were enacted, and all firearms purchases were subject to a 28-day waiting period.
Purchasers had to provide a good reason to own a gun — and self-defense did not qualify. Safety training and comprehensive background checks became standard procedure. Bizarrely, the six states all agreed upon these reforms in merely 12 days of the massacre, establishing a national gun registry and implementing an ambitious buyback program to remove from the streets weapons that are prohibited.
The buyback program was the most significant aspect of the reform. Paid for by a short-term tax increase, it gave fair payment for illegal firearms and led to the surrender and destruction of around 650,000 weapons — roughly one-fifth of all civilian-held firearms in the country then. An amnesty allowed owners to hand over prohibited firearms with impunity. By late 1997, they were eliminated, and a further buyback in 2003 removed another 68,000 handguns.
The results were startling. The chance of being shot to death in Australia fell by more than half and has stayed low ever since. The proportion of gun-licensed Australians fell by nearly 50 percent, but the proportion of households that own guns fell by three-quarters. Surprisingly, while there are fewer gun owners overall now, the ones that are left average more than one, so the number of licensed firearms went up. As scholars have pointed out, it’s a testament that gun culture did not vanish — it simply was more contained.
This abrupt shift stands in stark contrast to America, whose gun rights are inextricably tied to history, culture, and the Constitution. With higher numbers of privately held firearms than citizens and significantly greater levels of gun violence, US politicians have struggled to reach consensus on effective reforms, even after devastating incidents.
Experts point to the complex mix of individualism, protection under law, historical context, and lobbying that has helped create America’s entrenched gun culture. Australia, without a constitutional right to bear arms, had fewer barriers to rapid action, and public safety was the top priority.
While others have debated the exact role the NFA played in decreasing crime, its role in mass shootings is clear. From the 18 years preceding the reforms up to the reforms themselves, Australia saw 13 mass shootings. Over the following 20 years, not a single one occurred after more than 20 years, with occasional exceptions since then. It has been difficult to filter out the effect of the NFA from other social trends using research, but the absence of mass shootings for so many years is perhaps the most telling finding.
That is not to say the saga is finally over. Restrictions have been eased in recent years at the state level, and gun sales have risen — even if still to a minority group. A long-awaited National Firearms Register is now being built to shut down loopholes and increase oversight nearly three decades after it was first called for.
Australia’s experience teaches that wide-ranging gun reform is possible when there is political will and public support. The contrast with the US illustrates the degree to which history and culture shape national policy responses. No one answer will solve all the problems, but Australia’s experience has a lot to offer other countries trying to balance safeguarding public safety and protecting individual rights.