John Howard, the conservative former prime minister of Australia, says that pro-gun advocates in the United States are wrong to oppose an assault weapons ban like the one he pushed for after a 1996 mass shooting because public safety is not a “liberal/conservative issue.”
Howard told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria that he felt “horror and shock” after a gunman killed 35 people in Tasmania on April 28, 1996.
Many within his own party opposed the newly-elected PM when he proposed a ban on private ownership of assault weapons in Australia. But statistics since then have proved him right. According to CNN, in the 18 years leading up to 1996 there were 13 gun massacres in Australia; since 1996 when the law was passed there has not been a single incident.
Published on 17 Feb 2013
P.S. Gun ownership is an emotive issue in the US. We encourage open considered debate but believe that nothing is gained by people “shouting” at each other. Any emotive posts of that ilk will end up in the trash can.
The right to bear arms is largely accepted by both sides of the debate. The issue is really what level of private ownership is acceptable and what steps need to be taken to protect public safety.
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution, part of the United States Bill of Rights adopted in December 1791, states:
In May 1792, Congress passed a second “[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States” requiring:
It is clear that the Bill of Rights refers to a muzzle-loading musket, firelock or rifle. Weapons have evolved since then and modern assault weapons offer more firepower than a muzzle-loading cannon of the 18th century.
The second issue, as to what steps need be taken to protect public safety, normally centers on licensing and measures to prevent unlicensed use — such as enforcing the use of trigger-locks or gun-safes. These have to be weighed against access to weapons for self-protection. I was raised with guns and was fortunate enough to have a mentor who taught that guns are no use for immediate self-defense unless carried on your person with the safety off and a round in the chamber. If you hear a noise in the night, you will have sufficient time to fetch your weapon from a gun safe — trigger locks are too fiddly, especially in the dark — before you investigate. But if you are woken by someone in your room, a weapon is of no use even if kept under your pillow.
So licensing and the use of gun safes, when weapons are not carried on your person, may be a reasonable compromise but whether the American public will accept a total ban on assault weapons remains to be seen.
I’m not sure CNN is correct in saying there have been no incidents since 1996. I will check.
Since the Port Arthur massacre and the $500m gun buyback program the number of guns in the community has gradually risen back to the pre-Port Arthur level.
What this suggests is that (our) tight gun laws haven’t really worked. Ordinary folk haven’t increased their level of gun ownership and by and large they weren’t the ones causing mayhem and murder and yet the strategy was directed at them.
The real problem is that the crooks keep expanding their activities and happily go on importing guns, including assault weapons and use them to do business. Read the Australian National Crime Authority Annual Reports for insights into how rapidly gang violence is growing in this country.
What is needed is a crackdown on gangs and gang violence but that takes political courage on both sides and that is what we don’t have in this country.
The problem is much more difficult in the USA because of the Constitutional right to bear arms and any compromise between the gun lobby and the democrats will likely deliver only a wishy washy outcome.
We have the right to bear arms without distinction. The primary reason is to protect ourselves from tyrannical elected officials, who presently occupy the white house and some chambers of congress. We don’t need these same tyrants to tell us anything. We elect them to serve us. We are not here to serve them. Evil people inhabit our planet and no set of laws will stop them from their devilish endeavors. These laws only embolden elected officials to pass more laws insuring their positions.
“We have the right to bear arms without distinction.”
The word “arms” derives from the Latin arma (weapons of war).
There has to be a reasonableness test — or do you propose that the right extends to hand grenades, rocket launchers and heavy weapons?
Our constitution says “bear arms” no reasonable test. Do you believe our founders were ignorant or incapable of understanding the mother tongue from whence they came? We just agreed to arm the terrorist in Syria. Get the picture?
Nuclear weapons? These fall within the definition of “arms”.
It is the long run consequences where tyrants and tyrannical systems become unconstrained that is the real problem. The suffering and death of this is a far more terrible price to pay. The Human Nature and Guile that begets tyranny clearly has not changed.
We must remember the history so we do not have to repeat it as Santayana instructed:
Best regards,
Bruce
All gun control laws are well meaning and well intended. But they miss the mark. They are obeyed by the law abiding citizens but not by the thugs. Guns are plentiful in US and will always remain so as the southern border will always be open to arms merchants. If we can’t stop people coming and going at will, do you really think we can stop gun dealers driven by powerful motive of greed and profit? How successful are we in stopping illegal flow of narcotics? Human traffickers? Will bammed arms be impossible to smuggle in? And who will be their best customers? Law abiding citizens or criminals? In fact, I would suggest that criminals in US will welcome such bans as they wouldn’t have to fear from average citizen. They will modify existing semi-automatcs to automatics, a feat not unheard of. Every which way I look at it, a gun control law of any color is a bonanza for the criminals. If you do not believe me, ask our narcotics agents, they and their pursued make a living at it!.
You have a point. Outlawing guns is not a solution. But the emphasis here is slightly different: What level of arms are reasonably required for self protection? Is it an AR15, a howitzer or a 6-shot revolver? Or should public safety be ignored?
John Howard perpetrated the largest fraud on Australia ever. National gun homocides have steadily been increasing for the last 20 years. Shooting massacres are statistically a rare event. Just because there hasn’t been a large massacre in ten years doesn’t mean there wont be one in the next ten years. Norways Brevik took a long time to happen? Point is next massacre you will hear the media cry “tighten gun laws”. They will never say the laws failed!!!
Im Australian and the “right to bear arms shall not be infringed” is in plain English. If you cant understand what it means you need to go back to primary school and learn English!!! Those great gentlemen that penned those words did not write side arms, shoulder arms, limits on calibre, length of shells, diameter of projectiles,limits on technology ets etc. By 1776 the evolution of arms was already about 400 years in the making. Those patriots knew this. So when some stupid people say that the 2nd Ammendment is outdated or refers to muskets must mean that the authors of the Bill of Rights were also stupid and lacking foresight. The 2nd Ammendment is not just an Ammericanism, it is important to all peoples who hold freedom and democracy close to their hearts. The 2nd Ammendment is ABSOLUTE in its meaning just as absolutely communists and tyrants HATE GUNS!!!
A FREE AND DEMOCRATIC USA MUST CONTINUE.LONG LIVE AND PROSPER THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA .
Does the primary school definition of “arms” encompass all “weapons of war” as in the Latin arma from which it is derived? Does it include heavy weapons or is it restricted to side-arms and small arms? What was the intention?
Does the “right to bear” include public places? What about aircraft, government buildings and schools? Was that the intention? What restrictions are reasonable in the interests of public safety?
Let the courts decide.
You need to read the words properly -” the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”. Restrictions to own and carry are infringements. As for definitions, there aren’t any specifics in the 2nd ammendment. There were lots of “arms” in 1776 not just shoulder fired muzzleloaders. Again deliberately worded to have absolute meaning. Matching people power to the govt. I really cant understand your contention because law abiding people obey the laws. Law abiding gun owners obey the law
Nancy Lanza was a law abiding gun owner who was murdered by her own son who stole hers guns and then went on a murder spree. Colin – your whole focus should be on the person who did the crime. THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH GUN LAWS!!!
Tom, You left out a comma:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
What is the purpose of the second comma? I find it ambiguous. These prescient founders that you refer to could not even construct a proper sentence.
Requiring individuals to take reasonable precautions with their firearms may not be interpreted by the courts as infringement. In much the same way, preventing passengers from carrying firearms on an airplane is not considered infringement.
If Nancy Lanza had been required to keep her firearms in a gun safe, a minor inconvenience, the crime could have been prevented. The focus is on the person contemplating a crime — and preventing them from having access to guns.
Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
In Australia, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is
2010: 0.13
2009: 0.16
2008: 0.13
2007: 0.13
2006: 0.20
2005: 0.07
2004: 0.07
2003: 0.27
2002: 0.23
2001: 0.24
2000: 0.30
1999: 0.26
1998: 0.30
1997: 0.43
1996: 0.57
1995: 0.37
1994: 0.43
1993: 0.36
1992: 0.55
1991: 0.49
1990: 0.46
1989: 0.48
1988: 0.74
Source: Gunpolicy.org – http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia
Out of interest, Japan has the lowest gun homicide rate, while Chile — which had surprisingly low rates considering there is large private gun ownership — lost its low ranking in recent years as gun crimes have escalated.
In the United States, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is
2011: 3.65
2010: 3.59
2009: 3.75
2008: 4.01
2007: 4.19
2006: 4.29
2005: 4.18
2004: 3.97
2003: 4.11
2002: 4.11
2001: 3.98
2000: 3.84
1999: 3.88
1998: 3.37
1993: 7.07
28 times the 2010 rate for Australia!
Source: Gunpolicy.org – http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
Gun ownership does not seem to afford much protection.
In South Africa, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is
2007: 17.0
2006: 18.8
2005: 18.0
2004: 19.1
2003: 20.8
2002: 22.0
2001: 22.6
2000: 24.0
1999: 25.4
1998: 28.5
1997: 26.0
1996: 26.7
1995: 26.9
1994: 28.8
When I left in 1998, gun homicides per 100,000 population were 95 times the rate in Australia (or 8.5 times the rate in the US).
Every political decision needs to be seen in context. In 1791 the US was expanding and needed an army. They had two large potential enemies: The United Kingdom and Mexico/Spain. Three, if you count France, and I would. Among the rapidly growing immigrant population were many groups seeking a “homeland” with separatist tendencies.
The US needed an Army. but armies were not popular. Many immigrants had gone to America to escape either being ” recruited” into an army or the predation of the armies that had been created. On top of that the US had insufficient money to pay them.
In this context the “right” to bear arms included the “right” to buy your own, which the US Government then made compulsory. Effectively they got their army on the cheap. Needs must when the devil drives.
This elaborate con-job is still celebrated by those who generally distrust governments and want to return to the “armed homestead” where men were men and women respected that. Quite funny really.
In the 10 shooting “massacres” in Australia since 1971, not one involved handguns. Also careful of emotive language like massacre. Massacre has various meanings but primarily means indiscriminate killing of large numbers of people. Most of those shootings were discrimante (eg. Milperra bikie shootings) and small numbers of victims (eg Monash University shootings 2 dead). Why then is there a call for a mass banning of handguns?
We do not need a gun-free society — merely a gun-safe society.
I think that you are not seeing the wood for the trees here. Guns are big business. Clusterbombs, Tanks, Mines and Grenades are big business. And the type of people that sell products that are basically designed to main and kill other humans directly are evil by any system of classification. They are worse than the worst tobbaco company or drug cartel. OF COURSE they have think tanks and marketing and all sorts of misdirection about the consitution and peoples right to carry hardwre desinged to kil and maim. Who gives a fig if the founding fathers used to injure each other with muskets or bird shot, they were wrong to do it and to make an industry of it is unforgiveable. If you think this argument is about any freedom other than the fredom to profit from murder and mayhem then you simply don’t understand what is happening around you – WAKE UP!
Bill, I suspect that cars kill more people than guns. Guns are big business and should be strictly controlled, but outlawing them altogether is not the answer IMHO.
Colin, I didn’t say that guns should be outlawed, just that designing and making them is wrong. That is just my moral code. I am not judging anyone for putting profits before human suffering. There is a difference between cars and guns – it is a question of design. Guns are really only useful for one thing and that is hunting. Most guns that are manufactured in the world are designed for hunting humans. Nobody needs a machine gun to shoot a duck. Nobody needs a tank to bag some pheasant for dinner. It is a bit obvious that even though they mahy kill more humans than gins, cars are not specifically designed to kill humans. Anyway that fact about the numbers killed would have to be debateable when you consider how many people have died throughout the world as a direct result of the arms industry.
You make a valid distinction between weapons for hunting and assault-type weapons. A Purdey shotgun is completely different to a 12-gauge pump-action.