An Australian Gun Expert Critiques America: You've Lost Control (original) (raw)
Washington University Journal of Law & Policy: 60 Wash. U. J. L. & Pol’y 255, 2019
This article argues that historical lessons in gun control point the way to potential improvements in U.S. gun control in the future. The article begins by examining Australia’s response to the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, where the country acted quickly to ban certain weapons under the leadership of a conservative prime minister. Having had eleven mass shootings in the decade before the ban, Australia had zero in the two decades after. The article notes that similar programs were proposed in America by President Franklin Roosevelt, among others, and argues that they are likely to be enacted within the next generation or two.
Gun-related Deaths: How Australia Stepped Off ‘The American Path.’
2013
Australia and the United States share many characteristics. Both are English-speaking democracies of multicultural immigrants. The two nations have been allies for nearly a century. Australians and Americans consume similar diets of movies, video games, popular music, recreational drugs, and alcohol. Both have vast interiors, early histories of armed European settlers mistreating native populations, plenty of feral pests to shoot, and many firearm enthusiasts. Yet the 2 countries differ dramatically on the issue of gun violence. The U.S. population is 13.7 times larger than that of Australia, but it has 134 times the number of total firearm-related deaths (31 672 vs. 236 in 2010) and 27 times the rate of firearm homicide (11 078 [3.6 per 100 000] vs. 30 [0.13 per 100 000] in 2010) (1).
The 'Perfect Storm' of Gun Control: From Policy Inertia to World Leader
Successful Public Policy: Lessons from Australia and New Zealand, 2019
Australian firearm policy had altered very little in 65 years prior to the 1990s. The events in April 1996, however, precipitated 12 days that dramatically changed national firearm legislation. Thirty-five people were killed when a gunman opened fire at the Port Arthur Historic Site in the state of Tasmania. This chapter explores how these events created a ‘perfect storm’ of outrage, law and leadership that forced policy reform. It considers the political and constitutional challenges the national government faced and details the swift legislative changes implemented following the massacre. With over 20 years of research and data, this chapter describes the attitude adjustments which enabled effective enforcement of firearm legislation and the notable improvements to public health and safety which followed. Although these changes are widely credited with establishing the nation as a world leader in the prevention of armed violence, unintended consequences of Australia’s gun control laws may contain the seed of their own destruction.
The Big Melt: How One Democracy Changed after Scrapping a Third of Its Firearms
In: Webster, Daniel W and Jon S Vernick, Eds. Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis ( Download E-book: http://jhupress.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/1421411113\_updf.pdf ), 2013
The Australian experience, catalyzed by 35 deaths in a single shooting spree, marked a national sea change in attitudes, both to firearms and to those who own them. Led by a conservative government, Australians saw that, beliefs and fears aside, death and injury by gunshot could be as amenable to public health intervention as were motor vehicle–related deaths, drunk driving, tobacco-related disease, and the spread of HIV/AIDS. The obstructions to firearm injury prevention are nothing new to public health. An industry and its self-interest groups focused on denial, the propagation of fear, and quasi-religious objections—we’ve seen it all before. But with gun violence, as with HIV/AIDS, waste-of-time notions such as evil, blame, and retribution can with time be sluiced away to allow long-proven public health procedures. Given the opportunity and the effort, gun injury prevention can save lives as effectively as restricting access to rocket-propelled grenades and explosives or mandating child-safe lids on bottles of poison.
A Comparative Analysis of the Politics of Gun Control in the United States and Australia
2020
This thesis centers on the interrelationships and differences in firearm legislation and culture within the United States of America and Australia. As a result of the Port Arthur Massacre on April 28, 1996, Australia was faced with an unprecedented mass shooting that completely shifted Australian politics and culture regarding firearm safety and availability. Thus, the thesis inquiries into the effectiveness of Australia's buyback program as well as the cultural and political factors that allowed for such legislation to be passed. After suffering 118 mass shootings in the U.S. since 1982, the history of the United States regarding gun control is one of inaction. Overall, that is why the core of my thesis is rooted in the culture of each nation regarding firearms; it determines what about Australia created an environment amicable to gun control that seems impossible in the U.S. The answer to this question rests in many factors: the history of each nation, the role of lobby groups (such as the NRA), the structure of government, public opinion, and the rights of citizens (the Second Amendment). Balancing all of these factors, this thesis acknowledges that the U.S. could not have as drastic a policy response as that of Australia, but the U.S. can easily implement effective firearm safety measures that cuts through the partisanship divide of gun rights activists and pro-gun control lobbyists.
Guns in America: The Grand Experiment
The Founding Fathers of the U.S., with good reason, were fearful of governments that did not submit to or grant individual human, natural rights. One of these was the right of self-defense. For these men, an armed society was a hedge against tyranny. The Second Amendment through debate and mis-transcription assumed a somewhat different character than that envisioned by the Founding Fathers. As a consequence, this amendment remained the focus of repeated contention until 2008, when the Supreme Court, for the first time, defined the individual rights of each citizen to defend him or herself. Nevertheless, today, the use of firearms in America, when viewed superficially, gives one the impression of a nation bent on destroying itself through unbridled homicide and suicide. This is borne out by the sheer number of deaths attributed to guns annually in America. However, sheer numbers can be deceiving and cannot be used for comparative purposes. In this paper, we examine the history of guns in the U.S., searching for the causation of gun-related homicide. We also examine Pieter Spierenburg's thesis that democracy came too early to America.