Adam Zorin

Gun Violence at Home - Solution from Abroad

Columbine, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook are just drops in the bucket. They represent

only a few of the eleven mass shootings that occur in the United States annually. And even then,

that only represents a small portion of the 30,000 that die in America each year as a result of gun

violence (Alpers). This death rate is shockingly high compared to the rest of the world. When

looking at our firearm homicide rate (per 100,000 people), the United States has a higher rate

than Pakistan. And when comparing America to other first world countries, She far and away has

the highest gun violence rate (Kemon).

Based on all of this data, something clearly needs to be done to address gun violence in

the United States. The best way to do this is to follow the roads that have already been paved

with success. Have any other countries (similar to the US) faced a gun violence problem that saw

dramatic improvements after reforms were made? There are in fact two countries that did, both

of which are similar to the United States in terms of governments and cultures. One is Great

Britain, and the other one, which is most similar historically to America in terms of gun culture,

is Australia. For the United States to address the issue of gun violence, it must adopt something

almost identical to the comprehensive gun legislation that Australia passed in 1996.

In Port Arthur, Australia in 1996, there was a mass shooting killing 35 people and

injuring 23 others. There had been a series of mass shootings through the early 1990s, and after

this one, the government decided to take action to address the issue. According to the National

Firearms Agreement, which passed only months after the Port Arthur Massacre, gun regulation

changes were as follows.

Certain semi automatic and self-reloading rifles and shotguns were banned. A restriction

on the number of bullets one could purchase in a given period was put in place. A licensing and

permit process was also implemented, which includes a safety course along with proof of a

“genuine reason” to own a gun other than self defense. Some of these reasons include, sport

shooting, hunting, collecting, or occupational requirement. Also created was a provision ensuring

that if there is “reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition,” then an applicant for a

license would be rendered “unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm.” ("Firearms-

Control Legislation and Policy: Australia") A minimum of a twenty eight day waiting period

applies to both the license and the permit. This applies for each additional weapon purchased as

well. Proper storage requirements enforced by an inspection must be followed in order to obtain

the license. The storage requirements are that the ammunition is stored in locked containers

separate from the weapons, and that the storage unit is a locked steel safe that is bolted to the

structure of the building and thick enough to ensure it is not easily penetrable. Breaking any of

these rules will cause a gun license to be revoked. Furthermore, every gun must be registered

under the nationwide registration system. There is another restriction, not including mental and

physical health, that can prohibit you from buying a weapon, and that restriction is a criminal

conviction for a violent offense within five years of applying for a license. On the distribution

end, firearms can only be sold through licensed dealers whose rules are uniform throughout the

country. These dealers must allow for inspection by police officials to ensure all the rules are

being followed.

The National Firearms Agreement has a crucial second component called the buyback

program. The aforementioned regulations would be much less effective if all of the guns that

would be outlawed due to the creation of the agreement were still in circulation because of prior

ownership. So as the law was implemented, so was the buyback program. All of the newly illegal

types of weapons were bought back from their owners by the government. 700,000 weapons

were either bought back or voluntarily given back. All of these weapons were destroyed. This

accounted for over 20 percent of all the weapons that were in circulation, so the number of

households owning a weapon went down dramatically. This buyback program lasted exactly one

year, to give time before severe penalties would be enforced for breaking the newly established

Firearms Agreement. Concurrent to the buying back of weapons, the government launched a

public education campaign. ("Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Australia")

The results were outstanding. Gun violence went down dramatically and the overall rate

of homicide fell as well. For some perspective on the numbers, Australia has a population of 23

million people. The total number of gun deaths per year from 1996 to 2012 dropped from 516 to

226. The total number of homicides and more importantly the rate of homicides over this time

period also fell year to year. Furthermore, the rate of accidental gun deaths dropped by 8 times

from 1996 to 2012, which represents 26 lives that were not victim to such accidents. Every

statistic that can be found in both gun violence and homicide improved upon the implementation

of the National Firearms Agreement in 1996. (Alpers) These are numbers for a population of just

23 million that never suffered the same rates of gun violence as America does. This means that

the hundreds of lives saved in Australia translates to several thousands of lives saved in the

United States. Just because it works in Australia though, does not automatically imply that such

an agreement would work in America. However, when comparing the two countries it is evident

why implementing a similar system of regulations in the United States would be an effective

solution to gun violence.

Australia and America share a strikingly similar past. Both countries are former colonies

of Great Britain and this colonization was important to the development of our national cultures.

In the article, “The Wild West Down Under: Comparing American and Australian Expressions

of Gun Enthusiasm,” by Abigail Kohn, it succinctly states that,

In both nascent countries, colonizers dealt with indigenous populations harshly and

punitively, resulting in long-term structural inequalities that are well-documented and

continue into the modern register. Both Americans and Australians have greatly

mythologized historical and modern-day ideologies about freedom and independence,

egalitarianism, classlessness, and the right and ability to live well in their respective

“lucky countries.” And both the U.S. and Australia have a long history of civilian gun

ownership.

Over time however, American gun culture has grown more zealous while Australia’s gun culture

has decayed. This is due to policy that changed the opinions of some of Australia’s former

opponents of gun control. Implementing this policy in the U.S. will certainly be more difficult

due to a larger proportion of guns and an even stronger gun culture that has resulted from a

longer stretch of time gone without any checks on weaponry. However, America and Australia

have the same cultural roots and attitudes in regards to weapons that goes back several hundred

years, and this similarity means that legislation that is put in place in America to address the

same problem, will likely achieve results akin to Australia’s.

A popular counter argument made by those such as NRA’s CEO, Wayne LaPierre, and (a

known lobbyist group) Gun Owners of America’s, executive director, Larry Pratt, is that people

need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government that could arise. (Welna)

Many pro-gun activists explain that the disarming citizens is the first step a government takes to

enslave its people. Nazi Germany is often used as an example. But when you look at the effects

of the implementation of the proposed policy, none of these concerns hold water.

After Australia’s buyback program, about 2.5 million guns were still left in circulation.

This “disarmed citizenry,” in the event that a revolution against a tyrannical government was

necessary, outnumbers a police force armed with 61,211 firearms, and a defense force armed

with 113,000 firearms. (Alpers)

The same logical fallacy is exposed to an even greater extent when looking at U.S. gun

statistics. Civilians currently have approximately between 262 million and 310 million firearms.

Of all of these weapons, sources show that in 1994, there were 54 million semiautomatic

handguns and rifles owned out of a total of 192 million guns currently owned. (Hill) Shotguns

were not distinguished between semiautomatic and other, (like the other guns were) implying

they were not semiautomatic weapons. (Hill) Proportionally to total gun ownership today, there

are approximately 73,687,500 semi automatic weapons owned by citizens. So, even with the

implementation of a law like Australia’s, American’s would still be left with about 200 million

guns in circulation. This means the American citizenry would still vastly outnumber the

government in terms of number of guns. The military forces have 2.7 million firearms and the

police forces total 1.15 million firearms. (Alpers) United States citizens would not be “disarmed”

and unable to protect themselves due to this legislation.

It should also be mentioned that it is an antiquated idea that people in first world

countries like the United States would stand a chance to protect themselves if the government

became tyrannical. Technology has vastly improved and the weapons that armies and

governments have today overpower anything that an armed citizenry could possibly have. So, in

the grand scheme of things, a population possessing high grade assault weapons would fair

negligibly better than a population without one, should a tyrannical government arise.

Another popular counter argument that often comes up in discussion is the classic, “Guns

don’t kill people, people kill people.” This one-liner is used to as a proof for why regulation is

unnecessary. But on a logical level this argument cannot hold water. (Johnson) No logical

conclusion can be drawn about potential gun legislation from this compound statement. This is

because of the concept in logic of ultimate, intermediate and proximate causes. An ultimate

cause is found in the decision a person makes, while the event, activity and object are the

proximate causes. An example of an intermediate cause is the person that is provoking you to do

an action. So in this statement, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” people are the

ultimate cause and guns are just the proximate cause. But nothing can be concluded about gun

regulation from it because a statement such as this one can be made for every criminal and

noncriminal activity. For example, “Tanks don’t kill people, people kill people.” (Johnson) It is

obvious that tanks are only proximate causes and people make the ultimate decision when it

comes to actions, but it does not also mean civilian tank ownership should be legal. It is safe to

say that tank ownerships’ illegality is generally something that is agreed upon. Conversely, this

same statement can be made about things that should obviously be legal. For example, “Cars

don’t kill people, people kill people.” Once again, there is a proximate and ultimate statement

that is true, yet it has no correlation to legality. Are there car accidents that lead to death? Yes,

many per year, but cars are still a necessary part of society and people work on ways to make

them safer with crash testing and now automatic rear end breaking. (Just like there are ways to

make gun ownership safer.) This type of statement, a statement that points out that something

such as guns are a proximate cause, can thus generate no conclusions. It is a fallacious argument

that has been called by Ph.D of Philosophy David Kyle Johnson, “the fallacy of mistaking the

relevance of proximate causation.”

One final major counter argument against gun control is one that is believed by most

Americans according to Gallup polls. (McCarthy) The argument is that guns make homes safer,

so the more homes possess a weapon, the safer America will be. This is an easy point to address

because it is simply not true. Arkansas, Alaska, Alabama, and West Virginia, just to name a few

are all states that are in the top 20 for gun ownership in the country. ("Top 20 States with the

Most Guns in 2012”) This map from Klein’s article in the Washington Post demonstrates that

these states (Arkansas, Alaska, Alabama, West Virginia) all have very high rates of gun violence

(even though they have a lot of guns) and very loose gun regulations, which disproves the idea

that more guns in more homes makes America safer.

Some gun activists also point to the fact that in recent years, such as 2012, gun deaths and

homicide in general dropped significantly. (Alpers) They equate this drop to the continuing

increases in total gun ownership. This argument about homicide and gun violence going down is

compelling, but cannot be correlated to guns in the way the pro gun lobbies or pro gun citizens

may think. The important statistic that truly represents the trends of gun ownership in the U.S. is

the percent of the population that owns a weapon rather than the total guns in circulation. 1 gun

is all that is needed for a household to have a potential gun related incident, so it is logical that

the difference between owning 40 and 50 guns has relatively less significance than the ownership

of that first gun. (A helpful way to think about this is by thinking of it as the law of diminishing

returns in terms of violence added per additional weapon in a home.) And as it turns out, the

number of people who own that first gun has been steadily declining over the last few decades.

Although the numbers are not exact, Pew Research Center approximates that 37 percent people

own a weapon or have someone in their house that owns a weapon. This is compared to rates of

almost 50 percent percent just over a decade ago. ("A Minority of Americans Own Guns, but Just

How Many Is Unclear") So even though the total guns in circulation has gone up, the rate of

ownership has dropped. Therefore, if any correlation can be made between gun ownership and

the recent drop in gun violence, it is that the dropping percentage of gun owners in America is

what has lowered gun violence, not the continuing increase in total gun ownership.

As the common fallacious and misrepresentative arguments against gun control are

pealed away with relevant statistical information, explanations of logical fallacies, and the reveal

of false statistics, the question that remains is simply when the U.S. will implement sweeping

gun legislation reforms. As shown, Australia has paved the way for meaningful, effective reform.

Today, America can begin drafting the legislation to create its very own National Firearms

Agreement. It will not be easy. There will be plenty of push back and many government officials

will be hated for their decisions. But, the United States should follow the path of success that has

been pioneered by our closest counterpart. If America embarks on this journey, over the course

of a few years, She will see the rapid decline in the death of Her citizenry from unnecessary and

tragic events of gun violence.

Bibliography:

Alpers, Philip, Marcus Wilson and Amélie Rossetti. 2015. Australia — Gun Facts, Figures and

the Law. Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney. GunPolicy.org, 27

March. Accessed 7 April 2015

Alpers, Philip, Amélie Rossetti, Daniel Salinas and Marcus Wilson. 2015. United States — Gun

Facts, Figures and the Law. Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney.

GunPolicy.org, 30 March. Accessed 7 April 2015

"Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Australia." Library of Congress. Library of Congress,

21 Jan. 2015. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.

Hill, Edward W. "How Many Guns Are in the United States?" (n.d.): n. pag. 28 Mar. 2013. Web.

14 Apr. 2015.

Johnson, David K. ""Guns Don't Kill People, People Do?"" Psychology Today. Sussex, 12 Feb.

2013. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.

Kemon, Katie L. "Visualizing Gun Deaths - Comparing the U.S. to Rest of the World."

Humanosphere. Humanosphere, 21 Mar. 2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.

Klein, Ezra. "Twelve Facts about Guns and Mass Shootings in the United States." Washington

Post. The Washington Post, 14 Dec. 2012. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.

Kohn, Abigail. " The Wild West Down Under: Comparing American and Australian Expressions

of Gun Enthusiasm." N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.

McCarthy, Justin. "More Than Six in 10 Americans Say Guns Make Homes Safer." More Than

Six in 10 Americans Say Guns Make Homes Safer. Gallup Inc., 7 Nov. 2014. Web. 15

Apr. 2015.

"A Minority of Americans Own Guns, but Just How Many Is Unclear." Pew Research Center

RSS. Pew Research Center, 03 June 2013. Web. 14 Apr. 2015.

"Top 20 States with the Most Guns in 2012 | Deseret News." Deseret News. Deseret News, 26

Mar. 2012. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.

Welna, David. "Some Gun Control Opponents Cite Fear Of Government Tyranny." NPR. NPR, 8

Apr. 2013. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.