Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to compare the incidence and main characteristics of mass shooting events in Australia and the USA in the period 1981-2013. Design/methodology/approach – The study adopted a conservative definition of mass shootings derived from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, covering four or more fatalities not including the offender. Australian cases were accessed from the Australian Institute of Criminology’s National Homicide Monitoring Programme (NHMP) database and several secondary sources. The US data were collected from the Mother Jones database, a report prepared for Mayors Against Illegal Guns and a New York Police Department report. The time series data were related to changes in firearms regulations in the two jurisdictions. Findings – For Australia, the study identified 13 mass shooting events and 104 fatalities from gunshot wounds. For the USA, there were 73 events and 576 victims. Of note is the fact that all cases in Australia pre-dated the implementation of the restrictive 1996 National Firearms Agreement. In the USA, a small decline was evident during the 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapon Ban. Incidents and fatalities increased after 2004. Research limitations/implications – Of necessity, the paper adopts a conservative FBI-based definition of mass shootings that limits the number of cases captured. The absence of an official government US database also most likely limits the number of cases identified. Practical implications – The findings lend support to policy considerations regarding regulating access to firearms. Originality/value – The paper is unique in comparing mass shootings in these two jurisdictions over three decades in association with changes in firearms regulation.
Highlights
The Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Administration) Regulations 1996 (“the Administration Regulations”) require the Trustees to prepare an annual statement regarding governance, which should be included in the annual report
The Corporate Trustee are responsible for investment governance, this includes the Corporate Trustee reviewing the default arrangement remains in the best interests of the members
When the Scheme was originally established the Corporate Trustee took professional advice and selected a pension scheme where the With-Profits Fund was the only available investment fund option available to members. This was originally with Friends Life, who were acquired by Aviva Life & Pensions UK Limited (Aviva) in 2015, all policies, assets and liabilities of Friends Life were transferred and completed by 1 October 2017
Summary
The Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Administration) Regulations 1996 (“the Administration Regulations”) require the Trustees to prepare an annual statement regarding governance, which should be included in the annual report. When the Scheme was originally established the Corporate Trustee took professional advice and selected a pension scheme where the With-Profits Fund was the only available investment fund option available to members. The Corporate Trustee monitors the level of charges borne by members through the Conventional With-Profits Fund. When assessing the charges and transaction costs which are payable by members, the Corporate Trustee is required to consider the extent to which the investment options and the benefits offered by the Scheme represent good Value for Members. - The Conventional With-Profits Fund differs from a unit linked policy in that it is not totally reliant on the current value of the underlying assets This type of fund offers an underlying guarantee that provides a cushion against falling investment markets in certain circumstances. The Corporate Trustee will be reviewing the membership profile as part of the Scheme Review to ensure that this fund continues to be suitable for the membership
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
