In response to a question inquiring if America could do the same as Australia and take back thousands of guns, Hillary Clinton responded saying: "It would be worth considering doing it on the national level".
Clinton's approving notion on this mentioned scenario is in reference to Australia's gun control laws implemented in 1996-1997. Following a mass shooting in Australia in 1996, the prime minister at the time there, John Howard, concluded that Australia had way too many guns available for people that were also way too easy to obtain - a similar issue the USA is currently facing. Subsequently, the NFA (National Firearms Agreement) induced a provision in which certain guns would be immediately banned, such as semi-automatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. This particular arrangement shocked me. If this provision was in effect, that would mean the government would have to take back all the guns already out, no? This seems like something that I think many gun owners in America would be opposed to. Nonetheless, to solve the issue of those guns already being in circulation, Australia would supplement the owners of these banned guns with a fair sum to compensate the handing in of the now illegal goods.
Personally, I'm not too sure that this would be a great idea for the USA. Chiefly, the USA and Australia are two completely different countries. While we may share some commonalities, we are both culturally and politically individual - meaning, our ideologies on certain issues in relation to the general public and political leaders vary immensely. Whilst the seizing of privately owned guns in Australia worked out for them, it may not be received as kindly here in the USA. Also, buying back every single banned gun would definitely add to our national debt.
On the flip side, the article states that immediately after Australia's gun buybacks, both suicides and homicides resulted in a steady decline. In the USA, where mass shootings are becoming more and more prevalent and common, perhaps we should take something off of this example; if not this, what other action can be done, because clearly we need to do something?
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
I was pleasingly shocked (if that makes any sense at all) at how Australia actually saw a steady decline, or some change at all, after enforcing this "taking back" of guns. I always am devastated at shootings that I read about on the news and can't deal with the shock well, even if it happened far away from me. I always sit there on my computer searching the news about the shooting, unable to concentrate. In other words, it makes me feel uneasy. If it would help the lives of the people become safer and help people feel more at ease when walking in the streets or across the beautiful scenes in college campuses and schools, I would strongly support the buying back of many guns. However, I do agree that there would be a lot of problems with the national finances and debts by buying and compensating all the gun owners. Also, there surely will be a lot of federal law suits against the government due to this "unreasonable snatching" of one's property. Despite these problems, I feel that at least an effort should be made. With some of the Republican candidates brushing the Oregon shooting event off as a light issue, saying thing like "that's the way the world works", I don't feel safe. So, I agree with the Democrats in that some change, in adding some kind of restriction on guns in some way, is necessary for the better quality of life in America.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Clinton's proposal of taking a leaf out of Australia's book in my opinion, is a decent plan. If it helped another nation solve it's crime issue, it's worth a shot (pun not intended) in the U.S. There will definitely be uproar, especially by those bible-carrying, gun-toting, red-blooded conservatives of the south. There will be loud complaints about the violation of our rights, "clearly stated in the Constitution". Clinton does have the right idea, and despite whatever the South or the NRA has to say, there must be change in our nation. I believe that there also needs to be more done than what Australia implemented. We are a different nation, with a similar issue, but not the same. Americans just seem to love their guns more.
ReplyDeleteI'm so surprised that Australia's buying back plan actually succeeded because you would think that many people especially those with ill intentions would not want to give up their guns. Although Clinton's proposition is noble, it is like so many of the other democratic promises: too expensive and impossible to fulfill. The biggest issue facing America today is our national debt. With all these plans for gun control, education, healthcare, etc. we will never pay back our dues and destroy our country. Funding these things aren't bad but we should favor a candidate who will fix the big problems before the smaller ones. The country won't shut down if equal rights have not been given to everyone but it will if the debt crisis continues. Something should be done to control guns but buying them back is outrageous
ReplyDeleteI don't think the Australian policy on guns will work in the U.S as it would go against our Second Amendment right, the right to bear a gun. In addition, many Americans own guns, which would make it extremely difficult to one, taking them back, and two, compensate for each gun. I agree with Ethan that this action would not be good for us financially as we are already in debt,
ReplyDeleteAlthough I'm all for gun regulation, taking on another countries policy just because it works seems like nonsense. There is no guarantee that a policy that works in Australia would work in the US purely on the fact that the 2 countries are not the same. Using Australia as an example is purely anecdotal evidence and doesn't do anything but make what looks to be a flawed policy look better
ReplyDelete