Thread by @AlogoAgogo

After every massacre, there’s inevitable talk about Australian gun laws post-1996 and how successful they’ve been at reducing gun violence, homicides and suicides. Also a lot of misinformation about ‘bans’ and such.

Here’s what actually happened and what it means today:

Australia (like the US) has a long, established history of gun ownership for farmers, sporting shooters and hunters. The 1996 Port Arthur massacre was the catalyst to create uniform legislation across all Australian States and Territories. Summarized:

So, to own a gun today you first need a State-issued license. Who can get one? Basically anyone who’s a ‘fit and proper’ person, completed basic training in safe handling, has a valid reason (shooting club, farmer etc) and has access to safe storage. Details here:

If you’ve beaten your spouse or kids (or even threatened to), or been convicted of a drug or violent crime, you won’t get a license. If the only reason you want a firearm is to pose with it on Instagram, bad luck.

Once you’ve got your license, what firearms can you own?

Pretty much any rimfire or centerfire =/< 7.62mm bolt-action rifle or double barrel shotgun can be legally owned. Semi-autos? Yes, if you’re a professional hunter (varmint/feral animals) or under very specific conditions.

What about handguns?

Yes, but only if you’re a member of a sporting gun club, ie a skilled shot. Any rifle or handgun has to be stored at home with the bolt removed or action broken down, in a locked steel cabinet.

But what about home/personal defense?

For all the reasons above, home invaders almost universally no longer have guns. You can legally deal with them with a cricket bat or something similar if you restrict the pasting you dish out to ‘reasonable’ force.

But criminals will get guns anyway, right?

Undoubtedly true. But an interesting thing has happened. The bad guys with guns, for the last 20 years, have been using them almost exclusively on one another. No one seriously worries about being shot in public any more. There’s no armed guards in schools.

So a hunter who can hit their prey with a bolt-action rifle or double barrel shotgun, you’re good to go! If you can’t with those firearms, frankly, you’re crap at it and should find yourself a new pastime.

Prefer punching holes in paper? Have at it with almost anything but an AR or AK! Blasting clays more your thing? Give ‘em both barrels! Aussies regularly win Olympic medals at trap and skeet.

So in summary, if you’re not a violent criminal, mentally unfit, or a reckless unsafe dickhead, there’s nothing stopping you from gun ownership and any professional, recreational or competitive uses thereof. If you’re just a poseur with a gun fetish, you need not apply.

Oh, almost forgot. Aussies still watch the exact same movies and play the same ‘violent’ video games as the US, yet no more massacres. It was both the guns AND the person holding it that was the cause. But no longer.

Another thing. After the legislation was introduced, no one had their guns taken away. The choice was to comply with the new licensing and ownership obligations, or sell your firearm to the back to federal government at reasonable value. The gun buyback.

So responsible gun owners complied, registered their firearms and made them safe.

But a large number said, ‘fuck it, do I really need this thing?’
‘Nope, may as well get back what I paid for it.’

One could argue they too were responsible gun owners.

FTR, I’m not taking a position on what should or shouldn’t happen in the US. This is merely a summary of what responsible gun ownership looks like elsewhere. That said, follow @iAmTheWarax for it was he who helped toss this pebble in the pond. Cheers

A final observation if I may. Lots of veterans and health care professionals seem to have engaged with this.
Almost as if they know a bit more than most about consequences. Probably wise to listen to them.

Also, bravo for keeping things civil in the mentions.