It’s interesting to read former Prime Minister John Howard’s retelling of how he outlawed assault weapons in Australia. They also have a federal system with strong states’ rights. So, all he could initially do is ban the importation of assault weapons. He had to convince all the states to enact a uniform ban. He was ultimately successful only because the urban population (60%) outnumbers the rural population in his country, and he could plausibly threaten to amend the Constitution if he didn’t get his way. He also didn’t have to contend with the 2nd Amendment or any organization as powerful as the NRA.
On the other hand, he led a coalition heavily-dependent on rural voters, and his decision upended political loyalties and gave rise to new parties.
I’m not sure what we can learn from his experience, but if the following is correct, we ought to investigate:
In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Journal of Law and Economics found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.
Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control.
I could go for 17 years with no massacres.
