I could go on, of course. Another week of guns and blood across America and before a public and polity so astonishingly impervious to the carnage that it is treated almost as if it were measles.
On average, guns kill or wound 276 people every day in America. Of those shot, about 75 adults and nine children die. That adds up to just over 100,000 victims of gun violence a year. The rate of firearm murders in the United States is about 16 times that in Australia and 26 times that in Britain.
It's difficult to deny that we've become inured to this level of violence. I think many, on both sides of the argument feel it's hopeless, that nothing could possibly change it. How often have we heard, "the genie is out of the bottle?" But, is that true?
The article goes on to describe the difficulty something like this would present in the U.S., given what he calls "the red-necked rage of the National Rifle Association." When asked about the promised gun law reform, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said there isn't support in Congress at this time.Martin Bryant was the Tasmanian misfit who, on an April afternoon in 1996, used two military-style assault rifles to take the lives of 35 people in eight, dreadful minutes.
To his lasting credit, the then newly elected prime minister, John Howard, seized the moment and stared down the gun lobby to give Australia one of the tightest sets of gun ownership laws in the world. He declared at the time: ''I hate guns. One of the things I don't admire about America is their slavish love of guns ... We do not want the American disease imported into Australia."
Australia endured 11 mass shootings in the decade leading to the day Bryant ran amok. There have been none since.
What's your opinion? Is it possible that gun law reform is only being prevented by the lobbying efforts of the NRA and gun manufacturers? If it weren't for those efforts, isn't it conceivable that America could enjoy the improvement that Australia's had over these last decades?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"Is it possible that gun law reform is only being prevented by the lobbying efforts of the NRA and gun manufacturers?"
ReplyDeleteThat's part of it. The other part is the gun owners themselves. Nothing scares a politician more than not being elected. Out of the 80 something million gun owners in this country, 4-5 million of them are very dedicated to their rights.
That large, dedicated group is something Australia and England never had. And that's why it was so easy to ban guns in those places and why it's so hard in the US.
I do find it interesting that the Sydney Morning Herald is more honest than any American newspaper when it comes to naming the likes of the Brady Campaign and VPC:
ReplyDelete"The US anti-gun lobby has been vocal for several years about why these weapons - marketed by the gun industry as elevating the power of a handgun to a high-powered rifle - should be banned."
"Is it possible that gun law reform is only being prevented by the lobbying efforts of the NRA and gun manufacturers?"
ReplyDeleteNot at all. While the NRA is still the biggest boy on the block, the difference between them and anti-freedom groups is grass roots. The NRA has millions of members. In addition, there are millions more that associate themselves with the NRA but do not pay dues and are not on the annual roles. Beyond the NRA and their circle of influence are millions more gun owners that make up the grass roots base of gun owners.
Conversely, anti-freedom groups such as the Brady's have no real membership base. Further, the liberal moonbats that are against guns are a very small minority.
This blog is an example. We have to go to Italy to find an anti gunner that will even allow debate and encourage comments.
Well, the NRA has a lot of power behind it, but I am not sure that it really a popular base, or just a vocal one.
ReplyDeleteIt will take a serious amount of outrage to counter the power of the NRA.
Registration HAS to happen in the United States. Screw those who want to fight it because access to firearms needs to be made tighter in the US.
Additionally, Australia had a gun buy back to help get guns off the street. Could the US afford that?
http://www.physorg.com/news85298565.html
"Australia endured 11 mass shootings in the decade leading to the day Bryant ran amok. There have been none since."
ReplyDeleteIn response to that shooting, Australia banned and confiscated all semiauto and pump hunting guns, including many of the most popular hunting guns in the US. If gun control advocates here ever admit that as their goal, they will face gunowner backlash far in excess of what they have had from the NRA.
Also:
Nonetheless, it is promotional point among gun control advocates that "there have been none (mass shootings) since."
There are many repeating rifles such as lever action (think Chuck Connors and John Wayne) still available in Australia -- Why have there been no attempted mass shootings with other guns? There was even a nasty mass shooting in France with a double-barrel shotgun. Gun control advocates could argue that their gun bans might reduce the severity of a mass shooting -- but there have been, as was said, NO mass shootings. I have asked for an explanation from an Australian gun control advocate -- who evaded the question.
The US anti-gun lobby has been vocal for several years about why these weapons - marketed by the gun industry as elevating the power of a handgun to a high-powered rifle - should be banned."
ReplyDeleteThis just shows you again how blatantly dishonest the anti-gunners are.
The firearm used, an FN Five-Seven is not powerful by any stretch of the imagination. It does not "elevate the power of a handgun to that to a high-powered rifle."
But hey, that's what anti-gunners do. They thrive on lies, distortion, blatant fearmongering and the ignorance of the public.
Some short takes:
ReplyDelete"Such as Robert Appointee who, on Sunday, the opening day of the Maine deer-hunting season, attached a rope to his rifle and tried to haul it up to his treetop hideaway. He shot himself."
Incuding a "shot himself" hunting accident exposes the author as being against ANY sort of gun ownership, not just being for "gun control."
---
"New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is one of the very few leading politicians who has stood up to the National Rifle Association. He may be hated for it, but Bloomberg has made it very hard to own a handgun legally in New York."
It has ALWAYS been "very hard to own a handgun legally in New York." Bloomberg has only made that incrementally worse, but that illustrates how gun control often works: It's very hard to own a handgun legally in New York, there are hardly any problems with legally owned guns in New York, but because there is a problem with ILLEGALLY owned guns in New York, let's harass the legal gun owners.
---
"the 1981 shootings of Ronald Reagan and his press secretary James Brady spawned the criminal background check and cooling-off period for handgun buyers"
Interestingly, the shooter of Ronald Reagan and his press secretary James Brady bought his gun 4 months earlier and had no disqualifications for a background check. I (and the NRA) support the current "instant" background check, but this is a typical gun control tactic -- "Shooting with a gun bought in a store?" Close the gun show loophole!"
"One thing the National Rifle Association can't explain is why New York's murder rate is on track this year to dip below 500 - the lowest since 1963, when reliable figures became available. In 1990, the bloodiest year in the city's history, there were 2245 murders."
Yet in 1990, the bloodiest year in the city's history with 2245 murders, it was ALSO "very hard to own a handgun legally in New York" -- any changes to that have been relatively minimal. So what did change? Changes in policing tactics under Mayor Giuliani -- in whose terms the murder rate started its significant decline.
"Registration HAS to happen in the United States. Screw those who want to fight it because access to firearms needs to be made tighter in the US."
ReplyDeleteOf course it has to happen. That's the only way the US could get Aussie style gun control.
But it won't happen.
It is absolutely irrelevant how many "mass shootings" there have been since Australia's sweeping gun restrictions were put into effect—all that is relevant is whether or not the overall homicide and suicide rates have been positively impacted by the legislation.
ReplyDelete"Registration HAS to happen in the United States."
ReplyDeleteExplain how registration would prevent a mass shooting.
"Registration HAS to happen in the United States. Screw those who want to fight it because access to firearms needs to be made tighter in the US."
ReplyDeleteYou might want to check out the Supreme Court decision U.S. vs Haynes where the High Court ruled that prohibited persons can not be charged with the crime of having an unregistered weapon due to their 5th Amendment Rights against self-incrimination.
Perhaps mikeb can do some in depth research on this matter.
Guav said, "all that is relevant is whether or not the overall homicide and suicide rates have been positively impacted by the legislation."
ReplyDeleteWell, has it?
No.
ReplyDeleteGuav said, "all that is relevant is whether or not the overall homicide and suicide rates have been positively impacted by the legislation."
ReplyDeleteMikeb said, "Well, has it?"
Nonetheless, Australian gun control advocates claim that "Australia endured 11 mass shootings in the decade leading to the day Bryant ran amok. There have been none since."
I am not doubting that it's true, and if I were them then I would "brag" about it too. However, since they want to claim causation, I want to inquire as to the "mechanism."
If Australia banned guns that they condider to be exceptionally deadly, then they should be claiming that mass shootings there now result in fewer casualties. Yet they claim that now there are NO mass shootings.
Why? There are many repeating rifles such as lever action (think Chuck Connors and John Wayne) still available in Australia -- why have there been no attempted mass shootings with other guns?
Great point, FishyJay. Clearly there's more to the Australian improvement than the gun bans they've implemented.
ReplyDeleteI intend to read more about them because, the pro-gun crowd doesn't mention Austtralia nearly as often as they do Great Britain. I wonder if there's a reason for that.
"the pro-gun crowd doesn't mention Austtralia nearly as often as they do Great Britain. I wonder if there's a reason for that."
ReplyDeleteThere IS a reason for that: Because the anti-gun crowd doesn't mention Australia as much as they mention the UK. In my experience, it's usually the pro-gun control side that mentions Britain (or Japan) and their low homicide rates, and we respond.