Honestly, if you’ve spent more than five minutes on the internet during a news cycle about a shooting, you’ve seen him. The long hair, the beer in hand, and that sharp, aggressive Sydney accent. Jim Jefferies.
He basically became the unofficial spokesperson for the Australian gun control model because of a 15-minute bit in his 2014 Netflix special, Bare. It’s one of those rare pieces of stand-up that didn't just stay in the comedy clubs. It leaked out. It became a political tool.
But here’s the thing: most people—both the ones who love the bit and the ones who want to throw their TV out the window when he comes on—get a lot of the actual history wrong. It wasn't just a comedian making jokes; it was a weird moment where a piece of pop culture perfectly summarized a massive, messy policy shift that happened in 1996.
The Bit That Changed Everything
Jefferies starts the routine with a simple premise: "I’m not trying to take your guns."
It’s a classic comedic bait-and-switch. He spends the next ten minutes systematically dismantling every common argument for firearm ownership in America. He mocks the idea of "protection," famously joking that most people keep their guns locked in a safe, making them useless in a home invasion. "Hold on, Mr. Robber! I just need to remember the code!"
His most famous line, though, is the one about the "one argument" for guns. He says the only honest thing a gun owner can say is: "Fuck off, I like guns."
✨ Don't miss: This Song For You: Why Donny Hathaway’s Soul Classic Still Cuts So Deep
It’s a brutal, simple reduction. And it worked. The video has tens of millions of views across various platforms. But it’s not just funny. It’s based on a very specific, very real Australian reality that most Americans only half-understand.
What Actually Happened in 1996?
Let’s get the facts straight. Australia didn't just wake up one day and decide they hated guns.
On April 28, 1996, a man named Martin Bryant walked into a cafe in Port Arthur, Tasmania. He killed 35 people. It was, and remains, the deadliest mass shooting in Australian history. The country was horrified. But the reaction wasn't just "thoughts and prayers."
The Prime Minister at the time, John Howard, was a conservative. That’s a detail a lot of people miss. He wasn't some far-left radical. He was a guy who’d been in office for only six weeks. He decided, basically right then, that this couldn't happen again.
The National Firearms Agreement (NFA)
Howard didn't just ban everything. He pushed through the NFA, which did a few specific things:
- It banned semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns.
- It created a national registry.
- It required a "genuine reason" for owning a gun (self-defense is not considered a genuine reason in Australia).
- It implemented a massive mandatory buyback.
The government literally bought 643,000 guns back from the public. They spent about $304 million (USD) to do it. Jefferies jokes that Australians just said, "Yeah, alright then, seems fair enough."
In reality? People were pissed. Howard had to wear a bulletproof vest to address a crowd of angry gun owners in Sale, Victoria. It wasn't a smooth, happy transition. It was a political brawl.
Did It Actually Work?
This is where the debate gets messy. If you look at the stats, firearm homicides and suicides in Australia did drop significantly after 1996.
The total number of gun-related deaths fell by more than half by 2016 compared to 1996 levels. For 22 years, the country didn't have a single mass shooting (defined as five or more victims).
However, skeptics—and there are plenty—point out that gun violence was already trending downward before the ban. They also note that other types of crime, like stabbings or blunt-force trauma homicides, didn't see the same dramatic shift.
👉 See also: Why the Angels Among Us by Alabama Lyrics Still Hit So Hard After 30 Years
The most undeniable impact, though, was on suicide rates. When you take away the most lethal and immediate method, the numbers drop. It’s hard to argue with the data there.
The "Protection" Myth and the Black Market
One of Jefferies' biggest points is about the black market. He argues that making guns illegal makes them so expensive that the "average" criminal can't afford them.
"In Australia, a handgun on the black market costs fifteen grand," he claims.
Is that true? Well, sort of. Prices fluctuate, but a 2016 report from the Australian Institute of Criminology suggested that an illegal handgun could indeed cost between $10,000 and $20,000. It turns out that when you stop the flow of legal guns into the secondary market, the price for the remaining illegal ones sky-rockets.
It doesn't stop crime entirely. Obviously. But it changes the type of person who can get their hands on a weapon.
Why Jefferies Still Matters in 2026
We’re years past that Netflix special, but the clip still resurfaces every time there's a tragedy. Why?
Because it’s not just about policy. It’s about the cultural gap. Australia and the US are remarkably similar in a lot of ways—frontier histories, a love for the outdoors, a certain rugged individualism. But the 1996 laws created a fundamental divergence in how the two cultures view "safety."
In the US, safety is often seen as something you provide for yourself. In Australia, post-1996, safety is seen as something the state provides by limiting the "tools of chaos," as some policymakers put it.
The Nuance Most People Skip
It’s important to realize that Australia isn't "gun-free." There are actually more guns in Australia now than there were in 1996.
Wait, what?
Yeah. The population grew, and while the types of guns allowed are much more restricted, there are still millions of registered firearms in the country. Farmers, sport shooters, and hunters still have their gear. They just have to go through a rigorous 28-day waiting period and prove they have a safe place to store them.
Jefferies makes it sound like everyone just handed them over and started hugging. It was more like a massive, forced compromise that eventually became the new normal.
Practical Takeaways from the Australian Model
If you’re looking at the Australian comedian gun control debate as a way to understand policy, don't just watch the YouTube clip. Look at the mechanics.
- The Buyback Was Key: Without a way for people to get paid for their property, the compliance rate would have been near zero.
- Bipartisanship is Mandatory: John Howard’s status as a conservative leader made it impossible for the opposition to frame it as a purely "liberal" power grab.
- The "Genuine Reason" Clause: This is the biggest hurdle for any US equivalent. In Australia, you have to prove you need it for work or sport. You can't just want it "just in case."
The debate isn't going anywhere. Jim Jefferies just gave us a vocabulary to talk about it that involves more swearing and less dry legislation talk. Whether his arguments hold up under the microscope of the Second Amendment is a different story, but as a piece of cultural commentary, it’s basically the gold standard for how comedy can drive a political conversation.
If you want to see the actual impact, look into the 2016 RAND Corporation study on the NFA. It’s one of the most comprehensive looks at whether the laws actually saved lives or just changed the way people died. Spoiler: the results are nuanced, but they lean heavily toward "it worked."
📖 Related: How Long Is Love Island Filmed: What Most People Get Wrong
Check the Australian Institute of Criminology for the latest numbers on illegal firearm pricing if you want to verify those "15 grand" claims. Knowledge is better than a viral clip, every single time.