Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.
A massive buy back--of guns. Yes, it would help to decrease the availability of guns around the country. And it would have to be voluntary and massive--across all 50 states.
That's a lot of guns. (William West/AFP/Getty Images)
RiskyLiberal Retweeted
Vox ?@voxdotcom 21h21 hours ago
Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted. http://bit.ly/1L8HwWy
Updated by Zack Beauchamp on October 2, 2015, 10:01 a.m. ET @zackbeauchamp zack@vox.com
The murder of at least ten people at Umpqua Community College on Thursday seems bound to evoke, like so many shootings before it, some sort of national conversation about gun control. Which means there will likely be some debate about whether it would even be possible for the US to limit its millions of privately held guns by far a higher per capita gun ownership rate than any other country.
It is worth considering, as one data point in the pool of evidence about what sorts of gun control policies do and do not work, the experience of Australia. Between October 1996 and September 1997, Australia responded to its own gun violence problem with a solution that was both straightforward and severe: It collected roughly 650,000 privately held guns. It was one of the largest mandatory gun buyback programs in recent history.
And it worked. That does not mean that something even remotely similar would work in the US they are, needless to say, different countries but it is worth at least looking at their experience.
What Australia did.........
...............There is good reason why gun restrictions would prevent suicides. As Matthews explains in great depth, suicide is often an impulsive choice, one often not repeated after a first attempt. Guns are specifically designed to kill people effectively, which makes suicide attempts with guns likelier to succeed than (for example) attempts with razors or pills. Limiting access to guns makes each attempt more likely to fail, thus making it more likely that people will survive and not attempt to harm themselves again.
Bottom line: Australia's gun buyback saved lives, probably by reducing homicides and almost certainly by reducing suicides. Again, Australian lessons might not necessarily apply to the US, given the many cultural and political differences between the two countries. But in thinking about gun violence and how to limit it, this seems like a worthwhile data point. If you're looking for lessons about gun control, this is a pretty important one.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)No progress on guns nationally is even conceivable without full Democratic control and a unified, filibuster-proof Congress--and even then it's not guaranteed.
Just like after Sandyhook, the latest mass-shooting has resulted in massive ammunition buying sprees and carry permit applications around the country. The local news here in Nashville had a story yesterday about the huge spike in carry permit applications the day after Oregon.
I'm saying the problem is unsolvable. There are just too many stupid people in America.
riversedge
(70,182 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)But unless there is a complete Democratic, supermajority, takeover of both the White House and Congress then all progress will be limited to talk only. None of the absurd NRA provisions in our public law (such as prohibiting federal health agencies from compiling statistics regarding firearm deaths) will be changed. No new gun control laws will be passed. If nothing happened after Sandyhook, then nothing will happen.
That's what I believe.
I don't own a gun, nor do I particularly wish to own a gun. It wouldn't bother me if private gun ownership was banned nationwide. I think it would clearly reduce gun violence and gun deaths dramatically -- just like in Australia.
As far as I'm concerned, guns could be limited to law enforcement and properly constituted and organized state militias. Perhaps private gun ownership could be allowed with extensive registration, training, and safety requirements.
But the Second Amendment is a real thing. Despite how it's been occasionally construed, the original intent of the amendment was that the federal government will leave it to the states to decide what to do about guns. There's only so far that we can stray from the Second Amendment. A unified Democratic government could stray much farther, but short of that nothing's going to happen.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)We may have a 2nd amendment right to a weapon, but as our employees, cops don't. No guns except for the military and citizens who take a course and then enforce that.