Brother’s in Blue: Bearing Arms

Kaci Evans

Profs Raser

EN111

21 November 2016

2:00 Section

Brother’s in Blue: Bearing Arms

        The United States and Australia have been brothers in arms for nearly a century, but when it comes to gun control, the two are very different because Australia has strict policies, has had only 1 massacre, and has had a decrease in deaths caused by firearms, while the United States has weaker laws, a higher death rate, and multiple massacres. Gun control is a major topic that is constantly discussed because of the pros and cons of having a firearm. However, gun violence can be prevented without stricter gun control laws. A higher education on gun safety as well as mental illness can prevent a higher rate in firearm related deaths as well as not having stricter gun control policies.

        Australia has stricter gun policies compared to the United States. In 1996 in Port Arthur, Australia, a mass shooting occurred resulting in the banning of non-recreational automatic and semi-automatic weapons in the country.  Citizens of Australia had one year to turn in their weapons through a buyback program and within that one year, “6743,726” automatic and semi-automatic weapons were bought back and were destroyed (Brothers in Arms 88).  Because of this massacre, they have put restrictions on the policy of having weapons in Australia.  These policies include safe storage requirements, stricter regulations, and ownership regulation requirements.  In order to keep a weapon in Australia, a license must be obtained. In order to obtain a license, there must have a genuine reason for owning or using a firearm for recreational use.  Citizens are not allowed to have a weapon for protection, but are allowed to have one for hunting, sporting, etc.

        With the restrictions on weapons, the death rates in Australia have declined rapidly.  “There was a 65% decrease in firearm homicide rate and a 59% decline in the firearm suicide rate with no parallel increase in rates in no firearm related homicides and suicide” (Brothers in Arms 77).  Because of these restrictions, Australia has had only 1 massacre. However, the war history of the country could be the reason why there is a decrease and not gun control. Australia hasn’t been in as many wars as the United States making them timid around firearms. However, Australia does not have a constitutionally established Bill of Rights, nor is there a right to keep and bear arms. Because of this, it made restricting firearms very easy in Australia compared to the United States that has a set of established rights, and the right to keep and bear arms being one of those constitutional rights.

        While the United States is one of the best countries to live in, it can also be very scary to live in.  With high homicide rates and suicide rates, the United States is considering going under Australian policy when it comes to firearms.  Within the past few years, the United States has had 74 mass shootings occur, 54 of those the shooter had obtained the weapon illegally and 65 had mental health issues.  The majority of homicides and suicides in the United States are firearm related.  The majority of these death rates are committed by people with a criminal background, have a history of drug abuse, and only few have a mental health illness. With the United States being around guns for centuries, we aren’t timid when there is a gun present, unlike Australia. This could be the reason the United States has more death rates than Australia.

        The restrictions the United States has on weapons are weak.  It depends on the state a citizen is in when purchasing the weapon and what the restrictions are for using one.  When the second amendment first came into action, it was understood that the reason people should have the right to bear arms is for recreational use, and has now turned into self-defense. The majority of the United States is very patriotic and lives by the constitution. Unlike Australia, some states in the United States do not require a firearm to kept in a safe and locked up.  This is very unsafe, however, citizens would not be able to access their weapons instantly and easily if they were locked up.  

        There are loopholes that can be gone through when purchasing a firearm in the United States.  As well as when a background check is being done, it does not list any mental health illnesses and is not kept up to date. When purchasing a firearm at a gun show, they check the consumer’s driver’s license depending on the type of weapon being purchased, as well as do a quick background check to determine if they are eligible for a firearm.   These loopholes are part of the reason the death rates in the United States are so high. Those that are considered “mentally ill” do not show signs of future violence and are only a small fraction of the violent conduct caused in the United States. The majority of violence in the shooters of the massacres in the United States are committed by those with a criminal background or have a history of drug abuse (Wolf & Rosen 3).

        If the United States undergoes the same policy as Australia, they would be taking our right to bear arms as well as starting an up rise against the National Rifle Association (NRA) and gun supporters against non-gun supporters. A few years ago, the United States attempted to go under Australia’s policy but the Senate decided against it because it is in such high favor of the National Rifle Association. If the second amendment is taken away from the citizens of the United States, it would start a second civil war.  Taking away the Second Amendment from United States citizens, would not lower the death rate. In fact, it just might raise it.  If it is taken, a second civil war with occur between gun supporters and non-gun supporters, causing the gun supporters to use their weapons against the non-gun supporters which means a rise of the death rate in the United States.  Having gun control will negatively impact the United States because we have a set of constitutional rules and rights.