Virginia Tech

VIRGINIA TECH SHOOTINGS AND (A BIT) ON AUSTRALIAN FIREARM POLICY
The recent shootings at Virginia Tech have caused at of questions to be raised as to the prudency and wisdom of America’s gun laws, as well as questions regarding previous shootings, especially Columbine. Australian gun laws are very strict compared to those of the United States. Basically, it’s extremely difficult to get a gun; the general populous does not have access to firearms and most Australians do not view this as an infringement on their rights. As I understand it, Australians believe that their gun laws make Australia a safer place to live, decreasing crime rates and incidences of violent crimes, including murder and robbery. The overall safety of their nation is more important than their right to bear arms.

However, it is important to understand that the right to bear arms is NOT part of their constitution. The ability to purchase, own, and carry firearms is NOT an ingrained part of their culture, constitution and way of life, as it is in America. Despite all of the evidence supporting stricter gun laws in the States, the basic argument is that people are concerned that removing or limiting their 2nd Amendment rights will lead to restrictions of other rights. Whether this is the case, or if America truly has an addiction to violence and the need for control in the form of guns, is unclear.

According to my Calfiornian friend, if no one (with the exception of law enforcement and the military) had guns, it would be a good thing. Her opinions differs greatly from mine due largely to our cultural backgrounds. In Montana, guns are an ingrained part of our heritage and lifestyle. Taking them away would destroy a large part of our culture. Theoretically, anyway. Without guns, we would lose one of our largest outdoor activities, hunting. If you want to look at it from an economic point of view, removing guns and therefore hunting would also decrease the amount of money the state makes annually in tourism and hunting fees. Because (most) Montanans have been raised around guns, gun safety is a large part of our education. We are well-equipped to handle and use guns in a safe and competent manner. Accidents happen when people do not follow basic gun safety guidelines, like pointing the gun at someone or failing to make sure the gun is unloaded before transporting.

However, as previously stated, the major issue surrounding gun control is infringement of our Second Amendment rights. Should anyone be able to get a gun? Does everyone really have that right? Clearly, due to current gun laws, there are limitations on who can own firearms and what kin of firearms they can own. Unfortunately, it’s difficult for the Federal Government to pass laws governing firearms because the need and use of firearms is so varied across the United States. Alaska and California both have a “need” for guns for protection; in Alasksa, the protection is from animals and in California, the protection is needed from other people.

It’s interesting to attempt to research how violent crime rates in the United States and Australia compare. Although it’s apparent crimes involving guns are hugely more frequent in the U.S., it is not clear what the differences in violent crimes actually are. Does having no guns actually decrease the probability of being a victim of a violent crime? So Australians don’t have guns. Does this mean the chances of getting stabbed or mugged increase or decrease? Is there no direct correlation?

Although I am from an area of the U.S. where gun use and ownership is common, events like the Virginia Tech shooting bring to light the dangers and possible lack of prudence in allowing civilians to own guns. I am of the opinion that if the government were to impose stricter gun laws, it may decrease the incidence rate of spontaneous acts of violence involving guns, but would have little to no effect on the rates related to premeditated crime (including murder, armed robbery, etc.) If someone really wants to get a gun, they will find a way. I am willing to assume significant proportion of guns are obtained illegally anyway. What would stricter guns laws change?