Caffeinated Politics

Opinions And Musings By Gregory Humphrey


Australia Takes Collective Responsibility For Curbing Gun Violence, US Should Follow Suit

As the new work week begins, a sharp lesson is playing out for the entire world to witness. Australia is showing that a nation can choose life over ideology, as the United States shows what happens when ideology is chosen over life.

Two horrific acts of gun violence took place this weekend. At Brown University, a mass shooting took place in a classroom on the university’s campus in Rhode Island, where two people were killed and at least nine others were injured. In Australia, at Sydney’s Bondi Beach, at least 15 people died in a mass shooting attack in a spree of violence that shook the core of the nation. By Monday morning, the political leadership of Australia was moving forward with decisiveness, with new ideas about how to further curb gun violence. In the United States, our political class continues to normalize yet another gun tragedy by remaining inactive. Thoughts and prayers, thoughts and prayers……–

Australia has long been recognized as a global model for gun control. After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, where 35 people were killed, the government enacted sweeping reforms, also in a fast-acting way. A mandatory gun buyback program destroyed nearly 650,000 firearms, bans were placed on rapid-fire rifles, and strict licensing and background checks became national standards.

I greatly applaud the ability of the government to have encouraged the populace to understand the necessity of banning most automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns from civilian possession. Likewise, the need for a mandatory 28-day waiting period for all new firearm purchases.

While this weekend’s Bondi Beach shooting was profoundly wretched, we need to recognize it as an isolated event in that nation. It was Australia’s deadliest in decades. As the new work week starts, their government set out to examine the places in the existing gun control laws that need to be tightened. In other words, Australia treats a mass shooting as a call to action, not a moment for empty platitudes.

The United States, by comparison, has become numb to mass shootings. Another Saturday. Another bold headline. Has the pizza finished baking in the oven?

From schools where young children were slaughtered to grocery stores, churches to concerts, gun violence is a daily reality in our nation. Yet despite thousands of deaths annually, the political system in the United States remains paralyzed. Leaders offer trite and meaningless slogans while refusing to enact meaningful reforms. Assault weapons that are meant for war zones remain widely available, background checks are inconsistent, and loopholes abound. The result is a grim cycle in our nation. First comes the massacre, second the mourning, and then thirdly the silence from the political class. The nation then waits for the next massacre.

Where Australia sees gun violence as a solvable civic crisis, the U.S. treats it as an unavoidable feature of modern life. This difference is not cultural inevitability. It all comes down to pure political will. What we are witnessing is that Australia grasps why gun control laws matter. When they need to be updated, adjusted, or refined, the political class moves together with collective courage.

Such a stark contrast with the feckless political class in the United States. Within hours, Australia’s leaders proposed reforms. Among the new measures proposed would be a limit on the number of guns someone can own and a review of licenses held over time. In our nation, proposed gun control reforms have stalled for decades.

We are seeing today in Australia how the national cabinet acts with bipartisan consensus, while the small-minded people who are elected in our nation view gun policy as a partisan battlefield. When it comes to the average everyday type of people, it is so very clear to witness the moral fiber being stronger with Australians. They grasp that restrictions on guns are the path to safety for society, while Americans are fed crap by the NRA and gun manufacturers that freedom requires tolerating the slaughter of our fellow citizens.

Australia’s example with gun control is not perfect; the tragedy this weekend underscores that fact. But that nation’s laws prove that gun violence can be reduced when governments act decisively. The United States’ refusal to follow suit is simply and completely a failure of political courage. Every new massacre in our nation is, in my mind, far more than a gunman going berserk. It is also an indictment of our political leaders who looked the other way in all the preceding acts of gun violence.



3 responses to “Australia Takes Collective Responsibility For Curbing Gun Violence, US Should Follow Suit”

  1. Another reaction they are having is looking to further restrict speech as well as firearms. (The connection between violence and speech is well-documented) Proposals are being put forth to limit large demonstrations/gatherings as well as to expand what words/phrases are banned in their country – you will go to jail and/or fined if you say something that has been predetermined to be illegal. They are also exploring to expand the current restrictions on what can be said in the online community as well as how often one may post online.

    I know you want us to follow along with their gun control measures – but how do you feel about these speech control measures? It is obvious that a lot of this violence in our country would not be manifesting if there wasn’t as much “speech” being recklessly thrown around….both in person and online.

    While an all-out ban may be going too far (for now!), perhaps we should limit it a lil’ – just tap the brakes a bit – without completely taking away our freedom of speech. A “cooling off” period of 28 days before anything posted online (blogs, comments, etc) appears to others would go a long ways towards toning down the violence in our society, no? And that wouldn’t be interfering with anyone’s basic rights – there is nothing unreasonable with a waiting period, correct. And maybe we should also look at how much people are posting and try to slow that down as well. After all, who really needs to write more than 2-3 blog posts or comments in one week?

    Maybe the Australian proposal to further limit mass gatherings should also be considered. That feeds two birds with one scone – Jan6 would never have happened if the crowd was limited to only a few dozen people and you can’t have a mass shooting if the people ain’t massed together in a group.

    Regardless of how one personally feels about those restrictions, there is no arguing with the fact that those measure will go a loooooong way towards toning down the violence in America. However, as you pointed out, our political class is far too feckless and thus will do nothing in regards to these modest proposals that are being put forth.

    Like

    1. I hold fast and firm to the First Amendment.  With so much violence from guns, I would argue that it is not speech being the trigger but rather the availability of a gun when tempers flare.  And it would seem to me those flash points are more easily reached.  Which speaks to asking why are people so angry in general and provoked so quickly?  I know we would both agree that what sets people off is really silly.  It is as if many people in adult bodies have reversed to third grade brain development.  But now they have guns to settle the score.

      Here is my real-life example.   

      In March 2024 on State Street in the city, according to the criminal complaint, the victim suffered life-threatening injuries after being shot multiple times. The shooter and the victim didn’t know each other prior to the incident. However, Madison police detectives reported the shooter and the victim got into an argument after passing each other inside a restaurant.  The argument carried over to outside the restaurant, where it escalated.  Court records show the victim was shot three times and he was bleeding heavily from two of those wounds. Officials report the man was barely conscious and was rushed to the hospital.

      Seriously? From being inside a restaurant? What would have happened had no guns been within reach?

      Like

  2. “What would have happened had no guns been within reach?”

    What would have happened if public arguments were banned? Guns probably never would have even been reached for, no? After all, how often do two people, without ever saying a word, start attacking each other?

    (I do know what would have happened to an ol’ friend of mine if she had not had a firearm “within reach” while walking to work one early morning about 6-7 years ago – she probably would be the one who ended up in a hospital (or morgue) rather than her attacker being the one who needed surgery.)

    As I am sure you are aware, the reason Australia can enact these type of laws is because free speech and gun ownership are considered privileges rather than protected rights like here in America. And I personally hold “fast and firm” to all of our protected rights – I am not a “Cafeteria Constitutionist” who picks and chooses which rights to protect and which to ignore. If you are unhappy with gun ownership being a protected right then work towards revoking the 2nd Amendment. Because until it is repealed that right deserves as much protection as all the others.

    Basically, it comes down to this: If having a waiting period, extreme limitations, and/or flat-out bans for some basic rights is unacceptable to you then how can those actions be acceptable for any of our other protected rights?

    Like

Leave a reply to Gregory Humphrey Cancel reply