Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
Related issue outlines: 1997: Are Australia's new gun laws appropriate?
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click here for a list of items relevant to this topic, from the Echo's Year 2003 file.
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
Sections in this issue outline (in order):
1. What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.
2003/03: Should stricter gun laws, including the banning or further limiting of handgun ownership, be introduced in Australia?
What they said ...
'Why should anyone in the suburbs have guns - let alone concealable pistols?'
Herald Sun editorial published on October 23, 2002
'The focus ought to be on the crime, not the instrument used. We should examine the broader reasons for the rising tide violence ...'
Sebastian Ziccone, president of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia
The issue at a glance
On October 21, 2002, two Monash University students were shot dead and another five people injured by a student wielding semi-automatic handguns. It was later found that the student accused of these shootings was a member of a number of gun clubs and that he legally owned seven handguns.
The federal government immediately responded to this tragedy by calling for stricter controls on guns, in particular, further limitations on which handguns can be privately owned and who may do so.
The position of the states on this question has been less uniformly enthusiastic than that of the federal government. Gun clubs and shooters' organisations have varied from giving qualified support for the federal Government's proposals to accusing those seeking stricter gun controls of political opportunism.
Background
In the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, the federal Government successfully promoted gun laws which significantly limited access to all weapons and which saw a tax-payer funded buy-back of hundreds of thousands of automatic and semi-automatic rifles, the type of weapon used in the Port Arthur killings.
It has since been claimed by a number of gun control groups that the 1996 reforms did not go far enough and that access to handguns, in particular, is still not sufficiently limited. These claims were being made prior to the October 2002 shootings at Monash University. They have been made with greater vehemence since.
On October 24, 2002, the Prime Minister advised the Minister for Justice and Customs and Police Ministers to work on proposals to tighten controls on handguns in the community. The Prime Minister offered thirteen proposals as a framework for the recommendations that might by made by the Minister for Justice and Customs and the various state police ministers.
The federal Government's proposed changes to Australia's gun laws
1. Restricting classes of legal handguns to those meeting sporting shooter classifications for the Commonwealth and Olympic Games and similar events or destined for Police, security or military uses. All other classes of handguns will be banned nationwide. Advice as to the appropriate classifications will be provided by organisations representing sporting shooters through the advisory council.
2. A buy-back or compensation scheme and amnesty for those in possession of illegal weapons under which they can be handed in. The Commonwealth and the States and Territories will meet the cost of the buy-back scheme jointly.
3. Accelerating uniform national standards for registering and tracking weapons.
4. Tightening controls on the issue of firearms licences, ensuring checks on licensees are meaningful and current, cross checking the number and type of weapons held by individual licensees.
5. Mandatory reporting by health professionals to police of persons who disclose ownership of firearms and are unfit to possess them, with an associated education programme to alert health professionals to their responsibility.
6. Limiting the number and type of weapons that can be held by individuals and in particular inexperienced shooters. A system involving a probationary licence including restrictions on the type and calibre of firearms available to probationary licence holders might be required.
7. Limiting the number of clubs that people can join, and requiring club permission to be given before a member can gain access to a firearm. In conjunction with this examine minimum attendance and participation requirements for club members.
8. An examination of options for requiring clubs to provide firearms registries with annual written reports on new members and other relevant information. In addition examine authorising registries to supply handgun details on club members.
9. Ensuring that when sporting clubs move to expel members as being unfit they are supported by appropriate legislative backing.
10. An examination of options for tightening controls in relation to the storage of weapons, and further controlling access to ammunition (noting there may need to be different requirements of metropolitan and rural areas).
11. An urgent review of the arrangements whereby firearms are allocated to the employees of security firms.
12. Increase and make consistent, penalties for the illegal possession of weapons.
13. Police services are already jointly working on hand gun trafficking but more effort is required - noting that investigating handgun trafficking will be a priority for the Australian Crime Commission when it is established in January.
Internet information
A complete listing of all firearms legislation as it currently applies in Australia can be found at http://www.worldlii.org/cgi-bin/browse.pl?region=Australasia
On October 24, 2002, the Prime Minister, John Howard, issued a press release indicating the 13 provisions his government wished to see incorporated in any new gun control legislation. This media release can be found at http://www.pm.gov.au/news/media_releases/2002/media_release1943.htm
The Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Chris Ellison, issued a press release after the Council of Australian Governments' (COAG) meeting in December 6, 2003, which outlined what had been agreed to be the state premiers re gun laws. This can be found at http://www.ssaa.org.au/gunban2002/prellison061202.htm
The Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia is a body one of whose aims is 'to act as an effective and credible voice, representing all Australian shooters to the public, community leaders and authorities'.
The Association has given substantial treatment on its Internet site to the proposed changes to Australia's gun laws.
It has given a careful, if somewhat one-sided, analysis of the Council of Australian Governments' (COAG) meeting in December 6, 2003, which substantially accepted the proposals that had been put by the federal Government re gun control.
This analysis can found at http://www.ssaa.org.au/gunban2002/handguninsert.pdf
Please note, this is a pdf file and can only be read using Adobe Acrobat Reader.
The Sporting Shooters Association also has a very useful index of recent state and federal government press releases on gun laws. This can be found at http://www.ssaa.org.au/gunban2002/gunbanindex.htm
The Sporting Shooters Association also gives a variety of statistics and comment designed to show that the 1996 gun buyback has not been successful in reducing crime and that the federal government's emphasis on gun control is misdirected. This information and argument can be found at http://www.ssaa.org.au/buybackindex.html
Gun Control Australia formed in 1981. It is a voluntary non-profit organisation that seeks to raise awareness of the gun problem, the gun lobby and issues associated with gun control in Australia. Its index of gun control issues, including its overview of gun laws in Australia and a brief history of gun massacres in this country can be found at http://www.guncontrol.org.au/issues.html
Gun Control Australia's media releases, including those that followed the Monash University shootings can be found at http://www.guncontrol.org.au/press.html
Arguments in favour of stricter gun laws being introduced in Australia
1. Handguns are being used in an increasing number of homicides
Reverend Tim Costello, head of the Australian Baptist Union, has claimed that handguns were used in 67 per cent of armed robberies in Australia last year. The National Coalition for Gun Control (NCGN) has further claimed that the number of homicides committed with handguns has doubled since 1996.
2. Handguns, particularly semi-automatic handguns, are as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than those weapons already banned
A recent report produced by the University of Maryland and the Australian Institute of Criminology found that since 1996, the percentage of handguns used in firearm-related murders has increased from 14 to 37 per cent. Criminologist Adam Graycar has claimed that 'a handgun is the most common firearm misused.'
One likely reason for this is the ease with which a handgun can be transported and hidden about the person.
Those who support either a ban or limitations on handgun use argue that current trends and statistics demonstrate that handguns are more hazardous than the weapons that were prohibited in 1996 and so they too should be prohibited.
3. Existing gun laws have been successful in reducing the number of crimes in which guns are used
A recent report produced by the University of Maryland and the Australian Institute of Criminology found that the homicide rate in Australia had fallen 10 per cent since 1996. The report also found that the proportion of armed robbers using firearms had fallen from 37 per cent in 1993 to 14 per cent in 2000.
It has been claimed that these figures indicate that the 1996 buyback of semi-automatic rifles has had the desired effect and reduced the incidence of certain sorts of violent crime in which these weapons had formerly been used.
4. The previous gun buyback has left large numbers of weapons still in private hands
An editorial published in The Australian on October 23, 2002, noted that Australia's gun laws have not resulted in all weapons being surrendered by their owners. The editorial states, 'the 643,000 semi-automatic weapons destroyed during the buyback represents less than a quarter of all gunstocks in Australia.'
Among the large number of guns still in circulation are 300,000 handguns.
Supporters of a further buy-back argue that as the first gun compensation scheme ignored handguns it was incomplete. They claim that if the general community is to feel genuinely secure from the risk of being shot than handguns should also be taken out of private hands.
5. The current regulations regarding handguns are not sufficiently rigorous
It has been noted that currently regulations regarding who can own a pistol are not strict enough, as the student who killed two other students at Monash University in October, 2002, was legally entitled to own the weapons he used.
This point has been made in an editorial published in The Herald Sun on October 23, 2002. The editorial states, 'The most chilling aspect of the Monash University shooting is that it was done with pistols licensed to the alleged killer ... Police say the accused student was licensed to own seven pistols - including semi-automatics - he had obtained lawfully as a gun club member ... Again the perennial question is asked: why should anyone in the suburbs have guns - let alone concealable pistols? And even if it is acceptable for gun club members to have weapons to pursue their sport at the club, why should they be allowed to take them home?'
Overseas studies have similarly concluded that those who own guns legally misuse them. Philip Alpers from the Harvard Injury Control research Centre has found that lawful gun owners committed the majority of massacres. He has found that of all mass killings involving the deaths of ten or more people, 86 per cent were committed by lawful gun owners.'
Critics of current gun laws argue that such statistics show the need either for far more rigorous limitations on gun ownership or for a total ban.
6. Guns are not primarily sporting equipment; they are weapons
Those who defend gun owners as ordinary people merely following a sport are ignoring the lethal potential of guns. Gun control lobbyists argue that shooting is not essentially a recreational activity. They claim that the fundamental purpose of a gun is to kill and that the more guns there are available in our society the more people will be killed by them.
Melbourne writer, David Campbell, has made this point. Mr Campbell has stated, 'Shooting has acquired the status of an Olympic sport, but it does not alter the fact that a gun is a weapon, created with one primary purpose: to kill. It has the potential to kill a lot of people very quickly. Although, to be precise, it is not the guns themselves that are lethal, it's the bullets. Bullets are not designed to make holes in paper targets. Their purpose is to tear flesh and muscle, to shatter bone.'
Mr Campbell, in an opinion piece printed in The Age on October 29, 2002, tried to present the fears of a non-gun owner who has just discovered that his new neighbour is a recreational shooter. Mr Campbell wrote, 'Seems an OK sort of bloke, but... he keeps guns in his house? He shoots them for sport? What if one of his kids gets hold of a gun and starts playing with it? Or someone steals it and then comes to my place? Or what if he just flips out one day and goes berserk? Maybe he loses his job, or his wife leaves him, or he just gets drunk. Mightn't he grab the nearest weapon to hand? Can I be certain that my family will be safe?'
7. The rights of sporting shooters, especially those involved in Commonwealth and Olympic competition will be protected
It has been claimed that the weapons that the federal government is proposing to ban are not those used by Commonwealth and Olympic shooters. The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, has made this point. Mr Howard has stated, 'I do not think that we should automatically assume that, if you ban any of the weapons ... you are going to prevent people training for, or participating in, Commonwealth Games or Olympic Games events.'
Mr Howard has said that shooters use highly specialised weapons in these events. The implication that some have taken from this is that those weapons used in international shooting competitions would not be banned.
Later lists of weapons to be included in a ban appear to show an attempt on the part of the federal Government to exempt from restrictions those weapons used in Commonwealth and Olympic competitions. However, various shooters associations are dissatisfied with the list and stress that it is very difficult to neatly separate classes of weapon that are used in international competition from those which are not.
Arguments against stricter gun laws being introduced in Australia
1. The weapon does not cause the crime, the perpetrator does
It has been claimed that guns are merely incidental to the crimes that are committed using them.
According to this line of argument, a robbery is committed by someone who steals. If they did not have a gun available to them, they would use a knife. Similarly, someone who wishes to kill another person may use a gun, but if a gun were not available then they would bring about their victim's death by other means.
Those who hold this point of view argue that it is wrong to see guns as a cause of violent crime. Rather, they argue, we should be looking at the perpetrators and their motivations.
Sebastian Ziccone, the president of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, has made this point. Mr Ziccone has stated, 'It's ... time to focus on personal responsibility and accountability rather than penalising the legitimate firearm-owning community.
The focus ought to be on the crime, not the instrument used. We should examine the broader reasons for the rising tide violence ...'
2. Most crimes do not involve licensed gun owners
Crime statistics supplied by the Australian Institute of Criminology reveal that of the 117 offenders who killed with firearms between 1997 and 1999, only 11 were licensed gun owners who had permits for their weapons. Ms Jenny Mouzos, the manager of the Australian Institute of Criminology's national firearms monitoring program has summed up the situation this way, 'In other words, licensed firearms owners were not responsible were not responsible for the majority of firearm related homicides.'
Critics of tougher gun laws also claim that the vast majority of homicides are not gun-related at all. Crime statistics supplied by the Australian Institute of Criminology reveal that only one in four murder victims die of gunshot wounds.
Gun lobbyists claim that it is, therefore, futile to try to prevent further homicides by targeting licensed shooters, a group who statistically cannot be held significantly responsible for such crimes.
3. It is already sufficiently difficult to acquire a gun
Opponents of greater restrictions being applied to those seeking to purchase a gun claim that since the reforms of 1996 the regulations are severe enough. Currently anyone seeking a licence to own a gun must undergo a handgun safety awareness course through a shooting club. He or she must join the shooting club and lodge an application with Victoria Police. There is then a 28-day waiting period. The applicant must gain a permit to own a gun, the details of which are the forwarded to the Firearms Registry and there is a further 28-day waiting period before the potential gun owner can take possession of the weapon.
4. Tough gun laws are not the solution as they can be circumvented
It has been noted that Australia's current tough gun laws have not stopped guns being smuggled into the country and illegally taken across state borders. This point was made in an editorial published in The Australian on October 23, 2002. The editorial states, ''tough laws [have not] stopped gun trafficking between states or prevented gun parts from being imported from southeast Asia and assembled into lethal weapons.'
It is claimed that a high proportion of those guns used in crimes are not legally owned and that those who use them with criminal intent are simply disregarding the law. If laws were made even more restrictive, it is argued, they would behave no differently and the only people who would be penalised would be the law-abiding gun owners who obey legal prohibitions.
5. Stricter gun laws are unfair to the vast majority of owners who use their guns responsibly
It has been claimed that the vast majority of gun owners are sane, responsible people, who simply enjoy owning and occasionally using the weapons they own. Those who hold this point of view argue that it is unjust to require such people to surrender their guns because a very small minority of people use guns to injure others.
Sebastian Ziccone, the president of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, has made this point. Mr Ziccone has stated, 'More firearm legislation is only tough on people who are, by and large, honest, decent, law-abiding citizens who happen to have target shooting as a sport.'
Mr Ziccone further noted, 'In the same way that all Muslims cannot be held accountable and ought not be punished for the Bali bombings, likewise all firearm owners ought not be held accountable or punished for the actions of one individual.'
6. Stricter gun laws would penalise collectors and recreational shooters, including those involved in Olympic competition
It has been claimed that limiting the gun ownership of Australian shooters merely penalises people pursuing their chosen sport or hobby. Ron Owen, the national president of the Firearms Owners Association, has made this point. Mr Owen has stated, 'There are people in the community who have a hobby collecting guns. They have a right to that property, just as you have a right to own your house, or your car, or an axe, or a carving knife.'
Recreational shooters, it has been claimed, are merely people pursuing a sport they enjoy; they are not potential killers. Neil Jenkins, former president of Target Rifle Victoria, has stated, '"I go target shooting because I like the people, I win prizes and I get to travel. I enjoy the club dinners and being part of winning pennant teams" and so on. Nothing to do with being macho.
Explain it, and people become comfortable, realising this is just another sport with the same sort of social events ... There is no reason to think that a shooter is psychologically any different to anyone else ... The more involved people are in a pastime, the safer they are likely to be.'
7. There is no effective way of identifying who should own a gun and doctors and psychiatrists are reluctant to assist in any vetting process
Doctors and psychiatrists have objected to a federal government proposal that would require them to report any concern they may have about the behaviour of gun-owning patients.
Dr Kerryn Phelps, the president of the Australian medical Association, has argued, 'There's no magic formula for identifying people capable of committing gun-related crimes. It's also an invasion of privacy for people who are innocent of any crime.'
A similar point has been made by Dr Mal Hopwood, a lecturer in psychiatry at the University of Melbourne. Dr Hopwood has claimed that, 'The majority of individuals with mental health difficulties represent no risk and any mandatory reporting of their possession of a firearm is a significant intrusion on their confidentiality.'
Further implications
The debate surrounding tougher gun laws in Australia is quite heated. On the face of it each side is adopting a number of contradictory positions with considerable fervour and relatively little respect for logic.
The gun lobby argues that current regulations are strict enough and at the same time claims that there is no point in making gun laws more rigorous as the present legislation is being circumvented. While the federal government puts forward arguments which would seem to call for a total ban of handguns yet makes exceptions for some guns used in competition shooting.
What seems to lie behind the apparent contradiction in the gun lobby's position is its belief that licensed shooters are not the people who are likely to commit crimes involving firearms. Thus it can claim that members of gun clubs etcetera - as decent, law-abiding people - are inconvenienced enough by the present legislation, and that there should be no further impediments put before them pursuing their interest.
The gun lobby also appears to believe that it is only unlicensed shooters, people who own their weapons illegally, who are likely to use them to commit crimes and that these unlicensed shooters will use their illegal weapons irrespective of what the law dictates.
The difficulty with this argument is that it breaks down in the particular. There are individual licensed shooters, apparently reputable members of gun clubs, who yet use their legal weapons to commit crimes. This was apparently the case in the shooting that occurred in October 2002 at Monash University. The fundamental question is to what extent the pleasures of a majority of recreational gun users, who are not likely to use their weapons to harm others, should be restricted in the name of preventing a minority of their number from committing crimes.
To most Australians gun ownership is an indulgence, not a right, and there would probably be little objection from the majority of the electorate if gun ownership were limited to the Police, the military, those working for security firms and to farmers who need weapons to control feral animals.
However, the sticking point for the Government appears to be those shooters who compete in international competitions such as the Commonwealth and Olympic Games.
Australian target shooters have performed very well at recent Commonwealth and Olympic Games and the federal Government appears reluctant to deny them the opportunity to continue to do so. Further, the seedbed of Olympic and Commonwealth Games success is local shooting clubs where the champions of the future gain their grounding. Thus the federal Government is foreshadowing restrictive gun laws that would virtually prohibit handguns while making exceptions for those guns used in competition shooting. Again, in practice, this appears to be difficult, as the neat classification of such weapons into competition and non-competition models is not easily done. There is also, as recent events have demonstrated, never going to be any absolute guarantee that a competition shooter will not use his or her weapons against other people.
Further, it is the states that will have to draft and implement the precise legislation that applies within their jurisdictions and it is they who will suffer any electoral backlash that might occur, particularly within the rural sector, a section of the electorate already significantly aggrieved.
At the Council of Australian Governments' meeting held on December 6, 2002, it was agreed to implement a ban on certain styles of handgun. Given the inherently contradictory positions held on both sides of this debate, the resulting legislation is likely to satisfy neither the gun lobby nor those who want stricter gun controls.
Sources
The Age
23/10/02 page 1 news item by Annabel Crabb et al, 'PM flags tougher gun laws'
23/10/02 page 16 editorial, 'Decision time on handguns'
24/10/02 page 19 comment by Tim Costello, 'Firearms: the repeating menace'
27/10/02 page 8 news item by Stephen Moynihan and Brendan Nicholson, 'Sport shooters say they will cooperate'
26/10/02 page 4 news item by Phillip Hudson, 'Nationals leader defends shooters'
26/10/02 page 4 comments, 'How to stop the violence? Shooters, police and a Hoddle Street victim speak out'
26/10/02 page 3 (Insight section) analysis by Wendy Tuohy, 'Under fire'
27/10/02 page 14 editorial, 'Who needs a gun in the hand?'
28/10/02 page 7 news item by Mark Forbes, 'Report gun owners "with problems"'
29/10/02 page 15 comment by David Campbell, 'It seems the gun lobby just doesn't understand'
31/10/02 page 15 comment by John Whitley, 'Let everyone have a gun'
8/11/02 page 3 news item by Phillip Hudson, 'Government puts 259 guns on banned list'
11/11/02 page 3 news item by Phillip Hudson, 'Only two Monash guns on the banned list'
11/12/02 page 16 editorial, 'Taking more guns out of people's hands'
The Australian
23/10/02 page 1 news item by Steve Lewis and Sophie Morris, 'PM eyes hand-gun buyback'
23/10/02 page 14 editorial, 'Let's not lower our guard on gun control'
25/10/02 page 1 news item by Sophie Morris, 'Handguns should be banned by Christmas'
26/10/02 page 4 news item by John Ellicot and Sophie Morris, 'Howard crackdown "toothless"'
26/10/02 page 18 editorial, 'Safety comes first in gun control debate'
26/10/02 page 23 analysis by Jamie Walker, 'High noon (again) for gun reform'
The Herald Sun
23/10/02 page 2 news item by Andrew Probyn and Fay Burstin, 'PM plans new attack on guns'
23/10/02 page 3 analysis, 'How to acquire a gun'
23/10/02 page 20 editorial, 'Licensed and lethal'
23/10/02 page 20 comment by Sarah Henderson, 'Get a grip, ban pistols'
24/10/02 page 5 comments by Steve Bracks and Robert Doyle, 'Gun law debate triggers emotion'
24/10/02 page 18 editorial, 'Take next gun step'
24/10/02 page 18 comment by Sebastian Ziccone, president of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, 'It's the man, not the gun'