Port Arthur scaffold essay

Evaluate the effectiveness of the Australian legal system in dealing with the problem of gun-related deaths

The issue with gun-related deaths was controversial in Australia prior to 1996 and the notorious mass shooting that affected gun laws and Australia as a whole at a small town in Tasmania,Port Arthur which resulted in a mentally ill gunman- Martin Bryant mass murdering 35 people using pump action shotguns and rifles. Before 1996 there were reported mass shootings and attempts at inflicting gun reform in Australia due to in 1980, four million individuals would privately own guns and around 700 gun deaths would occur per year. Around 1987, the number of massacres increased causing 32 deaths- which did influence the Victorian government to strengthen their gun legislation, however this still did not have any further impact on gun reform until the Port Arthur Massacre, which completely changed Australian gun reform for the better.

The National Firearms agreement states that the agreement affirms that firearms possession and the use of firearms is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety, and that public safety is improved by the safe and responsible possession of carriage, use, registration, storage and transfer of firearms. The act reinforces the ability to stay safe and permit the use of guns to ensure that the safety of Australian citizens aren’t at a threat. A way that the National Firearms agreement ensures that all Australians aren’t at threat from gun use is introducing gun buyback schemes. Gun buyback schemes consist of a 28- day cooling off period of buying guns, where all guns that an individual purchases has to be registered, stored securely and specifically semi-auto firearms must be controlled. Gun buybacks were introduced after the Port Arthur massacre and at first were highly effective with a reduction of annual gun deaths from 2.9 per 100,000 in 1996 to 0.9 per 100,000 in 2016. Although this solution does appear to be highly effective, it is statistically proven from Professor Alpers that after the law was established 80% of gun deaths are related to suicide. Furthermore, this form of controlling gun reform can be highly effective, however this law may not be able to restrict all individuals of the public who may resort to more than just a firearm, illegally purchasing firearms and acts of suicide.  

The existing law reflects the values of Australian society because of how different the Australian law controls are due to gun laws in juxtaposition to American law reform. When referring to the comparison of Australia and America gun laws, there is a major divide. For example, in Australia after the events of Port Arthur 1996 there was a 50-60% decrease in gun use, the firearm homicide rate also fell by 65%, the suicide rates also dropped by 65% and little to no further massacres have occurred since 1996 in comparison to America where there is 18,000 children alone from the population being killed from 2016 and the only forms of justification for these high amount of deaths is the excuse of Amercians needing to rely on gun use for “safety and protection” and the only reason these mass murders keep occurring is because it is the the people who are the “problem” and not the actual issue of still having the ability to obtain a gun. Furthermore, according to the ‘Four Corner- Guns in the USA documentary, this documentary also relates to the juxtaposition of gun use in America and Australia due to informing the audience that even as little of the age of 5 years old, a child can obtain and be taught how to use a firearm by practising shooting a rifle outside aiming for targets, because it is considered a “safety measure” or “self-defence”  for the child, however statistically proven 9 children are killed everyday due to “accidentally” shooting the gun at themselves.Therefore, America could use following Australia’s logical advice and there could be the same outcome as Australia’s high statistics to create a safer country and apply to ideas of law- which is to ensure the public safety is never compromised.

Conversely, Pauline Hanson and the Sports Shooters’ Association of Australia are two examples of individuals and lobby groups campaigning for a change in current laws to do with gun control because Pauline Hanson suggests that Port Arthur was just a calculated hoax to convince government to change gun legislation rapidly and claims that she has “read a book about Port Arthur and there is a lot of questions, mysteries and gaps involving the case”-which according to Hanson is another reason for believing that the Port Arthur case is a hoax. In contrast to Hanson, the Port Arthur case is not a hoax due to the fact that there is solid evidence and footage of Martin Bryant- the perpetrator of events at Port Arthur committing the crime of randomly shooting at once at a group of people outside Broad arrow cafe. Therefore, Hanson is just looking for attention and press with the media but also wanting to benefit from the National Rifle Association and gaining millions of dollars to her and her party. The Sports Shooters’ Association of Australia is also a prime example of an association trying to catch the media’s attention and seek mass amounts of money. The SSAA is an organisation that aims to protect and secure firearms illegally in the name of maintaining the ‘sport’ of using guns, so this organisation is campaigning to gun control and trying to loosen the gun reform because the organisation believes that guns are used for sporting purposes and not the actuality of death. In addition, both Hanson and the SSAA were both after two common themes being money and a role in the media, so the media and its importance to the topic of gun control could have a major effect if the laws should or shouldn’t change, although from previous data it is clear that the laws shouldn’t loosen. However, plenty of media attention can have a strong influence on public opinion.

Changing the gun control laws wouldn’t achieve all areas of justice due to the clear ramifications that if the gun laws were to loosen therefore it would just lead to the same ideas of gun deaths, suicide rates and homicide rates all being increased and losing all high progress of the 50-60% decline of all gun use in Australia. But also, equally important there is the potential risk of Australia to be compared to America and their gun control and then gain that negative representation of serving justice and protection to all citizens of Australia. The only individuals and groups on who would benefit if gun control were to decrease are lobby groups, like the SSAA, SIFA and individuals like Pauline Hanson due to profiting of the issue of guns and displaying careless acts towards Australia society, therefore putting Australian society and the country as a whole at major risk of future events like massacres and attacks- which would result in more major tragedies like Port Arthur. To conclude, the effectiveness of the Australian legal system dealing with gun control is incredibly high and accords to the rule of retaining a safe country and these laws that protect Australian society should not be loosened.