National Firearms Agreement

The National Firearms Agreement (NFA), also sometimes called the National Agreement on Firearms, the National Firearms Agreement and Buyback Program, or the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms, was a firearm control law passed in Australia in 1996, in response to the Port Arthur massacre that killed 35 people. The law was passed by Australia's government only 12 days after the Port Arthur massacre.

Provisions

The law, which was originally enforced by then-Prime Minister of Australia John Howard, included a number of provisions. For example, it established a temporary firearm buyback program for firearms that where once legal now made illegal, that according to the Council on Foreign Relations bought over 650,000 firearms. This program, which cost $230 million, was paid for by an increase in the country's tax's. The law also created a national firearm registry, a 28-day waiting period for firearm sales, and tightened firearm licensing rules. The law also required anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm with some exceptions, be over the age of 12. Owners must be at least 18 years of age, have secure storage for their firearms and provide a "genuine reason" for doing so.

Effectiveness

"Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached.".

In 1997, the Prime Minister appointed the Australian Institute of Criminology to monitor the effects of the gun buyback. The institute has published a number of papers reporting trends and statistics around gun ownership and gun crime, which it has found to be mostly related to illegally held firearms. A 2013 report by the Australian Crime Commission said a conservative estimate was that there were 250,000 longarms and 10,000 handguns in the nation's illicit firearms market. The number of guns imported to Australia legally has also risen., a 2014 report stated that approximately "260,000 guns are on the Australian 'grey' or black markets"

Research by Philip Alpers of the University of Sydney —who the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia considers a "dubious researcher and vocal critic of private firearm ownership"— - found that Australia experienced 69 gun homicides in 1996 (not counting the Port Arthur massacre), compared to 30 in 2012. A 2006 study led by Simon Chapman, also of the University of Sydney, found that after the NFA was passed, the country experienced more than a decade without mass shootings and accelerated falls in gun deaths, especially suicides. McPhedran and Baker considered whether the NFA had any effect in eliminating mass shootings by using New Zealand (a country with many similarities to Australia) as a comparison and found; “there is little support for the proposition that prohibiting certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in Australia since 1996”.

A 2007 study by Baker and McPhedran did not find a significant effect of the NFA on Australia's homicide rate. While research does show a steady decline in gun-related suicides, the reduction occurred at the same time as an overall reduction in the Australian suicide rate. What’s more, firearm-related suicides had been declining in Australia for nearly ten years before the 1996 restrictions on gun ownership. A 2009 study also found that firearm suicide rates were decreasing in Australia before the NFA was passed, and concluded that "The implemented restrictions may not be responsible for the observed reductions in firearms suicide." Baker and McPhedran's 2007 study has been criticized by David Hemenway, who has written that the authors, who chose 1979 as the starting point for their trend analysis, failed to explain why they assumed the gun violence rate would continue to decline. Hemenway also criticized their study for using a counterfactual that assumed that this decline would continue forever.

University of Melbourne researchers Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi concluded their 2008 report, “There is little evidence to suggest that the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program had any significant effects on firearm homicides.” A 2007 report, “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” by Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran similarly concluded that the buyback program did not have a significant long-term effect on the Australian homicide rate.

More recently, a 2010 study by Andrew Leigh and Christine Neill found that, in the decade after the NFA, non-gun homicide rates fell by 59% and gun homicides fell by the same 59% with gun suicide rates falling by 65%. Howard cited this as showing Australia had been right to adopt the NFA. Others have argued that alternative methods of suicide have been substituted. De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger, studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.

Richard Harding in his book “Firearms and Violence in Australian Life” at page 119, after reviewing Australian statistics, found that “whatever arguments might be made for the limitation or regulation of the private ownership of firearms, suicide patterns do not constitute one of them”. Harding quoted international analysis by Newton and Zimring of twenty developed countries which concluded at page 36 of their report; “cultural factors appear to affect suicide rates far more than the availability and use of firearms. Thus, suicide rates would not seem to be readily affected by making firearms less available."

A 2015 study found that in the two years following the NFA's enactment, rates of armed robbery and attempted murder decreased significantly relative to rates of sexual assault, but that the evidence was less clear with regards to changes in the rate of unarmed robbery following the law.