Legal And Non Legal Response To The Port Arthur Massacre

The Port Arthur Massacre of 28th April 1996, was a killing spree by Martin Bryant at the historic Port Arthur, in eastern Tasmania, Australia. This event saw the implementation of law reform for gun control in both federal and state jurisdictions to remedy justice to future criminals. The media’s attention influenced change for future justice, establishment of political parties and charities led to support for victims of crime as well as ensuring the protecting of constitutional rights.

Society’s concerns about protection from violent crimes involving firearms have encouraged Canadian Parliament to pass tougher gun control legislation. The Federal Government responded by passing Bill C-68 that created the Firearms Act,

This essay investigates the Australian gun laws and whether they are effective or not. In particular, with a focus on what the current gun laws are and how they have or have not worked also if they need to be updated. The current gun laws were first introduced by John Howard in 1997 after the mass shooting in Port Arthur where 35 people were killed and a further 18 injured on the 28th of April, 1996 (Sharpe, 2016), the laws were them further improved in 2002, after the Monash University shooting, where a commerce student with mental impairments came in to class armed with 6 loaded handguns, 2 students died and an additional 5 were injured (ABC News, 2015). It has been almost 20 years since the introduction of the current gun laws, the essay

The response to the Gun laws created in 1996 were varied. Parties such as the Australian Shooters Party, and organisations such as the Alannah and Madeline Foundation were created after the Massacre at Port Arthur. These organisations, although very different, were both created due to that event at Port Arthur and the laws that followed. However the Australian Shooters Party can be seen as a controversial one, as their main aim is to redeem their rights to bear arms. However, this Party, and the people who oppose gun laws, still deserve to have their voice heard.

After each new shooting, Australia had contradicted it with a new law and or regulation in order to lessen the likeability of it happening again. The law was presented in 1996 after, “...the most serious of all shooting incidents occurred in Port Arthur, where a shooter used two semi-automatic weapons to kill 35 people.” (The Gun Debate) They later also restricted the ownership of especially dangerous weapons, the government instituted a national gun buyback program where they acquired 650,000 guns. The tightened gun control has, “been highly effective, citing declining gun death rates and the absence of gun-related mass killings in Australia since 1996.” (EFR) It is evident that gun reform has worked efficiently for these countries, so what’s the harm in trying

As the president of the NRA we understand the purpose of the National Rifles Association is to advocate for gun rights. Firearms are not the immediate cause of mass shotings. The root of the problem, however is if the common person did not have access to firearms the amount of people deceased would decrease.The paln we proposed includes strengthening gun laws such as limiting access to certain firearms. Also having a stronger background screening and application for every gun owner, even if the new owner has a gun is an implication that would benefit the cause of eliminating mass shootings, mainly in the United States.

On December 14, 2012 a mass shooting occurred in Newton, Connecticut at Sandy Hook Elementary School resulting in the deaths of twenty children and six adults. The gun used at the elementary school was an AR-15 which was registered to the assailant's mother. This same assault rifle was used in an Oregon mall shooting two days before, as well as in the Colorado movie theater shooting of July 2012 (Zornick 2013). Since this incident, politicians as well as businesses throughout the United States have responded by trying to limit the ability of American citizens to acquire firearms. Specifically the purpose of this research is to analyze what degree the Wal-Mart chain's selling of firearms will have on the American public.

Since Howard’s reforms have been put in place a mass shooting has still not occurred in Australia to this day. The fact that before the reforms were put in place in 1996, thirteen mass shootings had occurred since 1979, the gun control reforms made Australia a safer and more secure country (Donohue, 2015). The reforms that were put in place made sure that guns typically used in massacres were banned and around 700000 guns were confiscated and dismantled, which were given up by the population cooperatively. The new reforms also implemented that people needed a valid reason to now own a legal gun, which had to be approved by the police and then could finally, be purchased from a licensed arms dealer. Owning a gun for self-defence was and still

The author, Alan Berlow illustrates the significance of the National Firearms Act. He states the effectiveness of this law that was enforced in the twentieth century. For instance, authorizing the registration of individuals that own any type of gun. Berlow also demonstrates the members of the act and American people that have to follow the National Firearms Act rules in order to make gun purchases. Americans that sell guns often believe that the act does not have to be used. Berlow demonstrates that individuals who register their guns are likely to commit crimes. The article provides individuals that are associated with the National Firearms Act. Especially, Karl Frederick, who was elected the act president in the thirties. The article highlights

This common mistrust in the people caused Sydney, Australia to put in force radical laws to counteract their gun violence. These new laws stated that all civilians would have to turn in every one of their firearms or could face severe consequences. Unfortunately their government did not think these laws all of the way through. In Sydney legislation had dictated that a mandatory gun turn in be put into effect. At first this sounds like a great idea, if everybody turns in their guns there would be no gun violence. The only problem with this is that only the law abiding citizens turned in their firearms and the criminals kept theirs. This meant that all the bad guys had their guns and the government just supplied the bad guys with a bunch of victims that had no means of fighting

The National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934, ‘ All gun sales and gun manufactures were slapped with a $200 tax on each firearm, and all buyers were required to full out paperwork subject to treasury Dept. approval.’ The National Firearms Act was not created to make money, but to owner the crime rate and make it impossible for people to buy and sell automatic fire weapons. Today the government should create a different Act that will prevent certain guns from being sold to American and avoid certain citizens from owning

Australia immediately responded to the tragic mass shooting by implementing strict gun control and passing the National Firearms Agreement and Buyback Program (NFABP). The NFABP banned many types of semi-automatic weapons and required a permit for each weapon with a twenty-eight-day waiting period. Additionally, Australia implemented a national firearms registration system, and placed restrictions on gun sales and ammunition. Only licensed firearm dealers could sell firearms and the amount of ammunition that could be sold was limited. Further, one seeking to own a firearm must be of minimum age eighteen, successfully complete a gun-safety course, provide a legitimate reason for owning a firearm—self-defense does not meet the legitimate

In regards to Australian gun control laws in 1996, Senator David Leyonhjelm stated, “The criminals still have guns. There’s a very vigorous black market for guns, so it’s not made the slightest bit of difference” (Leyonhjelm par.2). He commented on this issue when the U.S. wanted to follow their similar way of gun control. Since school shootings and massive shootings have been more frequent, gun control has been a serious issue to be discussed. With the proposed restrictions, it would infringe on citizens right of self-defense and sense of safety, it will not prevent all shootings, and background checks on citizens purchasing guns may not show anything out of the ordinary.

1996 Port Arthur, Tasmania a gunman killed 35 individuals using semi-automatic weapons. The Australian government banned all semi-automatic rifles and all repeating shotguns. 700,000 guns out of 3,000,000 were confiscated. This is what the government called the buyback program. Would this work in the US? Did it work in Australia? Is it a good idea? What evidence is there to support it?

First, Gun control would reduce the rate of homicide and gun control would surely reduce crime. It will place a qualification for people who are eligible to have a gun. People with criminal history won’t be allowed to purchase a license gun. It will make tough for any criminal to buy a gun. That would lead to less people having guns and only the more responsible people in the world owning guns. This act will help police and other law enforcement to reduce crimes rates in community. In an article, “The Facts That Neither Side Wants to Admit about Gun Control”, by Justin King, acknowledges, “Australia enacted its gun ban