Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gun Confiscation in Australia Not Shown to Reduce Mass Shootings
Gun Watch ^ | 1 February, 2013 | Dean Weingarten

Posted on 02/01/2013 5:06:21 AM PST by marktwain

In the current debate on imposing even more infringements on the right to keep and bear arms than already exist, reference is often made to the Australian gun confiscation scheme that was put into effect in 1996. While the results of the scheme have been subject to argument, with papers showing both no effect, small overall increases in crime, and small decreases in homicide, proponents have claimed that the confiscation and ban are responsible for the lack of mass shootings since 1997.

I have found only one paper on the subject;

Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence, by Samara McPhedran and Jeanine Baker, pulblished in the Justice Policy Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2011

Here is the abstract from the paper:


The development of legislation aimed at reducing the incidence of firearm-related death is an ongoing interest within the spheres of criminology, public policy, and criminal justice. Although a body of research has examined the impacts of significant epochs of regulatory reform upon firearm-related suicides and homicides in countries like Australia, where strict nationwide firearms regulations were introduced in 1996, relatively little research has considered the occurrence of a specific type of homicide: mass shooting events. The current paper examines the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand (a country that is socioeconomically similar to Australia, but with a different approach to firearms regulation) over a 30 year period. It does not find support for the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia. These findings are discussed in the context of social and economic trends.

The focus of the paper, mass shootings, falls in the trap of looking only at shooting incidents. This approach is fundamentally flawed because of the possibility of substitute methods. It does not matter to the person murdered if they are killed with a gun, petrol bomb, or knife. For public policy, it is overall homicide rates that are important, not the type of instrument used. Still the study has useful information not available elsewhere.

I found particularly interesting the fact that mass shootings are extremely rare events. They were even rarer before the modern era of gun regulation and mass media. Only one was noted in Australia before 1980, that one occurred in 1971. One was found in New Zealand, that occurred in 1941. During that time period, gun regulations were far less stringent than they are today.

The paper merely notes the study of the "copycat effect" induced by media coverage; the focus is on the incidence of mass shootings.

Since 1980, 12 mass killings occurred in Australia and 4 in New Zealand, about the same when corrected for population differences. Most of the mass killings were domestic, 8 of the 12 in Australia, 2 of the 4 in New Zealand. New Zealand has significant ownership of the firearms banned in Australia. Neither country has has a mass shooting since 1997.

I recommend the study to anyone interested in criminology, mass killings, or citizen disarmament.

Link to Paper (PDF)

Dean Weingarten

TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: australia; banglist; confiscation; guncontrol; massshooting; secondamendment
More ammunition for fact based freedom fighters.
1 posted on 02/01/2013 5:06:30 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

2 posted on 02/01/2013 5:14:23 AM PST by Doogle (USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
But this is logical and rational. IF you believe that the anti-gun side really wants to increase safety then they would have to agree. Anti-gunners fall into many camps, but the two most prominent that I can see are the dedicated statists like 0bama who want their jackbooted thugs to rule over defenseless peasants, and those shallow minded who are afraid. Not just of guns, but of freedom, responsibility and all that having a free society entails.

Neither of these groups is susceptible to rational logical arguments.

I've said this before many times, and I'll doubtless say it again. Anti-gunners can't be bargained with, because A. They have nothing to give - all they want is to take and take until we have no rights left, and B. They never keep their promises anyway. They can't be reasoned with because their hatred of guns in the hands of citizens (they never seem to mind the police being armed though) is irrational or cynically self serving. They have no pity or even the slightest understanding of those of us who want effective means to defend ourselves from the unorganized and organized criminals because in their minds our owning guns makes US criminals, and they NEVER stop. They never quit. They're never satisfied. Every additional infringement is "A good first step" to them.

There are only three final ends to this.

  1. They win. we're disarmed and dutifully turn our arms over to the police then to be at the mercy of anyone.
  2. We're killed "resisting arrest" by the government's beloved police
  3. We kill enough anti-gunners and their thugs to end the threat for a generation.
We may move very slowly like the frog that starts out in the pot of cold water and ends up boiled because he didn't recognize the threat in time, and we may win a few legislative delaying actions. But in the end it's going ot be one of the three.
3 posted on 02/01/2013 5:30:31 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
To meekly surrender the ultimate symbol of true liberty is horrendous to me. It's really the one thing that truly separates the citizen from the slave.


4 posted on 02/01/2013 6:06:16 AM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Australia needs a pro-gun advertising campaign, which might have to run a decade or more to convince them of the value of guns. As things are now, they are pretty programmed against guns at all levels, by their government and media.

So the campaign would have to be pretty comprehensive and work at a lot of different psychological levels.

5 posted on 02/01/2013 8:14:52 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Oz needs to make the nation the same as the Swiss, because the Chinese are coming one of these days and nothing will stop them unless there is a gun behind every bush and wallaby.

6 posted on 02/01/2013 9:25:25 AM PST by Eye of Unk (AR2 2013 is the American Revolution part 2 of 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

“Oz needs to make the nation the same as the Swiss, because the Chinese are coming one of these days and nothing will stop them unless there is a gun behind every bush and wallaby.”

Correct. They also need their own nuclear weapons, because they sure cannot count on the U.S. Obama administration.

7 posted on 02/01/2013 9:31:48 AM PST by marktwain (The MSM must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson