There Is Some Bipartisan Support For Stricter Gun Laws

 

These charts are from the Searchlight Institute / Tavern Research Poll -- done between June 24th and 26th of a nationwide sample of 1,492 likely voters, with a 3.4 point margin of error.

The U.S. Still Averages More Than A Mass Shooting For Every Day Of The Year

 

There are two mass shootings in the news. One was at Brown University in Rhode Island and the other was in Australia. Both were deplorable, and neither should have happened. But the shooting in Australia was a rare occurrence because they have reasonable gun laws. The U.S. mass shooting wasn't rare at all. The U.S. is still averaging more than one mass shooting for every day of the year. That's not acceptable, but it will continue as long as Republicans have enough power in Congress to block any attempt to pass reasonable and constitutional gun laws.

The United States Still Averages More Than One Mass Shooting For Every Day

Another mass shootings is making headlines in the United States. The latest one is in Minnesota, where a lone gunman killed two children (ages 8 and 10) and wounded 14 more children and 3 adults. The victims were in a church having a mass before school started.

It has become obvious that there is no place safe from gun violence in the United States. Mass shootings have occurred in schools, churches, stores, work places, night clubs and bars, concerts, on streets, etc. And there is no state which is safe from them. They can (and do) occur anywhere at any time.

The right will claim (as they usually do) that the shooter had mental problems. That may be true. But all developed nations have citizens with mental problems, and none of them have the amount of mass shootings (and general gun violence that the United States has. Why? Because they have sensible gun laws and restrictions. They don't allow dangerous people to easily buy and possess guns.

Not all mass shootings make headlines in the national media as this latest shooting did. Note in the chart above that, while mass shootings are down slightly this year, the United States still has an average of more than one mass shooting for every day. That is inexcusable!

We know that some sensible gun laws could drastically reduce the number of mass shootings and gun deaths in this country. One example is having a strict background check law. No person should be able to buy a gun (of any kind) or receive one as a gift without first passing a background check. That check should deny a gun to anyone with a criminal record (including domestic abuse), anyone on a terrorist watch list, or anyone with a mental illness that has been deemed to be dangerous.

This would not deny any law-abiding citizen the right to purchase and own a firearm, and it is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans (including gun owners). Sadly, Republican officials won't agree to it. They think guns should have more rights than innocent children and adults. I don't understand why, but they want to protect the right of dangerous people to legally buy any kind of gun they want.

This won't change as long as Republicans have enough clout in government to prevent sensible (and constitutional) gun laws. If you think enough innocent people have been massacred on the alter of gun worship, then think before you vote. Don't vote for any politician (of any party) that doesn't support sensible gun laws.

Most Support Strong Background Checks, Red Flag Laws, And Banning Assault Rifles

The chart above is from the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between August 1st and 4th of a nationwide sample of 1,702 adults, with a 3.5 point margin of error. 

How Each State Stands On Stricter Gun Control

 

The Civiqs Poll (thru February 17th)

U.S. Still Averaging Over One Mass Shooting Every Day

 

There is another mass shooting making the national news. This time it's in a private christian school. A 15-year-old girl killed a teacher and a fellow student and injured several others before killing herself

I'm sure the congressional Republicans will send another truck load of thoughts and prayers, but that won't help those shot and it won't prevent other school shootings or mass shootings in the future. But they will do nothing to help prevent the deaths of innocent children and adults.

If we just look at the mass shootings (where at least four people have been shot), it might look like these shootings don't happen very often. But that is not true. Mass shootings did decline slightly this year, but they still average about 1.34 for every day of the year (according to the Gun Violence Archive). In any other developed country that would be unacceptable - but not in the United States.

U.S. politicians (mainly Republicans) have decided that its more important for criminals and other dangerous people to have access to the gun of their choice than to save innocent lives.

Meanwhile, a majority of the public would like to see stricter gun laws, and an overwhelming majority want to see the loopholes in the background check law closed - so criminals, terrorist sympathizers, abusers, and the dangerous portion of the mentally ill cannot buy or receive a gun.

Republicans claim they are protecting the right of Americans to own a gun. But no one is trying to deny any law-abiding citizen from purchasing or possessing a gun. We just want to make it harder for dangerous people to get one.

Republicans will also try to claim this teenage girl had mental problems. That doesn't really matter. The one thing she had in common with all other mass shooters is access to a gun. How and where was she able to get a gun?

It doesn't have to be this way. We shouldn't be leading the developed world in both mass shootings and gun deaths. But until voters get serious about preventing the shootings and deaths (instead of just offering "thoughts and prayers", it will keep happening at epidemic levels.

Politicians who want to protect the right of dangerous people to get a gun should be voted out of office.

U.S. Public Wants Stricter Gun Laws

 

The charts above reflect the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between September 8th and 10th of a nationwide sample of 1,626 adults, with a 3.3 point margin of error.

The Mass Shooting In A Georgia School Is Just One Of Many

Another mass shooting is making the national news. This time it is in a Georgia High School, where a 14 year old killed four people (2 students and 2 teachers) and wounded several others. 

But that mass shooting (a shooting where at least four people are shot) is just one of many this year. Most of them don't make the national news. In the first 248 days of this year, there have been 385 mass shootings in the United States. That's an average of 1.55 mass shootings every day!

And once again, we are hearing Republicans offer up thoughts and prayers. But thoughts and prayers don't save innocent lives - and they don't stop or slow the mass shootings. The only thing that will do that is the passage of sensible gun laws.

Republicans oppose all gun laws and restrictions. They claim passing any gun laws will impinge of the right of citizens to buy and own a gun. That's a lie!

The right to buy and own a gun is not absolute. The Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable gun laws are constitutional - including who can buy a gun, where they can carry that gun, and what kind of gun can be bought or possessed. 

The court has ruled that criminals and other dangerous individuals may be restricted from buying or possessing a firearm of any kind. They upheld the background check law passed many years ago. But sadly, that background check law was full of holes, and allowed many dangerous people to purchase a gun without a background check. Republicans refuse to plug the holes in that law - even though between 80% and 90% of the public wants it done.

The 14 year old Georgia shooter had an assault-style weapon. That's not unusual any more. Many, if not most, mass shootings have been done with an assault weapon. Unfortunately, our politicians let the ban on those weapons expire (even though the Supreme Court had ruled it was constitutional). 

The ban on assault weapons needs to be reinstated. And any assault weapons allowed must be registered and required to have liability insurance in a significant amount. There is no legitimate reason to allow these kind of weapons to proliferate in our society.

I am not advocating anything that would violate the Second Amendment. But we need to pass reasonable and constitutional restrictions on guns that would keep them out of the hands of dangerous people while allowing decent and law-abiding citizens to own a gun.

That's not going to happen as long as Republicans have the power to block those laws. They must be voted out of power - and the coming November election is a great opportunity to do that. Vote for gun sanity. Vote for Democrats.

52% Of Voters Now Live In A Household With A Gun

The chart above reflects the results of the new NBC News Poll -- done between November 10th and 14th of a nationwide sample of 1,000 registered voters, with a 3.1 point margin of error.

It shows that a record 52% of registered voters now live in a household where someone owns a gun. That's 10 points higher than in 2013 (42%), and 6 points higher than 2016 (46%). Evidently, more people now believe they are safer with a gun in the house.

They are wrong. A family member is far more likely to be killed (or injured) by a gun in those households than in a household with no gun. This is simply not the way to a safer society.

I am not one of those who believes the Second Amendment doesn't actually give Americans the right to own a gun. It clearly does. But like other constitutional rights, it is not absolute. The Supreme Court has ruled that there are limits to the right (such as the kind of weapon that can be owned and the loss of the right by dangerous people such as felons).

But I cannot believe that the route to a safer society is more gun ownership. The real route to a safer society is to control who is able to legally buy a gun. Most people know this. Over 80% of adults (including most gun owners) would like to see a stricter background check law on gun purchases (or gifts).

A strict background check law would not impinge of the right of law-abiding citizens to buy or receive a gun, because they could easily pass the check. Failure to pass such a law doesn't protect the rights of law-abiding citizens (as Republicans claim). It just allows dangerous people (like felons) to legally buy a gun.

This must be changed, but it will only happen when politicians opposing a background check law (mainly Republicans) are voted out of office.

U.S. Is Averaging Over 57 Mass Shootings A Month

 

Another mass shooting is making national headlines. This time a right-winger in Maine killed 18 people and wounded over a dozen more. But that is just one of many mass shootings happening in this country. Most of them just don't make the national news.

As I write this, the United States has had 573 mass shooting this year - an average of 57.3 mass shooting each month. And there are still two months to go in the year.

No other developed nation has anywhere near this massive number of mass shootings, or deaths by guns (35,607 so far this year). 

Republicans in Congress are blocking any kind of solution to this problem. They claim to be protecting the Second Amendment right to possess a firearm. But that claim is specious. They want you to believe the right to own a gun is absolute, but no right in our constitution is absolute -- not even the right to vote or the right to free speech (and the GOP supports restriction on both of those).

The Maine shooter has some psychological problems in his past. Republicans will use that to claim the massive number of mass shootings and gun deaths is due to mental illness. That is a lame excuse at best. Other nations also have mentally ill people, and the number of mentally ill in the United States is no larger than in those countries. They just don't make it easy for the mentally ill to by or possess firearms.

Republicans also claim the shootings are due to the diminishing number of religious people in the country. But most European countries are less religious than the United States, and they don't have the problem with shootings.

Republicans have also tried to claim the shootings are due to the proliferation of violent video games -- another lame excuse. Other nations have the same video games without having the problems with mass shootings or gun deaths.

The truth is the United States has too many guns floating around in the country (significantly more guns than people in the country), and it is too easy for criminals and other dangerous people to buy and possess any kind of firearm they want (including weapons of war designed to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time).

It doesn't have to be this way. There are reasonable and constitutional solutions to the problem. While it may not be possible to completely eliminate mass shootings and gun deaths, they could be drastically reduced with some sensible gun laws.

The following measures would save many lives without violating the Second Amendment:

1. Close the holes in the national background check law. The current weak law allows too many people to avoid having to get a background check when purchasing a weapon. This failure just benefits criminals, since law-abiding citizens could easily pass a background check. And the measure is supported by over 80% of the population (including a significant majority of gun owners).

2. Ban assault weapons. These are the choice of most mass shooters. Other weapons of war are banned (machine guns, tanks, etc.), and so should assault-style rifles. Other weapons are better for hunting and self-defense. There was a ban on them for a few years, and the mass shootings were reduced. A new ban could accomplish the same.

3. Ban ammunition magazines holding more than 10 cartridges. The more a mass shooter has to reload, the better chance a person has of stopping him.

4. Red Flag Laws. This would allow the police to take guns away from people whose pose a credible threat to others.

These sensible and constitutional measures would save many thousands of American lives. Sadly though, none of them will happen as long as there are enough Republicans in government to veto them. These Republican politicians have sold their soul to the gun industry, and they would rather protect corporate profits than save American lives.

If you want to stop the carnage, then remember this when you go to the polls to vote.

The Gun Law Scorecard Of The States

 

From The Annual Gun Law Scorecard by the Giffords Law Center.

The Epidemic Of Gun Violence Won't Be Fixed By Republicans

The United States has more gun murders than any other developed nation.

The United States has more gun suicides than any other developed nation.

The United States has more mass shootings than any other developed nation.

The United States has more mass murders by gun than any other developed nation.

The United States has more injuries from gun violence than any other developed nation.

Those things are not true by a small margin, but by a very large margin. For instance, the United States has about 37 gun murders per 100,000 people, while Italy (which finishes second) has only 0.68 gun murders per 100,000 people.

Republican officials, who refuse to pass stricter gun laws, have offered several excuses. Some say it is because of violent video games. But all of the other developed nations have the same violent video games and it has not caused gun violence to rise in their countries.

Some GOP officials claim it is because religion, especially christianity, is becoming less popular in the country. That doesn't make sense either. The other developed nations are nearly all less christian (and less religious in general) than the United States.

Perhaps the biggest excuse Republicans cling to is to claim the gun violence is due to mental illness. But the percentage of the population with mental illness is not any larger in the United States than in any of the other developed nations.

The excuses simply do not work. We all know why gun violence is so prevalent in the United States, whether Republicans want to admit it or not.

IT IS THE GUNS!!!

The United States has enough guns floating around to arm every single man, woman, and child in the country -- and have a few million guns left over.

And too many states allow anyone to easily get any kind of gun (and as much ammunition) as they want. And many of them allow people to openly carry those guns anywhere they want.

I am not talking about restricting gun ownership by decent and law-abiding citizens (as the Republicans like to claim). We can have sensible gun laws and still protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own a gun. 

Plugging the holes in our background check law would not prevent law-abiding citizens from purchasing to owning a firearm. But failing to do that just makes it easy for dangerous people (criminals, terrorists, the dangerously mentally ill, domestic abusers) to buy and carry the firearm of their choice.

Banning the sales of assault-style rifles would not prevent law-abiding citizens from owning firearms to protect themselves or engage in hunting. Those weapons are only good for killing large amounts of people in a very short period of time. We do not allow citizens to own other weapons of war (like machine guns, rocket launchers, etc.). We should not allow assault-style rifles either, especially since they have become the weapon of choice in mass shootings.

Republicans are not going to pass any sensible gun laws. They only engage in excuses, thoughts, and prayers -- none of which will save any American lives.

Most Americans say they want some stricter (and constitutional) gun laws. But they must carry that conviction to the ballot box. Re-electing gun-loving Republicans will not get anything done. It will just make sure the epidemic of gun violence continues.

We need two parties willing to debate and compromise to solve the country's problems. Sadly, today's Republican Party is not willing to compromise. Until they are, they must be voted out of power.

The lives of many thousands of innocent Americans depends on it.

It's Been 10 Years And Nothing Has Been Done By Congress

Ten years ago, a criminal armed with an assault-style rifle entered an elementary school I'm Connecticut and killed 20 6 and 7 year old children and six adult teachers. Reasonable people thought surely this would cause Congress to pass some sensible gun laws -- like banning assault-style weapons and closing the huge loopholes in the background check law.

We were wrong. Congress has done virtually NOTHING that would prevent a repeat of Sandy Hook -- and indeed, it has been repeated in Uvalde, Texas. 

As of December 14th, 628 mass shootings have occurred in the United States this year -- and 42,167 people have died from gun violence.

Republicans whine about the Second Amendment as the reason they refuse to pass sensible gun laws. But neither an assault-style weapon ban nor background checks for ALL gun buyers would violate the Constitution's Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has already ruled about both, and found the constitutional.

The truth is that too many politicians (mainly Republicans) consider gun manufacturer profits (and the campaign donations from them) to be more important than the lives of Americans (both children and adults).

This will not change until these politicians, who have the blood of children on their hands, are voted out of office.

Fixing The Background Checks Law Would Save Lives

 

There is a simple and constitutional way to cut down on gun violence and save many American lives -- just plug the holes in the national background checks law for anyone wanting to buy a gun. Between 80% and 90% of citizens support doing that (including a large majority of gun owners). Sadly, Congress won't do that (mainly because the Republicans don't want to do it).

Robert Gebelhoff has an excellent article on ways to reduce gun violence in this country. Below is what he had to say about background checks in The Washington Post:

Federal law requires background checks to obtain a gun, but those checks are extremely porous.

Under federal law, only licensed gun dealers have to perform these checks; private individuals and many online retailers don’t. It’s hard to pin down exactly how many guns are legally acquired without a background check, but some surveys put it upward of 22 percent.

Some states go beyond federal law and require background checks for all gun sales. But since it’s so easy for guns to travel across state lines, it’s hard to judge the effectiveness of these policies on gun deaths.

Still, there’s evidence that such expanded background checks can help limit the flow of guns into illegal markets. We also know that most gun offenders obtain their weapons through unlicensed sellers. One survey of state prison inmates convicted of offenses committed with guns in 13 states found that only 13 percent obtained their guns from a seller that had to conduct a background check. Nearly all those who were supposed to be prohibited from possessing a firearm got theirs from suppliers that didn’t have to conduct a background check. Closing that loophole federally might help.

What else can we do to strengthen background checks? Four possibilities:

Close the “Charleston Loophole”

Most gun background checks are instant. But some — around 9 percent — take more time, and federal law says if a check takes more than three business days, the sale can proceed. As a result, thousands of people who are not supposed have access to guns ended up getting them, as the Government Accountability Office reported.

Among the people who benefited from this loophole? Dylann Roof, who killed nine people in Charleston, S.C., in 2015. Ending this practice would save lives.

Close the “Boyfriend Gap”

An estimated 70 women each month are killed with guns by spouses or dating partners, according to a 2019 analysis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data by Everytown for Gun Safety.

Federal law prevents anyone with domestic violence misdemeanors from having a gun, but that law is defined narrowly and doesn’t include all domestic violence perpetrators — for example, boyfriends. More specifically, the law doesn’t keep guns from abusers who are not married, do not live with their partner or do not share a child with them.

Some states have expanded on federal law — and it works. One studyfound that rates of domestic-violence-related homicide decline 7 percent after a state passes such laws.

Implement waiting periods

The evidence that waiting periods to acquire guns reduce violent crime is limited. But there’s more evidence that they prevent suicides.

Research shows that people who buy handguns are at higher risk of suicide within a week of the purchase, and that waiting periods can keep them from using guns to harm themselves. In fact, one study found that when South Dakota repealed its 48-hour waiting period in 2012, suicides jumped 7.6 percent in the following year.

Improve reporting on mental health

Mental illness is associated with a relatively small portion (around 5 percent) of gun homicides. Federal law already prohibits anyone committed to a mental-health facility or deemed dangerous or lacking all mental capacities through a legal proceeding from having a gun.

But mental-health records are notoriously spotty. There’s limited evidence that improved reporting at the state level might reduce violent crimes. Connecticut started reporting mental-health data to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in 2007, and one study found that violent crimes committed by people with mental illness there significantly decreased.

We can also make it easier for family members to seek court orders to disarm relatives who might do harm to themselves. In Connecticut, which has allowed this since 1999, one study estimated that the law averted 72 suicide attempts through 2013 from being fatal.

Most In The U.S. Still Want Stricter Gun Laws

The charts above are from the Gallup Poll -- done between October 3rd and 20th of a nationwide sample of 1,009 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

Mass Shootings Are Not Rare In U.S. - They're Daily Events

 

There is another mass shooting in the United States that's making headlines nationwide -- this time in Highland Park, Illinois. A 21 year-old idiot killed 7 people and wounded dozens with an assault-style weapon.

If you got all of your information on mass shootings from the national news, you might think mass shootings are fairly rare in the U.S. -- after all, it's been a couple of weeks since the last one. But you would be mistaken. They are not rare. They are commonplace.

Last year, there were 692 mass shootings in the United States according to the Gun Violence Archive. That is nearly two mass shootings for every day in that year. And they are not subsiding. As I write this, there have already been 315 mass shootings this year -- and we are just entering the summer months (the prime time for mass shootings).

Mass shootings are very rare in other developed nations. It is only in the United States that they are more than a daily event. 

Republicans would like for you to believe that it's because of the mentally ill. But most mass shooters are not mentally ill, and most of the mentally ill are not dangerous. The U.S. doesn't have any more mentally ill people than any other developed nation.

What we have more of - a lot more - is guns. We have over 400 million guns in this country with a population of only about 330 million people. And our laws are loose enough to allow anyone (including criminals and other dangerous people) to buy any kind of gun they want.

It doesn't have to be this way. We could pass some stricter (and constitutional) laws to control gun violence in this country. We could close the loopholes in the background check law. We could ban the purchase of assault-style weapons (the choice of most mass shooters). We could restrict the size of ammunition magazines. And we could pass a national red-flag law to take guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

All of the above are constitutional, and none would take guns away from honest and law-abiding people. Those who say it would are LYING!

Sadly, we have one political party that has decided guns are more important that American lives. They refuse to pass any kind of gun laws. Some of them voted for a rather weak bipartisan bill recently, but that bill did nothing that would actually curb gun violence in the country -- keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

Nothing will be done until gun-loving Republicans are voted out of office. It is up to the voters. Do you want politicians that will protect guns, or politicians that will protect the lives of innocent people.

2 Out Of 3 Voters Support Stricter Gun Control Laws

This chart is from the Politico / Morning Consult Poll -- done between June 10th and 12th of a national sample of 2,005 registered voters, with a 2 point margin of error.

Australia Had A Gun Culture & Fixed Their Problem With Gun Violence - Why Can't The U.S.?

Gun lovers like to claim that we can't get rid of gun violence in the U.S. because the U.S. has historically been a gun culture. But that ignores the fact that other countries have historically had a very similar culture. One of those is Australia. But they solved their problem with gun violence (and did that under a Conservative government). 

Here is an op-ed on that by Aaron Timms in The New York Times:

Within hours of the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, last month, as President Biden flew home from a trip to Asia, he found himself wondering why liberal democracies like Australia, Canada and Britain can get gun violence under control, while America has tried for decades without success. “They have mental health problems. They have domestic disputes,” he said in an address to the nationlater that night. “They have people who are lost. But these kinds of mass shootings never happen with the kind of frequency that they happen in America. Why?”

It’s easy to imagine his mind lingering on Australia. After a bitter fight with rural gun owners and conservative activists, Australia introduced sweeping measures to restrict gun access in the wake of a 1996 shooting that left 35 dead. The reforms were truly comprehensive in scope and included a ban on all automatic and semiautomatic shotguns, stringent licensing and permit requirements, and the introduction of compulsory safety courses for all gun owners, who were also required to provide a genuine reason for owning a firearm that could not include self-defense. The federal government also announced a gun amnesty and federal buyback that led to more than 650,000 weapons being surrendered to the police and destroyed.

Mass shootings and firearm deaths, including suicides, have markedly declined in the 26 years since Australia reformed its gun laws. To Mr. Biden, crossing the Pacific Ocean on Air Force One, that story must have offered a glimmer of hope, a sign that sometimes, countries can change, reducing gun violence and tragedy. If it could happen in Australia, why not in the United States?

Like America, Australia was a European settler colony, founded in the blood of massacred Indigenous people, and has a frontier myth in which guns and conquest have played a historically important cultural role. America had its cowboys, buckaroos and gunslingers; Australia its squatters, drovers and bushrangers. And like America, Australia today is a multiethnic state-based federation in which gun-friendly rural areas enjoy considerable political influence.

But these similarities tell only part of the story. Australia’s success in pushing through gun reform in the wake of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre was mostly the result of timing, luck and the idiosyncrasies of the Australian Constitution. On gun policy, the fundamental differences between Australia and America outnumber the similarities. If anything, a closer examination of Australia’s success with gun reform reveals the magnitude of the task ahead for America.

Resistance to gun reform in Australia had been fierce in the years leading up to Port Arthur. In 1987 two massacres in Melbourne left a total of 15 people dead and placed the issue of gun control firmly on the national political agenda. But the firearms lobby and lawmakers in gun-friendly states like Queensland and Tasmania worked to frustrate efforts at federal reform. Part of the problem, and an obvious point of similarity with the situation in the United States today, was that guns were mostly regulated by the states, which made reform dependent on national coordination.

Mere weeks before the Port Arthur massacre, a federal election was held that saw the conservatives — a coalition between the mostly urban and suburban center-right Liberal Party and the rural National Party — return to power after 13 years in opposition. The magnitude of their victory gave the incoming government an overwhelming mandate. Capitalizing on the depth of revulsion across Australia at the slaughter in Port Arthur, the new prime minister, John Howard, moved quickly to push through reforms, coordinated across all the states, that had stalled in the wake of earlier shootings.

The Australian gun lobby did not take these changes lying down. Gun owners protested against reform in the thousands. Effigies of the National Party leader, Tim Fischer, were burned at several rural demonstrations, and Mr. Howard took the extraordinary measure of addressing a crowd of gun supporters in the Victorian coastal town of Sale in a bulletproof vest. (He later said that he regretted wearing the vest.) But as in the United States, the 1990s in Australia were a politically more innocent time, with less polarization, more bipartisan agreement on basic issues of justice and fairness, and a less toxic media environment than the one we have become accustomed to.

It still took conviction and courage for conservative leaders to stand up to their constituents and advocate change. Mr. Fischer, in particular, faced fearsome opposition within his own party to his support for Mr. Howard’s reforms, and these divisions created real, lasting damage, permanently poisoning the country’s political discourse. But reform was still possible, thanks in large part to the shared norm of bipartisanship and the willingness of conservatives, acting on principle, to risk alienating their base.

In addition, Australia faced none of the structural or constitutional obstacles standing in the way of gun reform here in the United States. Australia does not have anything resembling the Second Amendment. It has no filibuster, no Bill of Rights and no constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. The Australian Constitution explicitly codifies a handful of other rights like the right to a fair trial and freedom of religion, and Australia’s High Court has ruled that the Constitution contains an implied right to freedom of political communication. But on guns the country’s founding document has nothing to say. The great drama of contemporary Australian jurisprudence is about enshrining, rather than removing, rights within the Constitution, making the debate on individual rights and freedoms in Australia quite distinct from the one in America.

Australia loses as much as it gains from this constitutional deficiency — a point that’s often lost in American media coverage of gun policy in the emotional days that follow a mass shooting. Compared with the herculean effort that would be required to repeal the Second Amendment, Australia’s gun reforms entered into law relatively easily. But without a Bill of Rights, there’s no constitutional framework in Australia to prevent the mandatory and indefinite detention of asylum seekers, or to insulate free speech from the chilling effect of defamation suits.

The Port Arthur gunman reportedly chose his site, a former penal colony turned into an open-air museum, in part as a homage to Australia’s bloody history of colonial violence: The weakness of Australia’s architecture of express individual freedoms may have inadvertently helped put an end to frequent mass shootings, but the absence of a Bill of Rights is also, arguably, one of the reasons Indigenous Australians, those dispossessed and murdered by the same people who built Port Arthur, continue to endure life expectancy and standards of living well below the national average.

And despite the very real drop in gun violence witnessed across Australia since the mid-1990s, signs of erosion in the national framework of gun control have recently begun to emerge. There are now more guns in Australia than there were at the time of the Port Arthur massacre (3.8 million in 2020 compared with 3.2 million in 1996), and a quietly resurgent gun lobby is spending, on a per-capita basis, about as much as the N.R.A., according to a recent report. Stringent gun control standards have not stopped Australia from incubating its own radicalized killers and exporting violence abroad: The gunman in the 2019 Christchurch massacre that left 51 dead was an Australian.

So the Australian experience of gun control resists easy translation to America. But if Australia is to serve as any kind of example, it is for the bravery and principle shown by conservative and rural leaders, often at great cost to their own political fortunes, in making the case for reform to their gun-loving constituents. Character of this caliber may be far harder to extract from the ranks of today’s Republican Party than it was from Australia’s conservatives in the 1990s.

Public Wants Change - Doesn't Expect Congress To Do it

 

The charts above are from a new Quinnipiac University Poll -- done between June 3rd and 6th of a national sample of 1,576 adults, with a 2.5 point margin of error.

Strong Public Support For These 4 Changes To Gun Law

The charts above reflect the results of the latest Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between June 4th and 7th of a nationwide sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,314 registered voters). The margin of error is 2.7 points for adults, and 2.9 points for registered voters. There is huge support for these changes.