By Georgia May –
“The safety of the people shall be the highest law”
– Marcus Tillius Cicero
Another year, another school. Another week, another grieving community. Another day, another political shun of those who desperately beseech the truth: that the United States has a firearm crisis. Much like going to work or checking our emails, media organisations breaking news about gun violence has become the new normal.
Yet another tragedy occurs, and we experience a lethal cocktail of overpowering emotions- despair, horror, confusion and fury. Then the outpouring of sympathy and condolences come from influential individuals. Politicians and legislators offer nebulous statements and pitiful promises about reform, then retreating to their lives of privilege. They leave nothing but deafening silence. Sadly, these empty expressions of sorrow couldn’t prevent the bloodshed in Las Vegas, at Sandy Hook, Columbine and most recently, Parkland in Florida. It won’t prevent the death of one innocent child every 2 hours and 48 minutes, caused by a gunshot. What will it take?
Throughout the twentieth century, fervent debate about firearm policies and implementation of gun control has occurred. In 2012, the heinous slaughter of innocent school children in Newtown, Connecticut impelled nationwide conversation about gun control and reducing gun violence. Despite public outcry, minimal changes have ensued. Legislation introduced to the US Senate was defeated. If passed, it would have banned the sale and ownership of semiautomatic assault weapons. Currently, the American approach to gun control compared to other democratic societies has been nothing but a “triumph of idiocy over common sense” according to Dr. Nick Sharman, a U.S. political analyst.[1] Attempts have been made by numerous states to tighten gun ownership laws, including the introduction of mandatory background checks, as well as compulsory license checks. There is a common misconception that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” is unlimited. Numerous firearms restrictions have been sustained by the U.S Supreme Court, including the banning of concealed weapons, prohibiting the sale of firearms to various types of citizens, as well as imposing the conditions under which people can own and operate a weapon.
However, there are still many hurdles that need to be overcome. Gun-rights activists proclaim that their constitutional rights are being violated. They fearfully defend that maintaining “domestic tranquillity” that only firearms can provide to a nation is essential. Crass proposals are made by members of the National Rifle Association that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a good guy with a gun. Conversely, the U.S Supreme court have regressively annulled several policies. As of 2017, Congress allowed the federal restriction on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to expire. Due to a strong lack of moral calibre, people’s lives became subject to congressional approval. These tactless concepts dangerously reinforce the notion that nothing can be done to reduce the national emergency. In a nation where manufacturers produce enough bullets to fire 31 rounds into every single citizen per year, it is crucial that branches of government establish common ground.
I don’t think there’s any reason on Earth why people should have access to automatic and semiautomatic weapons unless they’re in the military or in the police.
– John Howard
Due to the nature of high profile mass shootings in recent times, comparisons to other nations firearm policies have occurred. Stricter regulations have greatly reduced the incidence of gun violence in other nations around the world. Prior to 1996, the ethos surrounding weaponry in Australia was vivid. Australia had its own substantial problem with gun violence, having over 13 mass shootings between 1979 and 1996. However, the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania was the single most defining moment where Australia made the choice to value the lives of its citizens over a political agenda. It is because of the comprehensive set of gun laws introduced by the Howard Government that today’s youth have grown up in a country where the concept of gun violence is foreign. Unlike school students in America, we leave our homes every day with the confidence that we will safely return. Within a month of the massacre, the National Firearms Agreement was introduced, nationally standardising the different state laws. Certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns were banned. A national gun registry was established. Background checks and 28 day waiting periods became mandatory. It is also a legal requirement to demonstrate the “genuine need for a gun” in order to own one. Self-defence is not accepted as a legitimate reason. Through strong political leadership, the Australian Government demonstrated how firm firearm ownership laws can assist in curbing atrocities.
At the opposite end of the scale, Japanese gun crime is virtually non-existent. Firearm regulations are unyielding, since most guns have been declared strictly illegal. At one in 10 million, the Japanese gun homicide rate is one of the world’s lowest. Compared to the 101 guns per 100 civilians in the United States, firearm ownership in Japan has a staggering 0.6 guns owned per 100 civilians.[2] Possession of firearms by civilians is strictly illegal, and access to these weapons is only permissible following rigorous training, various psychological, written and drug tests and extensive background checks. Further, one must be complaint to alerting authorities about the manner in which weapons and ammunition will be stored, and weapons are submitted for yearly examinations. It is because of these austere policies that interestingly enough, Japan has almost completely eliminated civilian deaths due to gun violence.
“We know we can’t stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world, but maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence.“
– Barack Obama
Furthermore, other regions of the world such Israel which have compulsory military service are infamous for their low incidences of gun-related civilian deaths. In Israel, individuals undertake comprehensive weapons training and must comply with civilian gun laws. These common-sense laws include a heavily enforced ban on assault weapons and the requirement to obtain a gun license. Unlike the United States, background checks play a pivotal role in determining who will be successful in obtaining a gun license, which must be renewed every three years. Furthermore, Israel prevents the potential for teens to purchase guns and apply for licenses as they are only approved for individuals whose neighbourhoods or field of work are classified as being dangerous. Within the 8.5 million people that live in Israel, a mere 135.000 citizens are currently licensed to own and operate firearms. According to the Israeli Ministry of Public Security, 35,700 of these citizens are employed as guards. Moreover, citizens are only limited to 50 bullets a year, meaning that there are limited opportunities for mass shootings.[3]
Whilst no nation on earth is immune to gun violence, there are immense differences between that of the United States and other countries. A singular perfect policy does not exist; but ideas are running dry. In the United States, the debate about gun control has been exhausted for some time. The time for talking has passed, and something drastic must be done.
[1] Natasha Christian, “Why America’s gun laws are unlikely to ever change,” SBS News, October 4th, 2017, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/why-america-s-gun-laws-are-unlikely-to-ever-change.
[2] Mizuho Aoki, “Strict gun laws mean Japan sees fewer shooting deaths,” Japan Times, October 3rd, 2017, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/10/03/national/strict-gun-laws-mean-japan-sees-fewer-shooting-deaths/#.WymQZqczbD4.
[3] Tara Francis Chan, “Australia, Israel, Japan, and South Korea rarely have mass shootings,” Business Insider, February 22nd, 2018, https://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-other-countries-avoid-mass-shootings-2018-2?r=US&IR=T.
