Banning guns the answer?

The Australian Port Arthur Resort was a horrendous scene on April 28, 1996. After eating at the café, Martin Bryant got up, opened his bag, and began shooting customers with his AR-15. After killing nearly 20 people within the café, Bryant got into his car and drove around, often stopping for the sole purpose of shooting civilians. Bryant murdered 35 people and injured eighteen before being apprehended by police. Currently, this event is considered the worst spree killing in history.

The legislative result of these murders was quick and bold. A ban on firearms was put into place by the Australian government. Former California Senator H.L. Richardson had the following to say: “They outlawed every semi-auto…They even struck down pump shotguns…all semi-auto hunting rifles were outlawed as well. They didn’t miss a one.” This ban made it against the law for citizens to be in possession of these firearms. In order to recover its citizen’s guns, the Australian government spent 500 million dollars. A total of 640,000 guns were returned to the government’s possession (Faria).

Initially, banning guns may seem like a great idea. The fewer guns there are, the less gun crimes there will be. This was certainly the view of the Australian government. The results of the Australian firearm ban showed otherwise. In the 25 years before the ban, firearm homicide and armed robbery had been on a consistent, steady decrease. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, within a year of the ban there had been a 44 percent increase in armed robbery. Within two years of the ban, armed robbery rose by 73 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; and manslaughter by 29 percent (Faria). Banning guns did not work for Australia.

These same ideas have been implemented here in our own country as well. In an attempt to make Washington, D.C. a safer place, a strict gun ban was put into place in 1976. Between the time of the ban and 1991, Washington’s homicide rate increased by 200%. While the rest of the country did not have a weapons ban, the national homicide rate rose only 12% over the same time span (“Gun”).

A study done by the National Academy of Sciences confirmed the statistics from Australia and Washington. This 2004 study showed no correlation between gun ownership and murder rates. Although the number of guns in this country has been increasing over the past few years, the number of murders continues to decrease. This is the main flaw with the system of simply banning guns. Just because gun ownership decreased, does not necessarily mean that the crime rate will drop. This happens for one main reason. When a ban on guns is enacted, the people who turn in the guns are law abiding citizens. The criminals-the ones from whom we are trying to keep guns – keep their guns. “An ordinance that seeks to reduce the murder rate by disarming those owners who are not criminals makes about as much sense as fighting alcoholism by prohibiting beer sales to Mormons. They are not the problem, and the people who are the problem will be serenely unaffected” (Chapman). This simply creates a society where all law abiding citizens are unarmed and the criminals still have their guns. If anything, banning guns just makes the problem worse. Crime rates actually increase because criminals know that their victims are definitely unarmed. This makes crimes like rape and armed robbery more prevalent because criminals know that they can commit these crimes without fear of armed defense from the victim.