“Public Shooting! 6 killed, 10 injured,” reads another headline.

Politicians and gun

control advocates protest for the United States to follow countries like Australia and Britain in
restricting the right to keep and bear arms. However, stringent gun control laws do not actually
cease firearm crimes. Even though Australia and Britain have extremely strict gun control laws,
their firearm crimes have not declined as expected. In fact, gun bans appear to have little to no
effect on firearm crimes, which shows that gun law advocates need to educate themselves on the
matter and understand that truth behind gun bans. But that’s not to say all gun control laws are
useless; the United States lacks strong mental health care as well as effective background checks
and therefore needs better laws in those areas.
Australia’s gun control laws are strict. They did not ban all firearms, but they force
applicants to go through specific steps in order to obtain guns, yet the gun crime rate did not drop
as desired. In Australia, firearm applicants must have a “genuine” reason for wanting to own a
firearm, in which self-defense is not included (Baker 1). As a gun owner since he was 12, Peter
(last name omitted to prevent firearm theft) discussed his view on self-defense and guns:

In Australia we don’t want guns to protect our homes. That idea’s ridiculous.
When I was growing up, I kept rifles under my bed. One day I was home sick and
I was on my way to the loo when I see this guy at the front door shining a
flashlight. I thought: I could get the rifle; and then I thought, I’ll just turn the
lights on and he’ll run away, which is just what he did. Why would you shoot
anybody? (Peter)

Peter has been a gun owner before the gun control laws were established, yet still he believes that
using guns as a way to defend oneself is a silly idea. After applicants provide a genuine reason,
they also need to take a safety course (Buchanan) as well as written tests (Baker 1). This measure
ensures that to-be owners understand how to handle a gun safely. Moreover, applicants must wait
28 days to get the desired license and another 28 days for a permit of only one firearm
(Buchanan). To obtain multiple firearms, applicants must apply for separate permits for each
individual weapon. This law allows buyers to “cool off” so they do not behave irrationally with
firearms, as it is more difficult to obtain them quickly. The law also restricts the amount of
ammunition that can be “purchased in a given period” and restricts gun owners from buying
ammunition that they are not licensed to have (Buchanan). The government also enacted
buyback programs which bought prohibited guns from citizens. The first buyback program in
1996 to 1997 resulted in over 600,000 firearms turned in (Baker 1). However, the gun control
laws did not deter gun crime, as there were “further shooting incidents, which led to additional
action by Australian federal and state governments” to create more gun control laws in 2002 as
well as another buyback in 2003 (Buchanan). This time, “about 700,000 handguns and more than
278,000 parts and accessories [were] surrendered” (Buchanan). These strict gun control laws and
the buyback programs appear to be effective since they completely got rid of thousands of illegal
firearms from Australia, making the country a safe environment. However, the statistics of gun
crime rate convey a different conclusion.
According to NHMP 2003 to 2004 annual report, the number of handgun homicides as a
percentage of firearm homicides has increased ever since 1996 to 1997, the years when the first
gun control laws were established (Mouzos 40). At around 2002 to 2003, the percentage is at its
the highest between 50% and 60%. Even though Australian laws made it difficult to obtain
handguns, crimes involving them still increased. When looking at the graph of total gun crimes,
there is certainly a decline after the gun control laws were established, which is what gun control
advocates present in their argument. However, research noted that firearm homicide rate is a
gradual decline instead of the expected drop that should have occurred due to the thousands of
firearms that were destroyed. Research concluded that the National Firearm Agreement “may
have been successful in reducing firearm suicides but ineffective for other… gun deaths,” and it
is unclear whether or not “the 1996 legislative reforms affected rates of firearm homicide and
unintentional firearm death” (Mouzos 2). Another study found that firearm suicide rate dropped
by 65% and firearm homicide rate declined by 59% from 1995 to 2006 (Buchanan). During that
same period, however, non-firearm suicide rate dropped by 27% while non-firearm homicide
declined by 59% (Buchanan). These statistics match up with Mouzo’s findings: gun control laws
may have contributed to the decline of firearm suicide rate but may not have contributed to the
decline of firearm homicide rate, because firearm and non-firearm homicide rates have both
decreased by the same percentage, which begs the question whether or not gun control laws
affected gun crimes.
Though research cannot prove Australia’s gun control laws to be effective, the statistics
show the laws are ineffective. In Australia, civilians can still obtain guns illegally. A study that
analyzed homicides between 1997 and 1999 found that “over 90% of firearms used to commit
homicide were not registered and the perpetrators [were] not licensed” (Baker 11). In the 2003 to
2004 NHMP report, the license and registration status of firearms used in homicide chart shows
that 89% of the offenders are unlicensed and 96% of the offenders are unregistered (Mouzos 42).
These figures show that although the gun control laws have been enforced for six or seven years,
criminals can still get their hands on firearms and kill people, and they get guns by stealing and
buying them illegally.
To illustrate the severity of gun theft, a lifetime gun owner, Peter, states that he is afraid
of people breaking into his home and stealing his firearms. He said, “I don’t want my full name
used in this article because if the biker gangs or somebody wanted a firearm, I don’t want to
wake up with a knife to my throat and someone saying ‘Take me to your safe.’” (Peter). This
quote demonstrates how gun thefts occur to gun owners. Thieves also steal from “dealers, the
military, and the police” (Baker 11). In a 2008 to 2009 report, Australian Institute of
Criminology stated that “around 1,500 firearms are stolen each year… with relatively few
firearms discovered” and “[b]etween 2004-5 and 2008-9, around 25% of firearm owners who
reported a theft of their firearms were found, or suspected, to be in breach of one or more firearm
laws” (Buchanan). This means that even though majority of gun owners follow the new laws,
thefts still occur, which shows that the laws do not successfully prevent people who should not
have guns from getting them. Also, smuggling is known “as a source for illicit firearms” (Baker
11). In New South Wales, a police superintendent said that “illegal imports… are a big challenge
for the police” (Buchanan). Despite their strict gun control laws, Australia still struggles with
illegal firearm sales, distribution, and ownership. This just goes to show how gun control
advocates have no idea what they are talking about when they campaign for America to adopt
Australia’s take on guns, because Australian gun control laws are not as effective as gun control
advocates believe or claim them to be.
In Britain, the gun control laws are also stringent, yet gun crimes increased. Like
Australia, applicants are required to have a good or genuine reason, self-defense specifically
excluded (Feikert-Ahalt). In addition, the police also check applicants’ medical history from their
doctor to see if there is “evidence of alcoholism, drug abuse, or signs of personality disorder”
(Feikert-Ahalt). Moreover, applicants need to provide a “referee” that is “a resident of Great
Britain, have known the applicant personally for at least two years, and a member of Parliament,
justice of peace, minister of region, doctor, lawyer, established civil servant, bank officer, or
person of similar standing” (Feikert-Ahalt). Once certified, gun owners can only purchase
firearms and ammunitions as stated on their permits, as Home Office explains, “The permit must
give details of the firearms and ammunition it covers and must show the date on which it
expires” (Home Office 142).
Even with the ban of private ownership of handguns in 1997, however, these laws have
not helped the decline of gun crimes the way gun control advocates think they have. In the two
years after the Dunblane Massacre in 1996, the event that prompted the banning of private
ownership of handguns, handgun crimes increased by 40% (Feikert-Ahalt). According to a chart
provided by Home Office, all “notifiable offenses recorded by the police in which firearms were
reported to have been used by offense group” in England and Wales in 1997 was 12,410
(Berman 11). Around the handgun ban from 1997 to 1998, the number was at 12,805, a small
increase since the ban was established but nevertheless an increase (Berman 11). Four years after
that, all offenses were recorded at 22,401 in 2001 to 2002 (Berman). Though I cannot find the
reason for this spike, it is an almost 50% increase in all offenses committed by firearms. The fact
it has increased even after strict gun control laws were established is a major problem. Moreover,
in 2010 to 2011, Home Office reports that “handguns were the most commonly used firearm,
with the weapon accounting for 44% of non-air weapon firearm offences recorded” (Berman 3).
This number is also shocking, because private ownership of handguns is banned in Britain. The
fact that handguns still play a significant role in gun crimes shows that Britain needs to rethink
their gun control laws, for the ban has not stopped criminals from carrying out acts of violence.
And while gun control advocates may argue that “9.3% of all homicides committed during
2010/11 in England and Wales involved the use of a firearm” is a positive outcome of the gun
control laws, because 9.3% is such a small number, they fail to understand that that percent is
“the highest proportion since 2001 [to] 2002” (Berman 2). Gun control advocates often
misinterpret the numbers either because they misunderstand the situation or they want to
convince others that stricter gun control laws and gun bans are what the United States needs
when, in reality, the gun bans in Britain are useless.
Even if the Britain data were to show a decrease in gun crimes, the statistics are not
comparable to U.S. statistics, because Britain counts homicides differently. In the United States,
arresting a murderer counts towards the homicide rate whereas Britain only counts cases in
which there were “final dispositions,” or convictions (Kopel). This means that if a murderer in
Britain was arrested but not charged, that case does not count as a homicide. Furthermore,
Britain has been known to tamper with their crime rates in order to draw tourists in. For instance,
“[i]f a burglar hit 15 or 20 flats, only one crime was added to the statistics” (Kopel). According
to a Scotland Yard senior officer, “[a]nother common practice is falsifying clear-up rates by
gaining false confessions from criminals already in prison” (Kopel). Because there are no laws in
Britain that provide “protection against abuse police interrogations,” Britain has “solved [crimes]
by bribing or coercing prisoners to confess to crimes they never committed” (Kopel). Out of
greed, Britain cheats the system in order to make the country appear safer than it is for tourists to
visit. And out of laziness, British police “avoids the extra paperwork” by recording more serious
crimes as minor ones, e.g. “burglary as vandalism,” which led to the “Inspectorate of
Constabulary [charging] 43 police departments with systemic under-classification of crime”
(Kopel). The statistics of crime in Britain are questionable due to the police and government
incompetency as well as false reporting and greed, which is why gun control advocates should be
weary of using their data to prove that the United States needs to follow Britain’s gun control
laws in order to decrease gun crimes.
Similar to Australia, British gun bans do not prevent unlicensed and unregistered
civilians from obtaining firearms illegally. In 2002, a member of the Parliament stated that it is
easier to buy an illicit firearm from “some inner-city areas… than it is to find a taxi in the rain”
(Feikert-Ahalt). Moreover, according to a news article in 2004, “illegal handguns can be
purchased for [approximately $70 to $155]” (Feikert-Ahalt). As it is in Australia, unregistered
and unlicensed civilians can still get their hands on firearms if they really want to. This
demonstrates how the strict gun control laws do not keep guns out of the hands of people who
should not have them, which means Britain also needs to revise their gun control laws.
Instead of trying to solve mass shootings with stricter gun control laws, the United States
need to focus on mental health and providing better care to people with mental illness. There are
countless mass shootings of which the gunmen have some form of mental disability. For
example, on October 21, 2002, a gunman killed two people and injured five in Melbourne with
handguns he legally owned (Buchanan). He was "a member of the Sporting Shooters Association
of Australia," which means he was approved to be able to safely handle handguns (Buchanan).
Yet, he was found not guilty because of "mental impairment and [was] sentenced... 25 years in a
psychiatric hospital" (Buchanan). In Britain, Robert Sartin had schizophrenia (Scott), Michael
Ryan had suspected mental illness (Crime and Investigation), and Thomas Hamilton had
"schizotypal personality disorder" (Langman 152). In Australia, gunman Martin Bryant was
"intellectually handicapped and personality disordered" and could have had "a schizophrenic
illness" or was "paranoid schizophrenic" (Mullen). Meanwhile, in the United States, many news
sources say that Aaron Alexis had untreated mental illness while psychologists found that Adam
Lanza "clearly showed the unusual behaviors and mood-regulation difficulties that [were]
characteristic of schizophrenia" (Turndorf). And there are many more cases of U.S. mass
shootings of which the gunmen have or are suspected of mental illness. These facts demonstrate
that because untreated mental illness is a common factor in mass shooting gunmen, the United
States as well as Australia and Britain need to improve their mental health care systems and
focus on caring for and treating the mentally ill and disabled instead of cutting funding for
mental healthcare.
For instance, Illinois passed a law that required health practitioners to "report potentially
dangerous patients" (Wolf 860). This law destroys doctor-patient confidentiality, which can turn
more people away from getting help and potentially lead to more occurrences of suicide and
violence. Thusly, Illinois needs to rethink their gun control laws to help the mentally ill instead
of turning them away. Another factor that turns the mentally disabled away is the negative
stigma around mental health. Many who suffer from mental illness “report that the way in which
other people judge them is one of their greatest barriers to a complete and satisfying life" (Wolf
866). Due to the fear of judgment, people do not want to admit that they have a mental illness
nor do they want to get help. Futhermore, media coverage stigmatizes mental illness. With
images of James Holmes’ orange hair, Jared Loughner’s mugshot, and Seung-Hui Cho holding a
gun to his head, the public sphere tells society to stay away from people with mental illnesses
because they are insane and frightening, which could cause more people to remain silent about
their mental illness for fear of being equated to a mass murderer (Wolf 866-7).
For those reasons, societies should focus on mental health care and provide training and
education to the society and especially professionals instead of cutting "approximately $4.35
billion from their mental health care budgets" (Wolf 854). With training and education, the
society will be more aware of signs of mental illness and be able to stop tragedies before they
occur. Also, professionals can better diagnose patients with mental illness. For instance, Aaron
Alexis has never been convicted of a crime nor has he been committed to a psychiatric hospital
(Wolf 863). Yet, he displayed signs of mental illness for many years prior to the shooting (Wolf
870). He is an "example of an individual with a mental illness who was living in the community
but not receiving adequate community-based mental health services" (Wolf 870). If the society
understood what signs to look for, the Navy Yard shooting could have been prevented. In
another instance, "the mental health professionals who examined [Adam] Lanza said he was not
a risk to himself or to others" (Wolf 863). Perhaps if the professionals had better training, they
could have diagnosed him with serious mental health issues and gotten him the necessary
treatment and prevented 27 deaths in Newtown, Connecticut. Therapist Dr. Turndorf stated that
“psychiatrists and other mental clinicians need to receive further training and education on this
topic so kids like Adam [Lanza] don’t fall through the cracks” (Turndorf).
The United States, as well as Britain and Australia, also need to work on improving their
gun control laws. In order to have more effective gun control laws, these countries need
lawmakers who actually understand how guns work and the effects of gun control on gun crimes,
because gun control laws fail as a result of useless laws. For instance, the U.S. Government
established a ten-year assault weapons ban in 1994. This ban “was intended… to reduce gunshot
victimizations by limiting the national stock of semi-automatic firearms with largo ammunition
capacities and other features conclusive to criminal uses” (Koper 157). The 1994 law prohibited
“the manufacture, transfer, possession of certain semi-automatic firearms designated as assault
weapons” (Koper 159). While that sounds useful, it did not ban all semi-automatics; it banned
only 18 models, even though there were “118 model and caliber variations that met the AW
criteria established by the ban” (Koper 159). Since the law did not ban all assault weapons,
especially those that met the definition of assault weapons as stated by the law, gun owners and
manufacturers could easily alter banned firearms into legal ones, which shows how useless the
legislation is. Furthermore, assault weapons and large-magazine capacities that were
manufactured before the ban “were grandfathered and thus legal to own and transfer” (Koper
160). Both loopholes mean that the ban was not a complete ban, because illegal firearms can be
easily changed into legal ones and pre-ban made guns and accessories of the illicit type were still
allowed.
The worst of all was that the law did not prohibit guns that were most or more frequently
used in crimes. Before the ban, assault weapons “typically account for up to 8% of guns used in
crime,” and the law banned firearms that “accounted for between 1% to 6% of guns used in
crime” (Koper 162). Because the law banned an insignificant type of firearm used in crime, it is
illogical to expect that gun crime rate will decrease much after the ban began. The 1994
legislation was poorly written and not well-thought-out. And because the law was useless, the
effects were unfruitful. The percent of violent gun crimes which resulted in death “(based on gun
homicides, gun assaults, and gun robberies reported to the Uniform Crime Reports) was the same
for the period 2001-2002 as it was for the immediate pre-ban period 1992-1993” (Koper 165).
This demonstrates how this law had no impact on the rate of gun crimes, which is not surprising,
considering the legislation did not ban every assault weapon, and therefore the United States
needs better lawmakers who actually understand the gun situation.
Strict gun control laws in Britain and Australia were ineffective in deterring crime as well
as keeping firearms away from people who should not own them. Therefore, the United States
should not follow suit; instead, they need to focus on improving mental health care, especially
when most mass shooters had some type of mental illness or disability, and on finding better
educated lawmakers to write more effective gun control laws into effect.

Works Cited
Baker, Jeanine and Samara McPhedran. “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian
Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” British Journal of Criminology
(2006): 1-15. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.
Berman, Gavin. “Firearm crime statistics.” Home Office. Home Office, 2012. Web. 27 Feb.
2016.
Buchanan, Kelly. “Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Australia.” Library of Congress.
Library of Congress, 2013 Feb. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.
Crime and Investigation. "Michael Ryan and the Hungerford Massacre." Crime + Investigation.
Crime + Investigation, n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.
Feikert-Ahalt, Clare. “Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Great Britain.” Library of
Congress. Library of Congress, 2013 Feb. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.
Home Office. "Guide on Firearms Licensing Law." Home Office. Home Office, Apr. 2016. Web.
13 Apr. 2016.
Kopel, Dave, Paul Gallant, and Joanne D. Eisen. "Fear in Britain." Dave Kopel. Dave Kopel, 18
Jul. 2000. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.
Koper, Christopher S. “America’s Experience with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, 1994-
2004.” Webster, Daniel A., and Jon S. Vernick, eds. Reducing Gun Violence in America.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013. Print.
Laming, Bruce. “The 1996 Port Arthur Massacre: Implications For Current And Future
Cooperative Federalism.” Social Alternatives 26.3 (2007): 50-55. SocINDEX with Full
Text. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.
Langman, Peter. School Shooters: Understanding High School, College, and Adult Perpetrators.
Lanham, Roman & Littlefield Publishers, 2015. Print. 13 Apr. 2016.
Lott, John R. Jr. “Report to the Parliament of Australia on ‘The ability of law enforcement
authorities to eliminate gun-related violence in the community’.” Crime Prevention
Research Center. Crime Prevention Research Center, 15 Aug. 2014. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.
Mouzos, Jenny. “Homicide in Australia: 2003-2004 National Homicide Monitoring Program
(NHMP) Annual Report.” Australian Institute of Criminology. Research and Public
Policy Series No. 66. Australian Institute of Criminology, 2005. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.
Mullen, Paul E. "Psychiatric Report." Kildall.apana.org.au. Kildall.apana.org.au, n.d. Web. 13
Apr. 2016.
Peter. “What it's Like to Own Guns in a Country with Strict Gun Control.” Time. Time, 13 Jan.
2016. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.
Scott, Sarah. "Crimes that shocked Tyneside: Robert Sartin's Monkseaton rampage."
ChronicleLive. ChronicleLive, 25 Feb. 2013. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.
Turndorf, Jamie. "Was Adam Lanza an Undiagnosed Schizophrenic?" Psychology Today.
Psychology Today, 20 Dec. 2012. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.
Wolf, Carolyn Reinach, and Jamie A. Rosen. “Missing The Mark: Gun Control Is Not The Cure
For What Ails The U.S. Mental Health System.” Journal Of Criminal Law &
Criminology 104.4 (2015): 851-878. SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.