Which is why my view is that tightening the laws would do some good. But it's not a great comparison.
Let's look at some numbers…
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2018/03/13/gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-in-australia.html
In the 18 years up to and including the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, there were 13-gun homicides in which five or more people died
In other words, 13 mass shootings (defined as 5 or more people shot) in 18 years. That's a rate of .72 (less than 1) mass shootings per year. In the U.S. the rate of mass shooting per year averages 19 (counted at 4 or more shot) per year. Granted, the U.S. has a much larger population, so on equal population footing that rate is about 1.5 per year, but that population size also makes it much more difficult to manage and enforce laws. The U.S. also has an inordinate number of guns of all types floating around out there, many of them illegally possessed (i.e. current laws aren't stopping ownership and use of those firearms).
In fact, at best estimates, 65% to as high as 80% of crimes with firearms are committed in the U.S. using illegally obtained weapons. Clearly even the states with stringent laws aren't doing a very good job of preventing illegal ownership (“of the top 65 cities with the highest murder rates, 96.92% of them are Left-leaning”, all of them with more stringent gun laws). Imposing tighter gun laws at the Federal level would help reduce this to some extent by preventing illegal weapons across state lines.
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/624bc2512079a208d11eeee9/Republican-controlled-states-have-higher-murder-rates-than-Democratic-ones-study?reply=624e0db092d6800f1f956af1
However, the majority of those mass shootings are not with assault weapons (although the ones that were affected a significantly higher number of people for obvious reasons). Almost all are with handguns. Also, although the most notable mass shootings are what gets publicized, the vast majority of gun-related homicides are not mass shootings and occur in inner cities.
So logically, banning so-called "assault" or high-capacity weapons in Australia would be much more effective than in a population 13 times the size in a country where even existing laws aren’t a deterrent. Like I said, more stringent gun laws in the U.S. would have an effect. But it wouldn't come close to being the solution it was for Australia. Its apples to oranges. I think it would reduce how many casualties are inflicted during many mass shootings if it became harder to get ahold of “assault” rifles, but it wouldn’t stop these people from snapping and causing harm, and wouldn’t stop 6% of the population from committing 50% of all homicides.
Despite the errant focus and rhetoric of the U.S. media, ideologues and politicians, only 2.6% of homicides are confirmed to involve rifles of any type, including so-called “assault” rifles or “weapons of war”, which is the most recent buzzword, while a whopping 45% are handguns, with the rest distributed between unarmed (e.g. hands, feet, etc.) at 4.3%, other weapons (blunt objects, poison, explosives, fire, narcotics, etc.) at 11.4%, bladed weapons at 10.6%, shotguns at 1.4%, and unknown firearms at 23.9%. Even if we assumed every unknown firearm (meaning the report didn’t specify) was a rifle of some type, that’s still just about 27%, but most likely the majority of those are handguns as well, since they’re easily concealed and much easier to get ahold of, both legally and illegally. Nearly twice as many people are killed with fists and feet than with confirmed rifles. Mull that over.
This means handguns probably make up 72% of all homicides. Rifles: 2.6%.
https://www.criminalattorneycolumbus.com/which-weapons-are-most-commonly-used-for-homicides/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
Clearly, so-called “assault” weapons aren’t the major problem (but I do still think heavier regulation is needed to reduce incidents). So why the fixation on them? And why is the fact that 50% of all homicides are committed by a mere 6% of the population utterly ignored? Why does no one want to fix the REAL problems, problems rooted in culture? Answer: politics, special interests, power-mongering, etc. If there’s nothing to gain politically or power-wise, they aren’t interested, i.e. they don’t actually care.
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/604a86c0b6eeb763cc82d99d/The-Hard-Truth-About-Police-Shootings?reply=604c4fd360e35279fd2e7b7d
There’s a deep cultural illness in this country that’s leading people to not care about their fellow citizens, and that’s where the real problem lies. Tighter gun laws would shave a slice off the top of those numbers, but in of itself it is not a complete solution.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
Connie93 (826)
2 years ago
America has more crazy people than I've ever seen in any nation, and I've been all over Europe, Asia, and Australia. I wonder if its the drug problem?
The mental health problem and the gun problem in the USA go hand in hand.
But there is a deeper spiritual crisis going on.
And that will only be fixed by having a return to traditional spiritual and family values.
reply
share
warrior-poet (1333)
2 years ago
Perhaps it would. Whatever the specifics, this is indeed the piece that seems to be missing. It's a corrosion of values that diminishes the proper functionality of society, leading them to treat each other poorly. I'm not a fan of religion with what I consider fantasy elements, but spiritual philosophy can incorporate teachings, behavioral conditioning, and psychological incentivization that can act as fundamental components toward a positive contribution to society, engendering a genuine compassion for and willingness for charity to fellow citizens. I think this could be accomplished without religion, but some form of shared worldview that's common to all citizenry that incorporates what one might refer to as "the golden rule" is crucial. Once people start seeing each other, or other groups of people, as lesser-than, they no longer consider the value of their lives, their viewpoints, their feelings, etc., which can in turn foster an environment full of people who feel bullied (in today's world the product of being emotionally coddled and unprepared as often as being genuinely oppressed) who act out in violent ways, having exceeded their tolerance threshold. The outcome of this is what we now have today here in the U.S.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
Connie93 (826)
2 years ago
you are on the right track; but I don't think you're going to get a humanist approach that will accomplish the same thing. There has to be an element of an All Knowing, All Seeing God for people to do the right thing; take that away and people will lie, cheat and try to get away with whatever they can.
reply
share
AmeriGirl26 (12573)
2 years ago
We have over 330 million people! Did you really think we weren't gonna have a few crazies here and there with a population that big?
reply
share
Connie93 (826)
2 years ago
I've considered that, but its way more than what you see anywhere else in the world, even with the huge populations.
reply
share
AmeriGirl26 (12573)
2 years ago
That's because the fucking lying news paints a distorted picture. They magnify stories about crazy shooters to push the narrative that everyone in America who has a gun is crazy and an unsafe person. They completely ignore about 99% of the population that's sane and uses guns responsibly, like not using them to hurt anyone, or to defend others.
Keep in mind that everyone hired by the news stations is a stupid, talking head that reads from a script, and one of their favorites is "guns are evil and so are the people who wield them, so let's just take them away!" It's the same all across the free world; same stupid morons on tv who don't question the lies they tell. Any responsible journalists who do question it are fired and blacklisted.
I'm somewhat motivated to give a history lesson behind our Second Amendment on here if people keep pushing this anti-gun bullshit for another day.
reply
share