Is This Finally the Time for Gun Reform?
Now that the immediate crisis in Orlando has passed and the long process of recovery continues, it’s worth revisiting our long and sadly ongoing discussion thread on mass shootings. In the most recent installments from January, an Australian reader noted the dramatic gun-control measures that the Australia government imposed following the the 1996 Port Arthur massacre—one of the deadliest in world history, killing 35, but now surpassed by the body count of 50 in Orlando. Australia subsequently banned automatic and semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns, and a compulsory “National Firearms Buyback Scheme” got 600,000 such guns out of private hands.
Several readers scrutinized our reader’s Australia-U.S. comparison, and even the Australian reader himself listed several reasons why similar reforms would be next to impossible in the U.S. However, this next Australian reader, emailing this week, argues that Americans could still follow the lead of Australians without going to the extreme of bans and buyback schemes:
The reasons why mass shootings have been limited in Australia are not just related to the 1990s buyback of semi-auto weapons. There are a lot of more practical steps that keep guns off the street and out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths.
For instance, anyone who wants to keep guns in their home must have a police-approved gun safe, which must be fixed in place with approved mounting bolts so that it cannot be removed. Guns are required to be locked in the safe at all times when not actually in use and ammunition must be stored separately. And I’m not talking about an old school locker with the key on top; there are detailed specifications for gun safes to prevent them being broken into, and it is an offence to leave the keys lying around the house where they can be found by an intruder. Police routinely check shooters’ safes for compliance.
[CB note: A reader in Wake County, North Carolina, has written to us about gun safes and how the local police are willing to store guns for citizens who can’t afford them, especially during a difficult emotional period that could lead to suicide. The reader called for a “universal, no-questions-asked gun storage should be the duty of every elected Sheriff in the country.”]
Every gun needs to be registered to a licensed shooter, and licenses are only given to people who have a genuine need—such as those working in security jobs, members of gun clubs who shoot at approved ranges, and farmers and hunters who have approval of a land-owner to shoot on their land. Licences have to be renewed regularly.
There is a 28 day cooling-off period when someone first applies for a licence. The applicant has to confirm that they want to proceed with the application after 28 days. Applicants must also pass a firearms awareness (safety) test. One licence does not cover all firearms; you need to be licensed for each category of firearm.
Some types of guns cannot be stored in the home. They must be stored at a registered armoury. There is a limit on the number of guns that can be registered to a shooter. When transporting guns from storage to a shooting range or hunting site, bolts must be removed and the firearm must be secured by a trigger lock or other lock to prevent theft. Ammunition must be removed from magazines and transported in a separate locked case. Anyone who sells a firearm privately must notify police of the name and address of the buyer.
I don’t see how these sorts of measures could not be introduced in the USA by a willing legislature.
Do you? Any thoughts in general about gun control in the wake of Orlando? Let us know. Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate will vote on guns soon. Here’s Russell with the latest: “After 15 hours of standing on the Senate floor and lamenting congressional inaction on guns, this is what Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut had won: the chance to vote, again, on measures to expand background checks and keep suspected terrorists from buying firearms.” Senators will vote on the measures early next week but it’s “more probable that they will fail,” says Russell. This reader is skeptical of reform:
Gun control won’t do much to stop gun violence seeing that:
1. Most murders are done with handguns, not automatic rifles, and those are what people want to ban.
2. Illegal guns. Say what you will, but it’s relatively easy for cartels to smuggle guns from Mexico. Also, see France—not just the Bataclan shooting, but also the train terrorist that the American marines stopped, and the cop that was shot recently. All illegal guns. Countries like Australia and Japan can implement it because they’re islands; it’s harder to smuggle guns there.
3. A motivated person can even make a gun, which is what happened with the recent murder of MP Cox in the UK. 3D printed guns are also getting more and more reliable.
Russell has been covering the gun debate all week, exploring the question “Could Congress Have Stopped Omar Mateen From Getting His Guns?,” as well as addressing the possibility of Trump persuading the NRA to restrict firearm sales to people on the terrorist watch list. Reader Ethan hopes not:
Using the terror watch list as a “no buy” list circumvents due process. There is no question that these lists are rarely audited, have many errors, and do not have a judicial process by which someone can be removed. If someone is dangerous enough to have rights removed, shouldn’t we just arrest them?
Meanwhile, outside Washington, Adrienne looks at what everyday Americans can do to reduce gun violence.
