Gun politics in Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gun politics
Australia
Brazil
Canada
Finland
Mexico
South Africa
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States


In Australia, conflict over gun politics is related to cultural tensions. Many Australians use firearms for hunting, the control of feral animals, and target shooting. Low levels of violent crime through much of the 20th century kept levels of Government concern about firearm ownership low. However, in the last two decades, following rising activism and a series of mass killings, both State and Federal Governments have enacted more restrictive firearms legislation.

The cultural debate about gun politics reflects a general shift from 'traditional' values toward modern urban 'cosmopolitan' values. Gun politics are a key issue in the so-called Culture wars in Australia as in other English-speaking countries.

Contents

[edit] Current firearm laws in Australia

The possession and use of firearms in Australia is governed by state laws. However, legislation was partly aligned by the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (see below). Anyone in Australia wishing to buy, own, or use a firearm is required to have a Firearms Licence and must be over the age of 18, although there are exceptions. In Queensland, unlicensed individuals may use firearms legally under the law if the proper forms are filled out beforehand. Minors can use, but not legally own firearms under a minors licence and/or with parental consent. Applicants for a firearms licence wishing to own a firearm must have a secure safe storage unit bolted to the wall or floor or have it weigh more than 150kg if it is used only for the storage of category A, B and C firearms.

For every firearm, a purchaser must obtain a Permit To Acquire. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. The law excludes self-defence as a reason for issuing a licence.

Firearms in Australia must each be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states (eg QLD and NSW) allow an owner to store or borrow another owner's firearm of the same category, while others do not (eg WA).

[edit] Firearms categories

Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories with different levels of control. The categories are:

  • Category B: centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after January 1, 1901 (For Category B and higher, the applicant must prove a "Genuine Need" for each firearm of that category.)
  • Category C: semi-automatic rimfire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. (Restricted: only some farmers and collectors can own working Category C firearms)
  • Category D: semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action/semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds (Category D Firearms are effectively banned: only those who have an occupational need of culling large animals may own a functional Category D weapon [1].)

(Participants in "approved" competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is not "approved" for the larger calibres, for unstated reasons. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols, and magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. (In most other countries low-powered air/soft air/BB handguns are completely free of licencing requirements.)

Antique firearms can in some states be legally bought, owned (and, in some states, used) without licences. In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.

Single-shot muzzleloading firearms manufactured before January 1, 1901 are considered antique firearms in all cases. Antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms require licenses in all states except Queensland and Victoria, where an individual may possess such a weapon without a license, so long as the weapon is registered.

[edit] History

[edit] History of gun usage in Australia

Australian history has from the first arrival of non-indigenous people been linked with the use of firearms. They have been used for protection of persons, for hunting and crop protection, in crime and fighting crime, and in many military engagements.

In early times, Australian colonists used firearms in conflict with aborigines and bushrangers; in duels, the last in 1854; in armed rebellions, such as the Castle Hill convict rebellion in 1804 and the 1854 Eureka rebellion. A strong volunteer military tradition was established, and Australians learned to value marksmanship both as a strategic military asset, and as a beneficial accomplishment for the ordinary citizen.

Arms control measures were instituted from the first. Arms were issued by the authorities to convicts (for meat hunting) and settlers (for hunting and protection) were stolen and misused, resulting in further control measures. In January 1796, David Collins wrote that 'several attempts had been made to ascertain the number of arms in the possession of individuals, as many were feared to be in the hands of those who committed depredations; the crown recalled between two and three hundred stands of arms, but not 50 stands were accounted for'.[1]

The Eureka Stockade in 1854 arose as a result of Government and police abuses against gold miners. American diggers were a significant part of the armed defence when a large force assaulted the miners stockade. Five soldiers and twenty-two miners were killed.

From the landing of the first fleet on January 26, 1788 there was conflict with aborigines over game, access to fenced land, and spearing of livestock which led ultimately to the murder of aborigines and retaliatory murders of settlers.

There were a significant number of massacres of aborigines and some of settlers and explorers. Details of numbers killed, and in some cases whether specific massacres actually happened, are contentious (see History Wars).

From the 1850s to the 1950s, Australians developed a strong volunteer tradition in preparing defence against possible invaders, and sent volunteer expeditionary forces to most British wars. From this arose an enthusiastic civil marksmanship movement, a form of military reserve supported under the Defence Act until as late as 1996. The movement exists to this day in the fullbore Rifle Clubs affiliated with the State and National Rifle Associations of Australia.[2] The highest trophy shows the significance of this sport to the nation: the Queen's Prize.

Game animals, in particular rabbits and kangaroos, provided an important food supply and source of income for rural Australians. From settlement through into the 1970s Australian and immigrant families developed new land farms, and hunting provided security of food supply in sometimes desperate economic circumstances.

[edit] Federation and The Rise of Regulation in the 20th Century

Gun laws are the responsibility of each Colony and since Federation in 1901, of each State. The Commonwealth has no constitutional authority in this area, though it has control of imports via Customs and Excise legislation; of military matters; and the external affairs power, which can be used to enforce internal control over matters agreed in external treaties.

Through the 1920s Australia, Canada and Great Britain were concerned about the rise of Communism, and imposed restrictions on handguns which have increased to very severe control over the succeeding decades. In New South Wales, handguns were effectively banned from the time of World War II but the 1956 Melbourne Olympic Games sparked a new interest in the sport of pistol shooting and laws were changed to allow the sport to develop.

Rifles and shotguns were considerably less restricted in Australia. State gun laws varied widely. In Western Australia and the Northern Territory restrictions were severe even for sporting rifles and shotguns, while in Queensland and Tasmania longarms could be bought with no restriction.

Fully-automatic arms have been banned in most Australian states since the 1930s, with the exception of Tasmania where they remained legal until 1996.

In the 1940s and 1950s, Cold War concerns about ex-military rifles falling into the hands of communist radicals led a number of states to place restrictions on the legal ownership of rifles of a military calibre while at the same time, allowed firearm owners who are members of rifle clubs and military rifle clubs to own ex-military rifles. The Australian state of New South Wales is a prime example of these laws that were introduced in Australia during the 1940s and 1950s. In the 1970s and 1980s these restrictions were relaxed and military style rifles (both bolt-action and semi-automatic) once again became widely available except in Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

By the 1980s, the relative popularity of shooting and hence the prevalence of firearms in society began to drop slightly, partly due to ever-increasing urbanisation but also to changing social attitudes.

[edit] 1984 - 1996 Multiple Shootings

From 1984 to 1996, a series of major crimes focused media attention on guns. The 1984 Milperra massacre was a major incident in an ongoing series of conflicts between various 'outlaw motorcycle gangs'. These gangs are a major component of organised crime in Australia and continue to arm themselves illegally.

Shooting massacres in Australia and other English-speaking countries occurred and in many cases were tightly clustered in time. Forensic psychiatrists attribute this to copycat behaviour,[3][4] which is in many cases triggered by sensational media treatment.[5][6] Mass murderers study media reports and imitate the actions and equipment that are sensationalised in them.[7]

In 1987, the Hoddle Street massacre and the Queen Street massacre took place in Melbourne. In response, several states required the registration of all guns, and restricted the availability of self-loading rifles and shotguns. The Strathfield massacre followed in New South Wales in 1991, where two were killed with a knife then five more with a firearm. Tasmania passed a law in 1991 for firearm purchasers to obtain a license, though enforcement was light. Firearm laws in Tasmania and Queensland remained relatively relaxed for longarms. In 1995, Tasmania had the second lowest rate of homicides per head of population.

[edit] The Port Arthur massacre and its consequences

The gun control debate was significantly changed by the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. Thirty five people were killed with twenty nine bullets when Martin Bryant opened fire on tourists with two military-style semi-automatic rifles: a CAR-15 (which had been handed in to the Victoria Police for destruction 3 years earlier[citation needed]) and an L1A1 SLR. These weapons were of a type that was legal to possess in Tasmania at the time, but Bryant did not possess a firearms license (meaning that he acquired the firearms illegally).

The event was traumatic for the Australian population, due to the manner in which the killings were carried out, the sheer number of dead, and the location, in a peaceful rural area of Tasmania, and building on the recent horror of children murdered at Dunblane.

Prime Minister John Howard, newly elected, took the opportunity to introduce radical and sweeping firearms legislation reform, which had already been drafted at a series of Police Minister's meetings starting from the report of the 1988 National Committee on Violence. Due to the structure of the Australian Constitution, it was not possible for Federal gun legislation to be introduced, thereby requiring each Australian State and Territory to be bought into line recognising Howard's need for tougher laws. Against a background of public outrage and largely insipid and ineffectual gun owners' organisations, sweeping laws were proposed for enactment in all states, which included mandatory gun licenses and registration of all firearms, and a near-complete ban on all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and all pump-action shotguns. Some farmers and professional cullers would remain eligible for ownership of certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns while the majority of licenced firearm owners (including international sports shooters) would be banned from legally acquiring and owning these firearms for the purpose of recreational target shooting and hunting.

This resulted in a continuing heated public debate, with on one side, a vocal minority who believed guns should be removed at any cost, and on the other, those who felt the proposed laws were likely to be ineffective and overly burdensome for the large number of legal firearm owners affected by the ban. Media and anti-gun organisation driven opinion polls taken at the time indicated support for additional restrictions.

A series of public meetings was set up to persuade farmers and sporting shooters, or at least give some appearance of respecting their views, on the proposed changes. While addressing the first meeting in Sale, Victoria in June 1996, Prime Minister Howard followed the advice of the Australian Federal Police Protective Service, and wore a bullet-resistant vest. Many shooters were outraged by this, arguing that it implied that they were dangerous people. After this incident, the rest of the meetings were cancelled.

The governments of two states, Tasmania and Queensland, objected to the changes, causing John Howard to threaten them with a constitutional referendum to transfer power over gun laws to the federal government. The Federal Government also threatened to cut off federal funding to the states and territories and retract its offer to help the states extinguish Native Title claims if they didn't support the proposed laws. The American gun rights group, the National Rifle Association, endeavoured to intervene in the issue by supporting gun advocates (and was roundly criticized by Australian Federal Attorney General Daryl Williams for doing so [2]). Faced with the force of strong national public opinion (which would have likely seen the mooted referendum pass), the two objecting states were forced to agree without any compromises or concessions to the new laws, which were duly enacted.

The Howard Government introduced a 1% levy on income tax for a period of one year to finance the billion dollar "buy back" purchase and destruction of all previously legally-held semi-automatic rifles including .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. Although only one state published statistics, it appears that only 5% of the destroyed guns were of the military style, the remainder being sporting and farmers' working firearms. The high cost ($A500 million) of this exercise again raised controversy given claims from groups such as the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia that the "buy back" had failed to improve public safety.

[edit] Monash University shootings

Main article: Monash University shooting

Laws remained static until 2002, when a pistol-owning international student killed two fellow students at Monash University in Victoria, prompting a re-examination of existing handgun laws, although some confusion remained over how the non-citizen had legally obtained a license and so many firearms in the short period alleged.

As in 1996, the federal government prompted state governments to review handgun laws, and, as a result, amended legislation was adopted in all states and territories. Key changes included a 10-round magazine capacity limit, a calibre limit of not more than .38 inches (9.5 mm), a firearm barrel length limit of not less than 120 mm (4.72 inches) for semi-automatic pistols and 100 mm (3.94 inches) for revolvers, and more strict sporting requirements for handgun purchases. Whilst handguns for sporting shooters are nominally restricted to .38 inches as a maximum calibre, it is possible to obtain an endorsement allowing calibres up to .45 inches (11.43 mm) to be used for Metallic Silhouette or Single Action Shooting matches. These new laws were opposed by sporting shooters groups, arguing that their members were already submitted to sufficiently rigorous controls and restrictions, were overwhelmingly law abiding, and that further restrictions would yield few improvements for law enforcement or public safety.

The new changes had only a small impact on gun ownership in Australia. Due to the universal registration of pistols and their owners, affected shooters were forced to comply, but were often able to change magazines and barrels to comply with the new legislation. The prices paid by the Government were generous, allowing owners to quickly replace their recently-illegal guns with similar, but compliant models, often with improved features over their old guns. One of the government policies was to compensate shooters for giving up the sport, causing some to doubt that criminals were the real target of the Government's actions. Approximately 25% of pistol shooters took this offer, and relinquished their licenses and their right to own pistols for sport. This compensated confiscation was criticised by sporting shooters groups - in the state of Victoria $A21 million was spent "buying back" 18,124 firearms, while in the same period Victorians imported 15,184 firearms to replace their confiscated target pistols.

[edit] Firearms and crime in Australia

Historically Australia has had relatively low levels of violent crime. Overall levels of homicide and suicide have remained relatively static for several decades, while the proportion of these crimes that involved firearms has consistently declined since the early 1980s. For example, between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm related deaths in Australia has declined 47%.[8] The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia argued that there is no evidence that major advances in gun control in 1987, 1996 and 2002 had any impact on this already established trend.[9][10] A similar interpretation of the statistics has been made by the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[11] who also notes that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales has increased in recent years. In 2006, the lack of any measurable effect from the 1996 firearms leglislation was confirmed using a statistical method (ARIMA), in a peer-reviewed article in the British Journal of Criminology by firearms advocates Dr Jeanine Baker (SSAA) and Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting).[12] This paper was criticised, notably by economist Andrew Leigh,[13] on statistical grounds, and arguing that no conclusion on the success of the buyback, one way or the other, could be drawn from the data; however, Leigh subsequently commented that he did not understand the trend analysis method used, undermining his own claims to authority on the subject [14]. Prominent Australian criminologist Don Weatherburn described the article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions.[15] Weatherburn noted the importance of policing illegal firearm possession and argued that it should not be necessarily concluded that relaxing restrictions would not affect the homicide rate.[16]

In the year 2002/2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered.[17] In 1997-1999, more than 80% of the handguns confiscated were never legally purchased or registered in Australia.[18] Knives are used up to 3 times as often as firearms in robberies.[19] The majority of firearm related deaths are committed with hunting rifles.[8]

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics [3], in 1985-2000, 78% of firearm deaths in Australia were suicides, yet only 5% of suicides involved firearms. The suicide rate has only fluctuated, not statistically changed, from 1993-2003.

The number of unregistered or uncontrolled firearms continues to increase, with an average of over 4,000 firearms stolen per year, primarily from residences (although one gun-dealer had approximately 600 firearms stolen sometime between 1999 and 2000).[20] Concern has been raised about the number of smuggled pistols reaching Australia, particularly in New South Wales.

[edit] Major players in gun politics in Australia

[edit] Howard Government

The Howard Government strongly favours gun control and under their influence, legislation has steadily become more restrictive. Despite his strong support for the USA on many other issues, Australian Prime Minister John Howard frequently refers to the USA to explain his opposition to civilian firearms ownership and use in Australia. He has often said in interviews and prepared speeches that he does not want Australia to go "down the American path".[21][22][23] In one interview on Sydney radio station 2GB he said "we will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns... ordinary citizens should not have weapons. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia".[24] In a television interview shortly before the tenth anniversary of the Port Arthur massacre, he reaffirmed his stance: "I did not want Australia to go down the American path. There are some things about America I admire and there are some things I don't. And one of the things I don't admire about America is their... slavish love of guns. They're evil".[25] During the same television interview, Prime Minister Howard also stated that he saw the outpouring of grief in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre as "an opportunity to grab the moment and think about a fundamental change to gun laws in this country". On the day before the anniversary, as media attention intensified, Howard publicly foreshadowed the possibility of further restrictions on legal handgun ownership.[26]

Gun control has been a source of friction between the National Party and the Liberal Party, who together form the coalition federal Government. The National Party has strong support from rural voters, many of whom are strongly opposed to the Howard government's moves towards gun control. The 1996 National Firearms Agreement has been attributed with causing the defeat of the National Party in the 1998 Queensland elections, leading to the rise of the One Nation Party.[27]

In 1997, the Prime Minister appointed the Australian Institute of Criminology the 'official umpire' of the effects of the gun buyback. Since then, a number of papers have been published reporting trends and statistics around legal gun ownership and gun crime, which they have found to be mostly related to illegally-held firearms.[18][20] No benefit-cost analysis of the "buyback" has been published.[28]

[edit] Gun control groups

Gun control groups in Australia are ephemeral, gaining membership in the aftermath of spree killings and shrinking to a few committed people shortly thereafter. While some argument is made to reduce the already small number of accidental deaths associated with shooting activities, the focus of these groups is predominantly aimed at reducing levels of gun ownership. Central to the argument for further gun control is the claim that contrary to official records, many violent firearm crimes are committed by licensed firearm owners, prompting a push for bans on the legal ownership of certain types, makes, and models of firearms as well as claims that banning certain types, makes, and models of firearms from legal ownership among licensed firearm owners would prevent and reduce the chances of another mass-shooting and make the community safer.

Gun control lobbying in Australia is conducted by a small number of individuals under the banner of two main groups: Melbourne based Gun Control Australia and the Sydney based National Coalition for Gun Control (NCGC). The most recent written material comes from Ms. Samantha Lee, until 2006 the chair and apparently sole member[29] of the NCGC. Lee's main written contribution to gun control debate is the report from her time as a Churchill fellow,[30] in which an argument was made that current handgun legislation is not sufficiently restrictive. In support of this argument, Lee cites statistics showing that handgun crime is on the rise, and that handguns of the types used in crime are available legally to suitably-licensed individuals. Lee has also argued that police officers who enjoy recreational shooting have a conflict of interest, and that licensed private firearm ownership per se presents a threat to women, and children in particular.[31]

Ms Lee made was joined by Mr Roland Browne as the co-chair of the NCGC, apparently in late 2005 or early 2006. In April 2006, around the tenth anniversary of the Port Arthur Massacre, Browne appeared in the media advocating further restrictions on the legal ownership of handguns.[32][33] Previous chairs of the NCGC include Rebecca Peters[34] and Tim Costello[35]

The NCGC has no website or public contact details and does not solicit public membership. Gun Control Australia maintains a website but is otherwise a relatively minor organisation headed by Mr John Crook. GCA has an office in Ross House in Flinders Lane in Melbourne.

[edit] Firearms advocacy groups

While shooting clubs have existed in Australia since the mid 1800s, activity in the political arena is generally only in response to the threat of increasing restrictions. Firearms advocacy is mainly concerned with protecting the viability of hunting and the shooting sports, rather than keeping firearms for self-defence.

In Australia, firearm advocacy organisations have never approached the strength of the National Rifle Association in the United States and political sympathisers are quite discreet in their support. While gun control only periodically gets public attention, each tightening of gun laws has received considerable majority support in polls, especially since the Port Arthur massacre. Support for gun control is strong in urban areas, among women and people with tertiary educated class values; opposition comes from rural areas, older people, people who hold libertarian views and people with traditional values.

Australian shooters typically feel that their sport is under permanent threat from increasingly restrictive legislation. John Howard in particular is frequently portrayed as having a vendetta against shooters and legal gun ownership in general (see above). It is often argued that licensed firearm owners were made scapegoats by politicians, the media, and the anti-gun movement for the acts of criminals, most often committed with illegal firearms. Firearms advocacy groups argue that there is no evidence that increasing restrictions have improved public safety, despite the high financial costs and regulatory barriers imposed on nearly one million shooters.

Firearms advocacy groups are active in debating gun control policy in the public arena. In response to Samantha Lee's Churchill Report (above), Dr. Jeanine Baker of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA) has pointed out that as well as containing numerous factual errors,[36] the report ignores Australian Institute of Criminology data indicating that the majority (85%) of firearms homicides are committed with illegally-held firearms.[37] This and other similar statistics are central to the position of many shooting organisations which argue that efforts to reduce firearms crime that focus upon restrictions on the lawful possession of firearms are misdirected.

The largest organisation of firearms owners is the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia. There are also a number of other groups which cater for different markets, such as Field and Game Australia, the National Rifle Association of Australia. Other organisations such as Target Rifle Victoria, Victorian Amateur Pistol Association and the Victorian Clay Target Association have produced medal winning performances at the Olympics in shotgun, and in the Commonwealth Games in rifle, pistol and shotgun.

The Combined Firearms Council of Victoria was created a month prior to the 2002 Victorian State Election after a double murder at Monash University which saw a clampdown on handguns, and ran advertisements in that election. It has been able to secure the establishment of the Firearms Consultative Committee in 2005 which oversaw several changes to firearms legislation that benefited handgun users and gun collectors.

It made voting recommendations at the 2002 Victorian State Election and the 2006 Victorian State Election. The landslide victory of the Australian Labor Party in 2002 made it difficult to provide a meaningful analysis of the impact of the shooters' vote. However the 2006 result has been analysed by an independent statistical analyst and it is believed that the result confirms the impact of the shooters' vote. The CFCV supported a number of specific candidates including four of the six ALP MPs elevated to the front bench after the election, guaranteeing some sympathetic ears in the future.

Another major political voice for New South Wales shooters is the Shooters Party. Its founder, John Tingle, retired in late 2006 after serving as an an elected member of the upper house of New South Wales parliament, the Legislative Council, since 1995.

A number of minor parties such as Liberal Democratic Party of Australia, Outdoor Recreation Party, One Nation Party and Country Alliance have had candidates who have supported firearm usage.

In addition, other activist groups such as the New South Wales based Coalition of Law Abiding Sporting Shooters (CLASS) and Women in Shooting and Hunting (WISH) engage in activism on behalf of firearms ownership. CLASS was formed to overcome a perceived limitation in the major organisations, which depend on government approval to be able to support licenses for their members.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Christopher Halls 1974, Guns In Australia, Paul Hamlyn Pty Ltd Dee Why NSW
  2. ^ http://www.nraa.com.au/
  3. ^ Mullen, Paul quoted in Hannon K 1997, “Copycats to Blame for Massacres Says Expert”, Courier Mail, 4/3/1997
  4. ^ Cantor, Mullen and Alpers, 2000 Mass homicide: the civil massacre. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 28:1:55-63.
  5. ^ Phillips, D. P. 1980. Airplane accidents, murder, and the mass media: Towards a theory of imitation and suggestion. Social Forces, 58, 1001-1024.
  6. ^ Cialdini, Robert 2001. Influence: Science and Practice 4th Ed. Allyn and Bacon, pp121-130.
  7. ^ Cramer, C 1993. Ethical problems of mass murder coverage in the mass media. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 9.
  8. ^ a b Mouzos, Jenny and Rushforth, Catherine (2003). Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 269: Firearm related deaths in Australia, 1991-2001. Australian Institute of Criminology. ISBN 0-642-53821-2; ISSN 0817-8542. 
  9. ^ Trouble in Paradise, SSAA presentation at Goroka Gun Summit, 2005
  10. ^ The impact of gun-control laws called into question, SSAA media release, November 2004
  11. ^ in Wainwright, Robert. Gun laws fall short in war on crime, Sydney Morning Herald, October 29 2005.
  12. ^ Baker, Jeanine; & McPhedran, Samara (2006-10-18). "Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?". British Journal of Criminology. DOI:10.1093/bjc/azl084. 
  13. ^ Andrew Leigh (2006-10-25). Shooting for the moon. Retrieved on November 21, 2006.
  14. ^ Andrew Leigh (2006-12-14). Did '96 Make a Difference. Retrieved on January 20, 2007.
  15. ^ Interview with Damien Carrick, The Law Report, ABC Radio National, 31 October 2006
  16. ^ Don Weatherburn. "Study No Excuse to shoot down the law", Sydney Morning Herald, John Fairfax Holdings, 2006-10-16. Retrieved on November 21, 2006.
  17. ^ Gun Prohibitionists Off Target, SSAA media release, April 2005
  18. ^ a b Mouzos, Jenny (2000). Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 151: The licensing and registration status of firearms used in homicide. Australian Institute of Criminology. ISBN 0-642-24162-7; ISSN 0817-8542. 
  19. ^ Ogilvie, Emily (2000). Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 159: Knives and armed robbery. Australian Institute of Criminology. ISBN 0-642-24175-9; ISSN 0817-8542. 
  20. ^ a b Mouzos, Jenny (2002). Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 230: Firearms theft in Australia. Australian Institute of Criminology. ISBN 0-642-24265-8; ISSN 0817-8542. 
  21. ^ Los Angeles Times Special Report Australia's Answer to Carnage: a Strict Law, Jeff Brazil and Steve Berry, August 27, 1997.
  22. ^ Radio 3AW John Howard radio interview, 20 March 1998.
  23. ^ John Howard's address to the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, Canberra, May 28, 2002.
  24. ^ Interview with Philip Clark, Radio 2GB, 17 April 2002
  25. ^ National Nine News John Howard interview, March 1, 2006.
  26. ^ Shanahan, Dennis. "PM urges renewed assault on handguns", The Australian, April 27, 2006.
  27. ^ Interview with Lisa Millar, ABC Radio, 24 August 2005
  28. ^ CLASS (2003). "Science in the Service of Politics". 
  29. ^ The NGC Does it Again!, in 25 March 2005 Newsletter from the Office of John Tingle MLC.
  30. ^ Lee, Samantha (2003). "Handguns: Laws, Violence and Crime in Australia". Churchill Fellowship Research Paper.
  31. ^ Liverani, Mary Rose (July 2005). "Maintaining a watching brief on gun control – Activist adds law studies to her arsenal". Journal of the Law Society of New South Wales. 
  32. ^ Coorey, Phillip. "Howard's sights set on reducing gun ownership", Sydney Morning Herald, April 27, 2006.
  33. ^ Interview with Barney Porter, ABC radio, 27 April 2006
  34. ^ Peters, Rebecca. "Nations disarm as laws tighten (opinon)", The Australian, April 28, 2006.
  35. ^ Hudson, Phillip. "Handgun curbs on the way", The Age, October 25, 2002.
  36. ^ Gun Prohibitionists Off Target, SSAA media release, April 2005
  37. ^ Churchill Report Briefing paper, SSAA web site

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld)

Weapons Regulation 1996 (Qld)

Weapons Categories Regulation 1997 (Qld)

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/u/n/Gun_politics_in_Australia_e402.html"