Why Australia's famed gun control laws probably wouldn't reduce shooting deaths in America

October 4, 2018 by Karen Kaplan, Los Angeles Times
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

On a Sunday in the Tasmanian town of Port Arthur, a lone gunman shot an elderly couple at the inn they owned, 22 diners lunching at a nearby tourist spot, two tour bus drivers and several of their passengers, four occupants of a BMW, and two customers at a gas station.

By the time the bullets stopped flying on April 28, 1996, 35 people were dead and 23 more were wounded. It was the worst mass shooting Australia had ever seen.

In a matter of months, Australia rolled out the National Firearms Agreement, which banned the possession of automatic and semiautomatic firearms in all but "exceptional circumstances." About 640,000 guns were surrendered through a gun buyback program and 60,000 more were turned in to authorities for free in 1996 and 1997.

Australia has not seen a shooting like the Port Arthur massacre since, and the National Firearms Agreement is widely credited for this success. Gun control advocates in the United States—including former President Barack Obama—have spoken admiringly of the law and suggest it should be a model for reducing here.

That wouldn't do any good, according to the authors of a new study.

Mass shootings get the most attention, but they account for a tiny fraction of total gun deaths in the U.S., data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show. Among the nation's 36,252 firearms-related fatalities in 2015, 61 percent were suicides and most of the rest were ordinary homicides.

Neither of those kinds of deaths actually fell in Australia as a result of the National Firearms Agreement, researchers reported last week in the American Journal of Public Health.

"Many claims have been made about the NFA's far-reaching effects and its potential benefits if implemented in the United States," wrote Stuart Gilmour, a statistician at St. Luke's International University in Tokyo, and his coauthors from the University of Tokyo. "However, more detailed analysis of the law shows that it likely had a negligible effect on firearm suicides and homicides in Australia and may not have as large an effect in the United States as some gun control advocates expect."

Previous studies have said otherwise. A 2010 report in the American Law and Economics Review concluded that "the buyback led to a drop in the firearm rates of almost 80 percent" and had a similar effect on gun-related homicides. But that study ignored the fact that gun deaths were already falling when the program went into effect.

A 2016 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association acknowledged that a decline in gun-related suicides and homicides was indeed underway but said these mortality rates dropped more sharply in the aftermath of the NFA. However, the JAMA study failed to consider deaths that had nothing to do with guns. That means they might have given the gun control law credit for something that would have happened anyway.

Gilmour and his coauthors attempted to solve these problems by using a statistical method known as "difference-in-difference." This approach turns real-life events into scientific experiments in which one group is subjected to an intervention and another group serves as a control.

In this case, the intervention was the National Firearms Agreement. It could have affected Australians who were inclined to use a gun to commit a suicide or homicide. But Gilmour's team assumed it would have no effect on suicides and homicides that did not involve a gun. This was their control group.

Their difference-in-difference analysis revealed that although the rate of gun-related suicides fell steadily after the NFA went into effect in 1997, that decline was part of a larger trend that began in the late 1980s—and wasn't altered by the new law.

Likewise, homicides in Australia were already dropping when the National Firearms Agreement went into effect. The rate of gun-related homicides fell in the wake of the NFA, but the law had no effect "over and above a broad decline" in homicides involving all kinds of weapons, the study authors wrote.

To test the strength of their results, the researchers repeated their analysis using 1998 (not 1997) as the first year of the NFA era. They also tried using earlier start dates for their pre-NFA period, in case their initial choice happened to skew the results. The findings were "mostly unaffected" by these changes.

It's not that the National Firearms Agreement was a bad idea. It's that other things going on in Australia must have made a bigger difference—one that swamped any help the NFA might have offered.

The researchers can't say for sure what those other things were, but they have some ideas. They noted that Australia implemented a nationwide youth suicide prevention program in 1995 and one for adults in 2001. Either or both programs could have helped reduce suicides, including suicides carried out with a gun.

In addition, the Australian Institute of Criminology developed gun control policies that were adopted in 1991—five years before the NFA.

"It is likely that these more comprehensive and detailed 1991 changes played a greater role in reducing firearms-related suicide and than did the NFA, which was implemented solely for the purpose of eliminating mass shootings," Gilmour and his colleagues wrote.

If that is indeed the case, trying to pass an American version of the National Firearms Agreement could be counterproductive, they added.

"It is imperative that this political moment ... not be squandered on a law that will have limited impact," they wrote. "To achieve real, sustained reductions in the majority of causes of firearm-related mortality, the United States needs a broader, more comprehensive range of measures than those in the NFA."

Explore further: Study shows that gun purchase delays can reduce suicide rates

Related Stories

Study shows that gun purchase delays can reduce suicide rates

May 30, 2018
On average, 36 firearm-related homicides occur every day and an additional 60 individuals die from firearm-related suicides, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A study from the University of Alabama ...

Australia 20 years after gun reform—no mass shootings, declining firearm deaths

June 22, 2016
Since gun law reform and the Firearms Buyback program 20 years ago, Australia has seen an accelerating decline in intentional firearm deaths and an absence of fatal mass shootings, the Journal of the American Medical Association ...

In some countries, the odds of getting shot are 1 in a million. In the US, it's 100 times higher

September 5, 2018
Imagine that, in the course of a single year, a ubiquitous household item was implicated in the death of every man, woman and child in the city of Glendale, Ariz., America's 87th largest city with a population of 251,269. ...

Massive gun 'buyback' doubled fall in Australian gun deaths

December 14, 2006
The chances of gun death in Australia dropped twice as steeply after 700,000 guns were destroyed in a national firearm ‘buyback’ and amnesty, reveals a decade long study in Injury Prevention.

Higher rural suicide rates driven by use of guns

August 17, 2017
Suicide rates in rural areas of Maryland are 35-percent higher than in the state's urban settings, a disparity that can be attributed to the significantly greater use of firearms in rural settings, according to new research ...

Six countries in the Americas account for half of all firearm deaths

August 28, 2018
A new study reveals more than a quarter-million people died from firearm-related injuries in 2016, with half of those deaths occurring in only six countries in the Americas: Brazil, the United States, Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, ...

Recommended for you

Juul e-cigarettes pose addiction risk for young users, study finds

October 19, 2018
Teens and young adults who use Juul brand e-cigarettes are failing to recognize the product's addictive potential, despite using it more often than their peers who smoke conventional cigarettes, according to a new study by ...

Adding refined fiber to processed food could have negative health effects

October 19, 2018
Adding highly refined fiber to processed foods could have negative effects on human health, such as promoting liver cancer, according to a new study by researchers at Georgia State University and the University of Toledo.

Self-lubricating latex could boost condom use: study

October 17, 2018
A perpetually unctuous, self-lubricating latex developed by a team of scientists in Boston could boost the use of condoms, they reported Wednesday in the journal Royal Society Open Science.

How healthy will we be in 2040?

October 17, 2018
A new scientific study of forecasts and alternative scenarios for life expectancy and major causes of death in 2040 shows all countries are likely to experience at least a slight increase in lifespans. In contrast, one scenario ...

Study finds evidence of intergenerational transmission of trauma among ex-POWs from the Civil War

October 16, 2018
A trio of researchers affiliated with the National Bureau of Economic Research has found evidence that suggests men who were traumatized while POWs during the U.S. Civil War transmitted that trauma to their offspring—many ...

Father's nicotine use can cause cognitive problems in children and grandchildren

October 16, 2018
A father's exposure to nicotine may cause cognitive deficits in his children and even grandchildren, according to a study in mice publishing on October 16 in the open-access journal PLOS Biology by Pradeep Bhide of Florida ...

7 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

tblakely1357
3 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2018
Politicians are far more comfortable when the prols are disarmed.
LaPortaMA
not rated yet Oct 04, 2018
Typical crappy MedX title.
homicides in Australia were already dropping when the National Firearms Agreement went into effect. The rate of gun-related homicides fell in the wake of the NFA, but the law had no effect "over and above a broad decline" in homicides involving all kinds of weapons,
...trying to pass an American version of the National Firearms Agreement could be counterproductive, they added.

"It is imperative that this political moment ... not be squandered on a law that will have limited impact," they wrote.
RobertKarlStonjek
5 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2018
Should also consider that gun laws were already very different in Australia with hand gun licences almost impossible to get, hand guns effectively unavailable to the general public.

So the comparison with the USA is not particularly useful as the laws were already very different and restrictions applied. The restrictions on long rifles were lax at the time.

The vast majority of fire arm murders in the USA are with hand guns which was not a problem in Australia due to the rarity of the weapon, especially in those days. There was an average of around 4 hand gun murders per annum in Australia at the time of Port Arthur, scaled up to the USA population that would come to 60 for the USA whereas the actual number in the 1990s in the USA was more than 10,000 handgun murders per annum. The all cause murder rate in the USA is currently more than six times higher than in Australia (0.94 vs 5.35 per 100,00)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2018
At the very least it reduced the number of completely unrelated bystanders - that alone should be enough.

As for the fear that the "government will take away my home" or somesuch. that hasn't happened in Australia. Why would people in the US (particularly with the strong federal aspect of the US) even be worried about this?
Jay1212
not rated yet Oct 06, 2018
Cause of FOXNEWS & the Russia supported NRA
bl999
not rated yet Oct 07, 2018
Sounds like it'd be better to do nothing, and after all you'll need those well-armed militias in the upcoming race war.
RobertKarlStonjek
not rated yet Oct 18, 2018
The Australian Laws were specifically targeted at mass murder and spree killing. Such killings make up only a tiny fraction of the overall murder rate even in the USA, so even if the same laws were implemented in the USA and even if they were 100% successful the change in the overall murder rate or even shootings would barely be noticeable if at all, but there would be far fewer mass killings.

Mass and spree killings make up a few hundred of the 10,000 murders per annum in the USA but I suspect they make up a sizeable portion of the stranger killings where the murderer and the victim are totally unknown to each other.

Here is the reason why carrying handguns is a bad idea. When disputes escalate fists fly in Australian, in the USA we have this, at a first birthday in Texas:

https://www.apnew...744a97a9

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.