Trading Freedom for Fear: Australia’s Gun Control Record

Last week, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced plans to recall the federal parliament to debate sweeping new laws targeting guns and hate crimes. Central to the proposal is a new national gun buyback program, echoing Australia’s 1996–97 buyback that followed the Port Arthur massacre. Unlike the earlier effort, however, this new scheme would split the cost evenly between the federal government and Australia’s states and territories.

Almost immediately, the plan encountered resistance.

The Northern Territory’s Chief Minister, Lia Finocchiaro, rejected the idea that local taxpayers should fund the program, stating plainly that if the federal government wants a national buyback, it should pay for it. She also warned against a “one-size-fits-all” approach, emphasizing that rural and remote regions rely on firearms as practical tools for work and lawful recreation. The Northern Territory’s Attorney General echoed that concern, noting that any reform must reflect the realities of life outside Australia’s major cities.

The Bigger Question: Does Gun Control Deliver Safety?

Beyond funding disputes lies a more fundamental issue: do these gun control measures actually deliver greater public safety, or are they largely symbolic political gestures?

Australia’s previous buyback saw hundreds of thousands of firearms turned in and destroyed. Nearly three decades later, there is now enough data to evaluate whether that trade-off achieved its intended results.

Recent research by Dr. John Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center compared violent crime rates in Australia and the United States using national crime victimization surveys. While the datasets are not identical, the results are striking. Despite a significant rise in violent crime in the U.S. in recent years, Americans remain substantially safer from violent crime than Australians.

Measured per 1,000 people, Australia’s violent victimization rate stands at 39, compared to 23.3 in the United States—roughly 67 percent higher. Assault rates in Australia are about double those in the U.S., while rates of rape and sexual assault are roughly three times higher. Burglary and break-in rates also significantly exceed those in America. Robbery is the only category where the U.S. slightly surpasses Australia.

Mass Shootings: A Narrow Metric

Supporters of Australia’s gun laws often point to mass shootings as proof of success. And it is true that mass shooting incidents declined following the 1996–97 reforms. However, nearly thirty years later, Australia’s mass shooting death rate per capita is only about one-fifth lower than that of the United States.

When examined over the long term, the difference is far narrower than commonly claimed. Between 1997 and 2025, an American was only about 21 percent more likely to be killed in a mass shooting than an Australian. That gap, while meaningful, falls far short of the dramatic divergence one would expect if the buyback program were the decisive factor often portrayed.

More importantly, mass shootings account for a tiny fraction of violent crime. For everyday Australians, the greater risks come from assaults, burglaries, and break-ins—areas where Australia’s crime rates remain alarmingly high.

Liberty, Safety, and an Uncomfortable Reality

Crime is complex, and no single factor explains national differences. Still, researchers note an important contrast: Americans have far greater access to firearms for lawful self-defense, and U.S. laws are more supportive of defensive firearm use than Australia’s. Despite—or perhaps because of—this difference, Australians now face higher rates of many violent crimes.

Australia’s much-praised “world-leading gun safety laws” did not prevent its most recent mass shooting tragedy, nor have they delivered lower overall violent crime rates. Instead, they have left citizens more vulnerable in their daily lives.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, Australians gave up a significant measure of liberty in exchange for promised security—and decades later, many are left wondering whether they have either.

Read full article here.