Citation(s) from the GunPolicy.org literature library
Australia. 2016 ‘Analysis of Firearms Trace Data.’ Illicit Firearms in Australia, pp. 22-23. Canberra: Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. 21 October
Analysis of Firearms Trace Data
Between 2004 and 30 June 2016 the ACIC received 6,874 requests for domestic firearms traces. The most significant diversion methods identified during this period were the grey market1 (3,022 firearms or 44 per cent); unknown methods of diverting untraceable firearms (2,158 or 31.4 per cent); and theft (630 firearms or 9.2 per cent).
Of the total number of trace requests received by the ACIC, 4,308 (62.7 percent) were for longarms (22) and 2,519 (36.7 per cent) for handguns. The remaining requests related to 47 firearms that could not be categorised using the information provided.
With the exception of the 'other' category, analysis of the most common methods of diversion in 2015–16 did not identify any significant changes from the 2012 assessment and the FTP overall. The increase in the 'other' category from 3.3 per cent in 2012 to 21.5 per cent in 2015–16 can be attributed to firearms seized from a dealer who was operating without a licence.
Figure 6: Comparison of Diversion Methods of Firearms Traced by the ACIC, 2004 to June 2016
Since the implementation of the FTP, an average of 31.4 per cent of firearms (23) referred to the ACIC for tracing were unable to be traced due to factors such as defaced serial numbers or the firearm not being registered either within Australia or overseas. A proportion of this percentage relates to firearms where trace analysis is not yet finalised, pending further information from industry or overseas agencies.
Where traces were finalised, the primary method of diversion varied depending on whether the firearm was a longarm2 (category A, B, C or D) or a handgun3 (category H).
22) Longarms includes all category A, B, C and D firearms as defined under the National Firearms Agreement.
[FTP = National Firearms Trace Program]