Obama Wants Australian Gun Laws: What Are Those?

Obama Wants Australian Gun Laws: What Are Those?

Obama is sure to stoke a push back from the NRA over his most recent comments. Obama claimed in an impassioned question and answer forum that “Australia got it right” and that American should be “ashamed.” According to Obama, the United States is the only country that would put up with such laws, and that Australia had gotten gun control laws right.

Play Quizzes 4

The frustrated comments come in the wake of yet another school shooting, this one in Oregon. The most recent attack claimed the life of “only” one victim, besides the shooter himself who committed suicide. A teacher also suffered a minor injury. This marked the 74th school shooting in the last two years.

This Long/ Short Equity Firm Sees A Time-Arbitrage Opportunity In This Pest Control Merger

PestYost Partners was up 0.8% for the first quarter, while the Yost Focused Long Funds lost 5% net. The firm's benchmark, the MSCI World Index, declined by 5.2%. The funds' returns outperformed their benchmark due to their tilt toward value, high exposures to energy and financials and a bias toward quality. In his first-quarter letter Read More

So what are these laws that the President so admires? And how will the NRA and other pro-gun rights groups view such laws?

Australia’s Laws Shaped By Violence

Once upon a time, Australia’s gun control laws were quite lax, similar to the United States. Given the country’s frontier status and similar colonial conditions as the United States, this should come as no surprise. It was a country on the edge of the British Empire and on the edge of the wilderness. Guns were necessary for hunting and defense.

From the mid 1980’s to mid 1990’s Australia suffered a string of shootings, some of the perpetuated by motorcycle gangs. Some states began to restrict gun rights by requiring registration and also limiting the sale of self loading rifles and other powerful weapons.

In 1996 a lone gunman, Martin Bryant carried out a stunning attack in Port Arthur, a popular tourist town. In the attack 35 people were killed and 23 others were injured. Mr. Bryant was not killed in the attack and was sentenced to over a 1,000 years in jail. Mr. Bryant had a long history with mental illness and violent behavior but was able to purchase guns without the required license.

The horrific attack quickly shifted the views of many Australians in regards to gun rights. Before the attack there was never enough support to push through any sweeping or powerful gun reform laws. In the aftermath of Port Aurthur, however, an aggressive campaign led by both the government and the media caused public sentiments to shift.

Australia’s gun laws would enrage the NRA

Following the Port Aurthur assault, the federal government in Australia quickly moved forward with sweeping gun reform laws. Some states tried to resist the Federal government’s push for gun reform, but they were eventually forced to submit to the government’s push for reform.

Now, to buy a Class A non semi automatic rim rifle, shotgun, air rifle, or even paintball gun, a person must demonstrate a “genuine reason” for the purchase. Since only a reason needs to be provided, purchasing such guns is not overly restricted. To buy a Class B non semi automatic center-fire rifles and muzzle loaded guns a genuine reason and genuine need must be presented. Purchasers must basically show that Class A gun is not sufficient.

Buying more advanced weapons is even more heavily restricted. For example, Class C semi automatic rifles, which include guns that hold 10 or fewer bullets, can only be owned by professional shooters, some clay target shooters, and government agents. A Class D rifles, which include standard semi automatic rifles and shot guns holding more than five rounds, can be owned only by government agencies and some professional shooters. Target shooters can own handguns, but regulations are very strict.

Pushing through such gun laws in the United States would probably be impossible. Even in Australia, the search and seizure of guns, most of which were registered, was no easy task. In the United States such attempts would likely be met by armed violence. Still, President Obama apparently wants to see such laws installed in the United States, though he has nowhere near enough political clout to push through such reforms.

Updated on

No posts to display


  1. The United Nations is not made up of people from around the world. It consists of governments from around the world, the enterprises meant to control the people of the world. Gun-control is an evil and draconian way to control these people as it reduces the common man to the status of herd animals. This is why governments propagate it. Gun-control does not make you safer (unless you are a criminal), it makes governments safer. Consider the proposed “assault weapons ban”.

    America in perspective:
    Total murders – 12,664
    Handguns – 6,220
    Knives – 1,694
    Hands and feet – 728
    Hammers or clubs – 496
    All rifles – 323 (that includes your “assault” + .50 rifles)
    Source: FBI 2011, Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

    Why would anyone suggest banning the semi-auto rifle when more people have been murdered with “hands and feet” then all types of rifles? Because it is an effective battle weapon and the one a modern day Minute Man would carry. This is what concerns them, not your safety.

    This is exactly why the Framers included the Second.

  2. This is what happened in Australia,
    “Homicide has decreased by nine percent since 1990 and armed robbery by one-third since 2001, but recorded assaults and sexual assaults have both increased steadily in the past 10 years by over 40 percent and 20 percent respectively.”
    They have reverted to a “might makes right” society. Notice rape has increased 20 percent? Violent assaults 40 percent? It is THE reason to carry. Protection of yourself and loved ones, the innocent and community. Violent assault, home invasions, strong arm robberies. Compare the rates of these crimes before and after. Now that the innocent has only kitchen utensils to defend with as long as the criminal is bigger, or in multiples, there is no more deterrent. Think that’s a good thing?
    England is similar, with a higher violent crime rate than America.

  3. If Obama wants “Down Under”-handed gun laws like Australia’s, then he can hardly say he respects and supports the Second Amendment… support he only spoke to get elected, methinks. His record on the issue before campaigning for President shows us something more akin to the truth.

Comments are closed.