Carolyn Loughton still carries a bullet in her shoulder from one of the world’s worst mass shootings in which her daughter was killed.
Loughton threw her body over her 15-year-old daughter Sarah, but could not save her from a gunman with two semi-automatic assault rifles who methodically shot people in a Port Arthur, Tasmania, cafe on April 28, 1996, killing 35 in all.
In response, the Australian government severely restricted ownership of semi-automatic firearms, pump-action shotguns and other rapid-fire weapons. It also bought back nearly 700,000 guns from the public at a cost of US$390 million.
Since then, the country has experienced only one case that meets the generally accepted definition of a mass shooting – four deaths in a single event – a 2014 incident in which a farmer shot his wife and three children before killing himself. Now a person living in America is around 10 times more likely to be killed by a gun than in Australia, and President Barack Obama has held up Australia’s strict gun laws as a good example after repeated mass shootings in the US.
Today, as Australia approaches the 20th anniversary of the Port Arthur tragedy, there is renewed debate over guns amid a review of the landmark National Firearms Agreement, adopted after the 1996 attack, and the loosening of some gun-related regulations.
The review was recommended after a government inquiry into the December 2014 Sydney cafe siege that left two people and the gunman dead. Gun enthusiasts fear that any changes to the agreement could mean greater restrictions on gun ownership, while gun control advocates say the country is backsliding on its restrictions.