The Port Arthur massacre in 1996 was one of Australia’s darkest moments, not just for the horrific loss of life but for the deep manner in which it remade the country’s gun policy. On April 28, a lone gunman walked into the historic Port Arthur landmark in Tasmania and killed 35 people and injured dozens.
The assault, which was conducted using high-powered weapons, stunned the nation as a whole and led to a heated debate over public safety and gun control. Within weeks, Prime Minister John Howard acted quickly, mobilizing bipartisan support from all of Australia’s states and territories in order to pass comprehensive changes. Those alterations would prove to be a watershed in the history of Australia.
Underpinning the reforms was the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), which established uniform gun laws throughout the country. Automatic and semi-automatic shotguns and rifles were prohibited, licensing and registration were made compulsory, and each firearms sale was tied to a 28-day waiting period.
Potential firearm buyers were required to explain why they needed a gun, n—and self-protection was not an acceptable reason. Range courses and extensive background checks were mandatory. In a remarkable display of political cooperation, all six states signed on to these requirements only twelve days after the shooting, creating a national firearms registry and initiating a bold buyback program to take unwanted guns off the streets.
The buyback scheme was at the heart of the reform. Paid for out of a temporary rise in taxation, it provided reasonable compensation for the surrender of firearms and resulted in the disposal of some 650,000 guns—about one-fifth of all privately held firearms then existing. An amnesty permitted people to submit banned weapons without risk of sanction. These were eliminated by late 1997, and a further buyback in 2003 took away another 68,000 handguns.
The outcomes were staggering. The chance of being killed with a gun in Australia has been reduced by over 50 percent and has remained low since then. The percentage of licensed gun owners reduced by almost 50 percent, and gun ownership at the household level fell by about three-quarters. Surprisingly, the few remaining gun owners tended to possess more than one gun, so the number of licensed guns actually rose. That shows that gun culture didn’t evaporate—it was more regulated and contained.
Australia’s swift response is in marked contrast to the United States, where gun rights are strongly embedded in history, culture, and constitutional safeguards. With more guns than people and much higher rates of gun violence, U.S. politicians have found it hard to find common ground on effective reform, even in the aftermath of horrific mass shootings.
Experts cite that America’s deep-seated gun culture is influenced by a combination of individualism, legal defenses, historical tradition, and lobbying power. Australia, with no constitutional impediment to firearms reform, had the opportunity to act rapidly and place public safety first.
Although it’s impossible to define the NFA’s influence in isolation from the rest of the social trends, its influence on the mass shootings is undisputable. During the 18 years preceding the reforms, Australia had 13 mass shootings. During the next 20 years, none at all, with the sole exceptions being some minor incidents. The extended period without such incidents is one of the strongest testaments to the effectiveness of the law.
The story isn’t over. Some state-level restrictions have eased in recent years, and gun sales have increased, though ownership remains limited to a minority. A long-awaited National Firearms Register is finally being implemented to close loopholes and enhance oversight, nearly three decades after it was first proposed.
Australia’s success demonstrates that comprehensive gun reform is achievable when political will and public opinion coincide. The comparison to the United States highlights how different histories and cultures influence national policy decisions. There is no one solution to the problems of firearm control, but Australia’s experience provides useful lessons for nations wishing to enhance public safety while upholding individual rights.