David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

According to popular legend, Hitler's master of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, said: 'A lie told once is still a lie. But a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.' The claim that there have been no mass shootings since the introduction of John Howard's 1996 gun laws has probably been repeated many more than a thousand times, which is perhaps why so many people believe it is the truth. But it was a lie when it was first told, and it's still a lie now. In the 20 years following 1996, there were 14 shootings in Australia involving multiple victims. Of these, 12 involved two or three fatalities, one involved four fatalities and one involved five fatalities. The death toll would have been higher but for some luck and life-saving medical attention. In the 20 years before 1996, there were also 12 shootings involving multiple victims, although there were more deaths in total.

According to America's FBI, a mass shooting is defined as 'four or more people shot and/or killed in a single event at the same general time and location, not including the shooter'. In 2014, there was a mass shooting in New South Wales involving the Hunt family in which there were four victims plus the shooter. This qualifies as a mass shooting under the FBI definition, and yet a couple of academics, Philip Alpers and Simon Chapman, who are in fact foundation members of the anti-gun lobby, recently wrote a paper in which they repeated the lie that there had been no mass shootings in Australia since 1996. Under their definition, a mass shooting requires at least six victims, including the shooter. They gained some publicity for themselves as a result of making this claim, but the simple fact is that they arbitrarily changed the definition of a mass shooting to suit their agenda.

Very few Australians will recognise the fabrication involved in this claim. Most of those claiming there have been no mass shootings since 1996 have never thought much about it. For them, it sounds sufficient to claim that massacres occurred before, but not after, the gun laws. They then draw the simple conclusion that the gun laws made the difference. It might be simplistic, but it sounds compelling. But it is false. There were just as many multiple-victim shootings in the 20 years after the introduction of the 1996 gun laws as there were in the 20 years before they were introduced.

But, really, is that all that matters? Is there something special about being murdered in a mass shooting, unlike being shot in some other way or even killed in some other way? Obviously not. A far better analysis of the impact of the 1996 gun laws would be to look at the overall level of murders attributable to firearms. When you look at that, what you find is that firearm deaths were declining in the 20 years before 1996 and they continued to fall after 1996 at precisely the same rate. Multiple statistical tests have confirmed that it is precisely the same rate. Furthermore, this occurred despite a substantial increase in licensed firearm ownership—many more guns, in other words. The simple fact is the gun laws in 1996 made no difference to the rate of decline—no difference at all.

This 'no massacres, no mass shootings' claim is also often accompanied by a comparison with the United States. There's no denying the US does have mass shootings. Australia doesn't—or not many, anyway—therefore, it must be the gun laws that explain it. Or so the argument goes. It's simple minded claptrap. It's so dumb that it's amazing anyone falls for it, and yet you hear it all the time. Once again, the facts are ignored. Notwithstanding the high-profile mass shootings that do occur from time to time in the United States, the rate of gun deaths in that country during the last three decades has declined quite fast—faster, indeed, than in Australia, albeit from a higher starting point. At the same time, over the same period, gun laws in America have been substantially relaxed. In fact, in 42 states, a person without a criminal record or violent history can now carry a gun for self-defence. In the other eight states, a gun can be carried in case of special need.

Of course, nobody bothers to compare us with countries such as New Zealand that continue to have gun laws resembling those that were found in Australia before 1996 but that, like us, continue to see falling gun deaths; or Switzerland, which has a far higher ratio of guns to people than Australia and yet its rate of gun violence is no greater than Australia's. Yet the assumption is made that, if we relaxed our gun laws to be more like those in New Zealand or Switzerland, we'd end up like America, not like New Zealand or Switzerland. It's an absurd assumption.

I'm all for debate about gun laws, but let's stick to incontrovertible facts, not those that become facts because they have been repeated many times.