OPINION
17 Aug 2015

The Smart Response To Gun Crime Is Not Mandatory Sentences

By Penny Wright
Keywords: 
gun laws
mandatory minimums
port arthur
senate legal and constitutional committee
penny wright
the greens

There's no tension in opposing gun violence and saying no to anti-smuggling laws being pushed by the Abbott government, argues Greens Senator Penny Wright.

Australia has a proud legacy of acting in a pragmatic and evidence-based manner around gun laws.

After the tragic Port Arthur massacre, John Howard’s significant gun laws helped prevent a repetition of the tragedy. Indeed, so effective are our sensible laws, they are held up as a model for the US to follow after recent mass shootings.

The furore around the importation and subsequent six-month suspension of the Turkish-made Adler lever action shotgun has been consistent with Australia’s commitment to strong, evidence-based gun regulations. It is crucial that the suspension is converted into a permanent ban.

While chairing the recent Senate Inquiry into illicit firearms, I heard harrowing stories from people whose lives have been destroyed by gun violence.

One woman who contacted my office spoke compellingly about being caught up at Port Arthur and seeing her daughter shot before her eyes. As well as the irremediable loss of her child, she has experienced long-term, debilitating injuries from just one bullet she copped in her shoulder, a bullet that had been aimed at her head.

The Australian Greens are absolutely committed to tackling gun violence in Australia.

It may seem paradoxical then that we are also steadfastly opposed to the Abbott Government’s recent push for mandatory five-year sentences for gun trafficking.

But, populist as it may be, merely introducing fixed penalties for trafficking is not the way to address gun crime in Australia. There is absolutely no evidence that mandatory minimum sentences reduce crime or make us safer. There is much evidence, however, that they can result in serious injustice and unintended consequences.

Mandatory sentencing takes away one of the most important responsibilities of a court – to consider the facts and decide the most effective and appropriate penalty, in the circumstances. We’ve already seen countless attempts by this government to strip the courts of their power to do their job, most evident in the recently proposed citizenship laws.

It is not only the Greens who are expressing concern about these proposed changes to penalties for gun trafficking.

The Australian Human Rights Commission, as well as many other legal groups, is alarmed at the government’s determination to remove the court’s power to impose a penalty that fits the crime.

Indeed, the Attorney-General’s own Department has confirmed that it is not aware of any cases where the current sentences for trafficking of firearms or firearm parts have been insufficient.

In this case, the government is trying to fix a system that they themselves have noted is not broken. What is really at play then?

Image: Flickr / iris

What we’re actually seeing here is a government that has lost its support and is trying to claw its way back through cheap populism and superficially attractive “quick fixes”. It is a damning indictment on the Abbott Government that they are willing to try to boost their support by eroding our fundamental human rights.

The inquiry into illicit firearms by the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Committee considered the 250,000 illicit firearms police estimate are on our streets.

During the course of the inquiry it became clear that many of those guns are actually stolen from legitimate sources or taken from the ‘grey market’, and this includes the gun used in the Sydney Siege.

The grey market comprises guns that were never handed in during the guns buyback in 1996 after the Port Arthur Massacre. So, although illegally imported firearms are a concern, and we need to do more to combat them, they are not the number one priority.

If the government is really serious about tackling gun trafficking there are rational approaches they can take, many of which were outlined in the Committee’s report.

Australia has a well-earned reputation as being a leader on gun regulation. This is because we have implemented sensible policy to give rights to those who need guns and restrict those who don’t.

Let’s not allow good policy to be eroded by cheap populism that promotes short-term political interest at a long-term cost to the national interest.

Log in or register to post comments

Discuss this article

To control your subscriptions to discussions you participate in go to your Account Settings preferences and click the Subscriptions tab.

Enter your comments here

xfretensis
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 07:56

Port Arthur was deadly because the perpetrator had access to high powered automatic weapons.  One of which had been handed in, in a gun amnesty in Victoria - it was then onsold, as had been other weapons, to states with laxer gun control laws. 

Perhaps tougher, uniform across the states gun control laws might have had an effect - dunno.

Speaking personally, I felt that John Howard leapt on the issue from the premise that the 'populace' had to be disarmed.  Disarming the populace has always been a feature of right-wing governments.  Protesters at the barricades is one thing - but armed protesters?  Never!

Weapons, large and small, are a symbol of potency of government.  The ability to project power sans diplomacy.  Bigger, better warships and militarised police forces. 

John Howard did not display any concern about criminals having weapons.  In fact, just last year the NSW Police Commissioner stated that there was now more guns and gun crime in NSW than ever before in it's history.  Mind you, he has been saying that for years with some exponential accuracy. 

Where to go with gun control?  As a student of history, right wing governments do everything they can to dimish the power of grass-roots opposition.  Look at West Papua, Northern Ireland, FARC in Colombia, ANC in South Africa, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. 

I don't have any answers on this subject, only questions.  But do I trust the right-wing agenda?  No.  One day, on our present destructive track, the environment may call us to arms.

 

Matt.P
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 18:52

The Greens and Ms Wright are mistaking correlation with causation. 

Australia did enact some of the worlds strictest firearms law post 1996 a brief out line of these laws is.

 

Strict licensing.
 

Background checks including criminal and mental health.
 

Safe storage requirements including safe storage inspections by police.
 

A  Category system for licensing and firearm.
 

A Long arms registry.
 

Limits on magazine capacity for category B and above firearms.
 

Moving all low (magazine) capacity semi automatic center fire rifles and shotguns to category C
 

Moving Pump action shotguns to category C

 

Moving all semi automatic rim-fire rifles to category C.
 

Heavily restricted category C firearms mainly to contract pest control.

 

The Greens and The Howard Government are adamant that these changes to firearms legislation in Australia both helped to prevent another Port Arthur tragedy and saved countless lives. We have but to look at two countries to see this does not appear to be the case. Two of our commonwealth neighbors in Canada and New Zealand, have far more relaxed firearms law yet they both share a distinct lack of mass shootings despite having a distinctly similar spate of mass shootings in the 1980's and early 1990's. Both countries also despite their more relaxed firearm policy share very similar downward trends in firearm homicide. 
 

 

Could it be that parts of our laws hit the mark and others were an over reach by a government caught up in the emotion of a tragedy? If we look at what firearm laws we have in common with new Zealand and Canada this becomes apparent. 
 

 

Strict licensing.

Background checks including criminal and mental health.

Safe storage requirements including safe storage inspections by police.

Limits on magazine capacity for category B and above firearms.
 

 

This is where the similarity ends. Its seems disingenuous to assume as the Greens do that more restrictions on legal firearm ownership will result in greater public safety outcomes, our legislation in relation to Canada and New Zealand's is testament to that. I might add that both Canada and New Zealand have in the past had long arms registries and both have repealed their registries on the grounds of not providing a cost effective public health benefit. With the Australian state run registries estimated to run at an annual cost of up to $92,000,000, surely we must ask, where this money could be spent to actually prevent violent crime in our society.
 

 

While the Greens are adamant that leakage from legally held firearms is the problem they mix legally held firearms with grey market firearms in an attempt to bolster this view. This is a misleading tactic to say the least. according to the ABS the percentage of legally owned firearms stolen is 0.02% of these very few of these are actually found to be used in criminal activity.
 

 

It would appear to me that for the Greens despite their claims to favor fact based firearm legislation. Their push for more restrictions is ideologically driven, relies on cherry picking of statistics and ignores the real world results that can be seen in Canada and New Zealand.

NSW Dude
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 21:56

People should read the findings of the Senate Enquiry into gun crime/management of gun crime in Australia. 

 

Look at the section "comments not helpful" or words to that effect. You will see the Greens are heavily chastised for spreading FALSE INFORMATION regarding law abiding gun owners in Australia. 

 

Thats right, the Senate Enquiry found that the Greens were intentionally spreading false information via the media. Lying, outright. 

 

They have little interest in gun crime, they have alot of interest in taking guns away from people who are not the problem. Why? I am not sure, however they have shown they are not interested in evidence based gun laws, but emotive bans on everything that shoots. 

 

The Adler ban has been lifted, through evaluation of evidence rather than emotive hype. In 12 months time, the Adler will be imported in its original configuration, for use by target shooters and hunters. The criminals have no interest in the gun, they already have semi automatic shotguns and AK47s, why would they want a 130 year old design when they have access to the best firepower money can buy. 

 

The Greens are opposed to mandatory sentences because they might actually reduce gun crime, then they would have no excuse to continue their tirade against law abiding gun owners....no reason or excuse to take their guns. And that doesn't suit their agenda....they want gun crime to continue so they can spread emotive hype and lies, so they can acheive their objective of taking guns from avergae citizens. Thats what they want. 

 

We could lock up gun traffickers for 15 years minimum, that would stop them doing what they are doing, hence reducing illegal arms dealing. But, as I said the Greens dont really want that. 

 

Why should we take technical advice about guns from people who know little about them? People who appear to be suffering from Hoplophobia. Sigmund Freud stated that a fear of weapons was a sign of retarded emotional and sexual maturity.......yet we continue to turn to these morons for advice.

 

Another poorly researched article that refuses to ask the most basic of questions. If the 1996 gun laws are so great, how did Man Monis obtain his gun to kill people? He could have shot them all, nothing was stopping him. How did this happen??? Oh thats right criminals are those people who dont obey laws......right??

 

 

NSW Dude
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 22:06

Look at page 139 of the Commitees Report available in the above article. MISINFORMATION NOT HELPFUL

 

This Misinformation comes from the Greens and is outright lying! Why are we still listening to people who WERE CAUGHT OUT IN THEIR OWN SENATE ENQUIRY as liars?!

 

They intentionally spread false information to bamboozle the average citizen into thinking gun license holders are the problem, they hide behind this facade of wanting to help, but in reality they are pushing their own prohibitionist agenda.

 

Fairness is not in their vocabulary, they want their way at all costs, just like a spoiled child who will lie all day long to get what he wants, the Greens will lie endlessly to continue their attack and discrimination on law abiding gun owners in this country.

 

You wonder why they oppose mandatory terms? As I said above, they dont want real gun crime to stop, they want to take guns away fro farmers, target shooters and collectors at all costs. They have no interest in crime.

 

The findings of the enquiry showed the illegal importation was a concern, yet the Greens in this above article say it is not the main concern!!!! For Gods sake, look at the unlimited supply of drugs that come into our coutry, guns come in via the same route! In the same smuggled packages and shipments! Why woudln't they?

LAFO
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - 00:10

Senator Wright is in denial, ignoring evidence from government agencies that she heard as Chair of the Senate Inquiry. There is no evidence to support the claim that lever action firearms are a problem. Many thousands are in the hands of law abiding firearms owners and have been for decades.
The Greens claim to be committed to tackling gun violence in Australia, and evidence based laws. The evidence does not support the claims made by Senator Wright who has a history of false claims in relation to firearm laws and statistics. Recreational shooters are a bogeyman for politicians to use as a political football, lawmakers devise increasingly complex regulations to tie us in knots, or drive us out of the shooting sports. Meanwhile criminals are let off lightly by courts for illegal use and possession of firearms

Pajamatime
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - 10:34

Allot of Australians are sick and tired of watching certain elements of government waste multi-millions of dollars if not billions of dollars on a witch hunt approach that does not even get close to reducing criminal organisations ability to import and manufacture illegal firearms for the black market. They are super crafty bunch and you would be surprised how good they are at getting them into australia. We as a people need to understand who the criminal is and where they are? The law abiding citizen should be the ally in all this not the enemy.

yet we are discriminated against, persecuted and punished more so then any sub category of human being all because we lawfully and legally own and use firearms? hoplophobes should not be allowed in government.

Megpie71
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - 13:52

Nice to have heard so much from the NSW Shooters and Fishers party. 

NSW Dude
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - 20:44

Kinda hard for Shooters Party to comment when no one goes to them for comment.....they cant know when every article comes out, even then the writers go to the Green morons first to get the most emotive garbage they can.

 

Logic can be boring, unsensationalist.....thats why they went to the Greens for this one mate.