What Australia’s Reaction to a Mass Shooting Can Teach Us About Guns

Editor’s note: Laura Woods is a writer for Causes.com. She grew up in Australia. 

I have never seen a gun up close, nor would I know how to load one.

Before living in the U.S., I never had to worry about suspicious-looking backpacks on the train or had my heart skip a beat when hearing fireworks. The main risks in crowded places were pickpockets or crowd surges, and the term "AR-15" made me think of a chemical compound more than a best-selling firearm.

I will, most likely, not have a family tradition of hunting wild boar with my future kids, but I won’t have to revise gun lockdown drills with them, either. And I’m content with that trade-off.

As an outsider, I can speak for many of us when I say that American attitudes toward guns and gun rights are baffling. 

However, I recognize that Australia's experiences and attitudes towards guns do not directly apply to the U.S. There are significant cultural and political differences between the two nations. Australia lacks an equivalent to the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, our politics are less polarized, and our culture doesn’t subscribe to the notion that an absence of guns encroaches upon our freedom.

So, while I may not fully understand the American relationship to guns, I recognize that gun reform is a complex and divisive issue.

I’ve watched president after president lead the country through mass shootings, and yet still appear powerless in change. 

Still, I have to ask: what will it take?

In Australia, it took one mass shooting. In New Zealand, it took one. In the UK it took one.

As an Australian who feels safer living in a country where guns are banned, I wonder if Americans could learn lessons from Australia. Namely, that rewriting the history of gun laws can create a better future.

The Port Arthur Massacre

• The Port Arthur massacre was a mass shooting that occurred on April 28, 1996, at Port Arthur, a tourist town in Tasmania, Australia. The perpetrator, Martin Bryant, killed 35 people and injured 23 others, making it the deadliest massacre in modern Australian history.
• Less than a month after the massacre, the Australian government, led by then Prime Minister John Howard, made fundamental changes in Australia's gun laws.

The Australian Government’s response

• Following the Port Arthur massacre, the National Firearms Agreement was introduced. 
• John Howard, who had been Prime Minister less than 50 days, persuaded his coalition, and later state ministers, to agree to a nationwide reform of gun laws.
• The National Firearms Agreement scheme implemented strict licensing and registration procedures, including a 28-day waiting period for gun sales. It banned all fully automatic or semiautomatic weapons, except for those with valid reasons for owning them, which did not include self-defense.
• The gun buyback program was also introduced by the federal government. The program offered a financial incentive for Australians to surrender their firearms to the government, which then destroyed the weapons. This led to the surrender and destruction of around 650,000 firearms, cutting the number of gun-owning households in half.
• In 2013, John Howard wrote for the New York Times:

"I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. I also knew it wouldn’t be easy."

The impact

• Before Australia's 1996 gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in 18 years. After: more than a decade of not one fatal mass shooting. 
• Comparatively, as of March 28, the U.S. has experienced 130 mass shootings in 2023. 
• So, I have to wonder:

"Should the U.S. adopt Australia’s gun laws?"

—Laura Woods

The Australian law showed immediate results in gun-related deaths and injuries. For the first time since records began, there was a decrease in firearm deaths — a 44 percent drop. In addition, non-fatal firearm injuries decreased by around 50 percent. This dramatic drop was attributed to the ban on rapid