Alvarado, Esmeralda GOVT Paper PDF

Preview

Summary

Gun control: A Comparative Analysis of Australia and the United States...

Description

Gun control: A Comparative Analysis of Australia and the United States

Esmeralda Alvarado Honors Federal Government GOVTH-2305 Professor Ralph Angeles December 14, 2018

1 Alvarado Abstract This project explores the reasons why the U.S. has failed to enact strict gun laws and why other countries specifically Australia has been able to. Furthermore, this study will highlight where the gap and loopholes are in the failure of gun laws and the effect on current and past laws. This research centers on the analysis of textual and statistical analysis including the U.S. Mass Shooting Tracker, to see the outcomes of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban 1994 and National Firearm Agreement 1996. The gun culture of both countries will also be examined to see the consequences of it in the governments’ ability to pass stricter gun laws. These policies were enacted to put restrictions on the sale and ownership of firearms especially on assault rifles which were a threat to society for their role in mass shootings.

2 Alvarado

Introduction The word gun control is heard constantly around the world especially during times of gun crisis like mass shootings. Each country handles its own gun regulations and policies, but what happens when one country holds 35-50 percent of the world’s civilian-owned guns (Weg, 2016)? It becomes a problem, especially when it has dozens of mass shootings every year (Mass Shooting). The U.S. guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms under the second amendment in its constitution, one of the only two countries in the world the other being Mexico (Weg, 2016). This clause of the constitution has been set and the federal government does not get involved, given that it would seem like they are overstepping their power. Many countries have been seen as model countries in gun control but the most prominent is Australia which has strict gun laws based on the fact that they have not had a mass shooting since 1996 (Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy, 2018). When both the U.S. and Australia are looked at, when discussing gun law, they are on completely different poles. Through the research, the term mass shooting will be used based on the definition given by the FBI, as it does not have a definite one; “multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, and in one or more locations in close proximity” (Krouse and Richardson, 2015). Gun culture is a term that as well does not have an official definition, in the research the definition used will be the one set by scholars based on the interpretation of the word culture; “shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviors, and integrational transmittance relating to one specific artifact.” (Lenz, 2004). “Strict” gun laws will be used based on the number of mass shootings that have occurred since the enactment of the law.

3 Alvarado First, this research will look at the different policies enacted in the U.S. and Australia and their overall effect on mass shootings in the decades after their enactment, including the loopholes and gaps the laws failed to cover. The research will also look if the policies enacted served their purpose, did they reduce mass shooting or not? The years surrounding the enactments of the gun laws will be looked at as well to see if there was a significant reduction in mass shootings. The project will look into the gun culture of both countries and compare them to see if they have an effect on their governments’ ability to pass strict gun laws. Literature Review Gun control is a topic that is constantly debated by politicians, the people, and the media, but the spotlight is shined on this subject especially during moments of crisis. Scholars offer two explanations and divisions for the gun problem in the U.S. and Australia. They focus on the gun culture, and policies that have been successful or a failure in guaranteeing strict gun laws. Gun culture does not have a concrete definition as mentioned but scholars rely on the culture definition (Lenz, 2004). Some countries have a strong foundation and control over their guns while others do not. Gun control is a challenge many countries faced, primarily when the debate involves the scope of government and its ability to override their constitution, and also when there are constant influences that are against these laws. Australia and the U.S. are two countries that are on opposite sides when it comes to gun laws, one has been successful at enacting them the other has failed. Australia enacted the National Firearm Agreement of 1996 (NFA)after a shooting in Port Arthur that killed 35 citizens. The Australian federal government passed this law that restricted its once relaxed gun laws, but it not only focused on domestic gun laws it also looks at borders. Weg explains how Australia having enacted also laws for border security was able to keep the

4 Alvarado number of firearms from coming into the country to a minimum. Weg makes the correlation that the states that gave up their firearms through the buyback program led to “the largest falls of firearms deaths,” scholars try to make the connections that fewer guns lead to fewer deaths. Weg also points out something that researchers have mentioned before the before the NFA Australia did not have many mass shootings and the NFA did not really have an effect because mass shootings were rare already (Weg, 2016). Scholars see the importance of gun control polices and its effects. One of the first strict gun policies in the U.S. was the Federal Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) of 1994, which banned high-capacity semi-automatic rifles. Koper and Roth (2001) explain the effects of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban and the lesson learned from this policy. Koper and Roth’s research explains how short-term experiments on the effectiveness of the AWB showed low gun homicides significantly, however in the long run, there are many arguments as to whether the results came from the ban or if it was a normal change in gun violence. Before the ban, the use of the banned firearms was very minimal, a big part of the shootings before the ban were not by assault weapons (Koper & Roth 2001). The ban did not really create a record that could statistically be significant. Scholars in both of these countries have a debate on whether the NFA or FAWB were truly significant in reducing deaths, suicides and mass shootings. They argue that there are other trends in society that caused the small reduction of gun-related incidents, it does not exactly stem from the federal bans. In the U.S. the ban only got rid of military-style guns and while the ban was being written it took into consideration its gun-loving citizens. In Australia. it made gun laws stricter, considered the safety of the country. Koper, Roth, and Weg look at the scope of each country’s laws; what the policy covers.

5 Alvarado Researchers have explored the thought of gun culture being something that makes enacting strict gun laws a large debate; the support of the country’s citizens as part of this culture. After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Australia polls found that “90-95% of those people polled approved of new stringent gun laws,” this showed the unity in Australia to passed strict gun laws even if this shooting happened off mainland in a small city, citizens came together for their safety (Weg, 2016). Pro-gun was seen was repulsive after what happened, because of the magnitude of the shooting. When the 1996 agreement was passed one of the terms was that citizens had to have a “genuine reason to own a gun,” self-defense was not one of them (Weg, 2016). This gives insight into how strict Australians turned into after the NFA, and yet had little to no resistance from its citizen. In the U.S. there is a strong gun culture within the country that has prevented it from passing strict gun laws. Scholars have even come up with a definition for gun culture that focuses only in the U.S. “The American gun culture is a seemingly unified aggregation of individuals, mainly white, small-town males who evidence a longstanding personal attachment to guns, gun ownership and gun habits (Lenz, 2004).” Researchers conclude that Americans have a rooted attachment to the Second Amendment which makes it difficult for the government to passed gun control (Felson, 2010). Even after mass shootings, like the 2013 shooting in Newton, 45% of people polled, believed that protecting one’s gun right was more important to them (Weg, 2016). Horror towards this shooting did not last long, along with other similar instances. After mass shooting gun approval rises even more (Weg, 2016). The love for guns in the U.S. is rooted and can be traced back to its beginning, and to this day has not worn off in the certain groups of Americans.

6 Alvarado Lenz, Weg, and Felson conclude that gun culture whether in the U.S. or Australia plays a vital role in the establishment of strict gun control laws. They emphasize the attitudes each country’s citizens feel towards guns and how they differ, even with similar incidents. The gun culture in each country affects how a citizen feels about guns after certain incidents like mass shootings. In the U.S. is the norm to see pro-gun supporters after shooting defending gun rights, but in Australia, where gun laws are strict, is different and seen as unpleasant. Based on the evidence presented scholars conclude that there are various factors as to why one country is more successful in enacting gun laws whole others fail over and over. There are various factors why gun laws are very complicated to pass, but it can be narrowed down to policy efficiency and gun culture. The public opinion is very important when deciding what to do about gun control, certain citizens will be more vocal if they believe their rights are being violated. In Australia, citizens are able to agree more in terms of gun control, as opposed to the U.S. These issues are the constant argument in the effectiveness of gun policy and the government’s ability to enact such laws. Hypothesis If gun laws are stricter, mass shootings will stop or be reduced. Methodology “Strict gun” laws have not been possible in all countries, some successfully enacted them others do not. This research will entitle a comparative analysis between the United States and Australia. The United States had failed over and over again to enact strict gun legislation despite the constant threat whereas Australia has stood their ground in strict laws. The independent variable which explains something will include, gun culture, government structure and policies, these will

7 Alvarado work with the dependent variable, why certain countries are unable to enact strict gun laws. The variable will be examined in both Australia and the United States. “Gun culture” as noted in the literature review has a major influence in the government’s ability to pass strict gun laws. Gun culture is a term that has yet to be defined, scholars have different interpretations, for this research the definition that explains “shared belief, values, customs, behaviors, and intergenerational transmittance relating to one specific artifact,” will be used to survey how this behavior from citizens affect the ability for their government to pass strict gun legislation (Lenz, 2004). This portion will include a cultural study looking into the culture of both countries and the feeling towards guns from its citizens. How in Australia there was little resistance to pass gun laws but, in the U.S., it becomes a big national problem (Weg, 2016). The type of government each country has can have an effect on to what extent can the people influence policies, each government for each country will be researched and what it takes for national policies to be passed. Data collection will include, the number of mass shootings and causalities, these rates will demonstrate the effectiveness of policies in both countries. Data in the U.S. will show shootings before and after the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban and after to measure its effectiveness in preventing gun violence. In Australia data it will serve similar purposes but, in that country, it will look into the buy-back program along with the National Firearm Agreement and how these programs successfully reduced mass shootings. Looking into these policies is complex because there are different definitions for what is an assault weapon that had to be narrowed to “semi-automatic weapons having features that appear useful in military and criminal applications but unnecessary in shooting sports or self-defense (Koper & Roth, 2001). In this

8 Alvarado research, it will explain to what extent were gun policies enforced, that could have caused both its failure or success. In conclusion, these findings will help prove the hypothesis as to how Australia was more successful in enacting strict gun laws and the U.S. has not been able to. It will look into the gun culture, policies, and government and the people, how all these factors allow countries to pass strict gun laws. Data Gun policies and laws U.S. 

Federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 (FAWB): restricted semiautomatic weapons with similarity to military weapons. Also banned large capacity ammunition magazines (Koper and Roth, 2001).  Assault weapons manufactured before the ban’s date could still be legally owned, the ban was for newer weapons.  A small change to a weapon could mean the difference between legal and illegal, for example removing a flash hider transformed the weapon to a legal substitute. (Koper & Roth 2001)  Before the 1994 law Assault weapons accounted for 1-8% of guns used in crimes. (Koper and Roth 2001)  Assault weapons were banned because of their capacity to inflict wounds and death faster and at a greater scale. (Koper and Roth, 2001)



1999-2013 was analyzed to see the impact of the FAWB on mass shootings (Krouse and Richardson, 2015).

9 Alvarado 

four (4.0) incidents per year during the 1990s (5.6 victims murdered, 5.5 wounded per incident) (Krouse and Richardson, 2015).



four (4.1) incidents per year during the 2000s (6.4 victims murdered, 4.0 wounded per incident) (Krouse and Richardson, 2015).



four (4.5) incidents per year from 2010 through 2013 (7.4 victims murdered, 6.3 wounded per incident) (Krouse and Richardson, 2015).  2013-Present day o 2013) 25 mass shooting: 121 victims

o 2014) 20 mass shootings: 94 victims

o 2015) 27 mass shootings: 155 victims

o 2016) 28 mass shootings: 180 victims

o 2017) 24 mass shootings: 191 victims

o 2018) 25 mass shootings: 146 victims (Mass Shooting Tracker)



Gun Laws  U.S has 30-50 percent of all guns owned by civilians (Weg, 2016).  2nd amendment: The right to bear arms

10 Alvarado o The Constitution sets the right to bear arms to all citizen and does not specify to what limits, it leaves space for interpretation (Second Amendment).  Federal gun laws are weak, with little restrictions, most of the power has been handed to the state’s governments (Weg, 2016). o The federal government just sets minimum standards and keeps a list of people who can and cannot own gun (Weg, 2016).  Each state has a different age requirement for guns 18, 21, and some states have 16 as minimum age (Weg, 2016)  As of 2014 8 states have passed laws voiding federal regulations, so they do not override their state laws (Weg, 2016).  Under federal law is illegal to have a national gun registry, 8 states have bans against it (Gun laws by state: The complete guide, 2018). Australia Policies 

Australian Constitution does not specify the right to bear arms (Weg, 2016).  Firearm regulations is up to the states and territories under section 51 of the constitution



National Firearms Agreement (NFA)of 1996  This agreement restricted legal possession of automatic and semi-automatic firearms and self-loading firearms with magazine capacity of 5 rounds  This policy included a buy-back program to reduce the number of guns in the country that were no longer legal. The goal was to reduce the country’s gun by 1/5

11 Alvarado the government spent $304 million implementing this policy. Around 650,000 guns were bought from citizens (Weg, 2016). 

2002 National Trafficking and Handgun Agreement (NTHA). This agreement increased border protection and regulations for the legal manufacturing of guns. Also included the banned on certain accessories and penalties for committing interstate crimes with firearms. This act was followed by the National Handgun Buyback Act in 2003 to buyback guns no longer allowed with the new provisions (Weg, 2016).



The NFA also set up restrictions on that citizen needed a “genuine reason” to own a hand gun and personal protection was not one (Weg, 2016).



New South Wales: Firearms Act 1996, Weapons Prohibition Act 1998, and associated regulations



All these policies were enacted after the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre  Victoria:

Firearms

Act

1996,

Control

of

Weapons

Act

1990,

and

associated regulations (“Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Australia”).  Queensland: Weapons Act 1990 and associated regulations (“Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Australia”).  Western Australia: Firearms Act 1973 and associated regulations (“FirearmsControl Legislation and Policy: Australia”).  South Australia: Firearms Act 1977 and associated regulations (“Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Australia”).  Tasmania: Firearms Act 1996 and associated regulations (“Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Australia”).

12 Alvarado  Northern Territory: Firearms Act and associated regulations (“Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Australia”). Gun laws  “Genuine reason” to own a gun: Recreational shooting and hunting allowed with valid membership at approved clubs (Weg, 2016).  Must be 18 years of age (Weg, 2016).  Safety training for first timers (Weg, 2016).  Photograph license with address, and category of firearm (Weg, 2016).  A waiting period of no less than 28 days and a license for no more than 5 years (Weg, 2016).  Accept inspections by licensing authorities (Weg, 2016).  Every firearm requires a separate license (Weg, 2016). Gun Culture: U.S. 

Interest groups  The NRA is the biggest pro-gun interest group in the U.S. (Weg, 2016).  From 2007-2012 it spent over $2.3 million dollars on state legislation (Weg, 2016)



Americans  45% of people polled after the Newton shooting though it was more important to protect gun rights (Weg, 2016)  Among Americans protecting gun rights is more important than gun control.

13 Alvarado  In the south is where gun culture is the most prominent, it is rooted in their culture since the beginning of the U.S. They have an honor culture where the men are supposed to defend himself against anything. (Felson, 2010) Australia 

After the 1996 Port Arthur around 90-95% of Australians condemned guns even in the news media. Australians after shooting saw the problems and fixed it, almost everyone supported stronger gun control (Weg, 2016).



In the U.S. gun control is very controversial, the media attention lasts a few days after the shooting then it disappears. Americans cannot agree on gun control especially when its rooted in their culture and constitution (Weg, 2016). Analysis From the research on gun laws and their effectiveness in Australia and the U.S., it was

understood that there are various factors that influence how each government handles gun control. Both countries have similar backgrounds but what influences their laws are different. Through this research, there were patterns for reasons why one country was successful at enacting gun laws and the other has failed. Each country has different policy effectiveness and gun...