http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/ ... C720130403But the gun reforms made Australia a safer place, with fewer homicides and suicides, and both Howard and Fischer are now urging U.S. President Barack Obama to take his gun control campaign to the people, just as they did, to gain a consensus.
"I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. I also knew it wouldn't be easy," Howard wrote in the New York Times earlier this year.
"Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair...I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative," wrote Howard, adding he hoped his example would contribute constructively to the U.S. gun debate.
Let's see. What did they not take into account? -
Different demographics
Much smaller population
Essentially an island nation with most people isolated to the coasts
Fewer gang issues
No 2nd Amendment
I'm sure I missed quite a few in the above list generated off the top of my head. They are comparing apples to oranges in my opinion. The above article has been picked up by various US news outlets already, eager to trumpet the news.
Other sources say that gun control / buybacks in Australia resulted in a statistically insignificant drop in homicides and a drop in suicides.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... australia/
Similar findings published in the Chicago Tribune of all places:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013 ... gun-deaths