Australian Gun Control Fails to Reduce Incidents of Mass Murder or Victims of Mass Murder
My weekday routine begins with reading news reports and watching a few broadcasts, one of which is Democracy Now. DN featured a woman named Rebecca Peters who is an activist who led a campaign to change Australian gun laws after a 1996 mass murder that left 35 people dead. DN is interviewing Peters to promote a gun control agenda that is wholly ineffective at reducing mass murder. (1)
Before I address the substance of the interview and the effect (or lack there of) of gun control in Australia, I want to address the general deficiency in logic that gun control will reduce the amount mass murders, or the casualties resulting from mass murder attempts. Gun control as a solution to mass murder is akin to banning utensils to address obesity. As long as people are dissatisfied, alienated, deceived, trapped, and driven to kill people, people are going to attempt to kill people. An effort to limit the means by which they can kill people does nothing to address the cause of why people want to kill people in mass. A man with a bag of pipe bombs could probably go through a school, kill, maim, and injure more people than a man with a semi-automatic rifle. We shouldn’t forget, that even if such a person cannot legally purchase a gun, the law is but a minor hindrance in the procurement of a gun.
In Australia, in the 20 years prior to the 1996 mass shooting there were a total of 95 people killed in mass murder events. In the 20 years after 1996 there were 96 people killed. Meaning the measure has not prevented the amount of deaths resulting from mass murder events. Peters is disingenuous in her assertion that because of the gun control measures Australia has never seen another mass murder event like what was experienced in 1996. It is disingenuous because with the exception of the Coniston Massacre in 1928, which was a murder of indigenous people, Australia has never seen anything like what happened in 1996 in terms of the volume of casualties prior to 1996.
She further attempts to minimize post 96 attacks by claiming there have been some, but it was a person murdering their family. In the 17 incidents in the 20 years prior to 96 3 were familicides. In the 19 mass murders incidents that occurred in the 20 years after 1996 4 were familicide. In regard to volume, the highest concentration of victims from a mass murder event from 1928 to 1996 was 15 people dying in a nightclub in 1973. After 1996 there was an attack in 2000 that killed 15 people. Both incidents were caused by arson. Mass murder events post 96 were not exclusively familicide as Peters suggests in the interview, with the incidents of familicide being consistent with the nations history of familicide prior to the gun control measure. The Australian example is a prime evidence to the point that gun control will not reduce the frequency of mass murder or the casualties of mass murder. (2)
Gun control is the implied solution to mass murder events. It is the position of the democratic party because the causes of dissatisfaction cannot be addressed The democrats must maintain the American Myth. To talk about the reasons, you have to address an unfair, plutocratic system, where most people cannot create their own opportunities, where people are struggling financially, where people have no representation in government, and where people are confined to an inherited reality socially reinforced in an environment of mass indoctrination. The lie in general drives some to purpose driven ideological lies, that are as valid as the lie of the mainstream.
The perpetrators of mass murder events have different motivation. In New Zealand, although I haven’t read the shooters manifesto, it is xenophobic. The xenophobia among American’s and their European allies, and nations of European colonialism is born from the pretext required for US foreign policy. The vilification of Islam, the dehumanization of Muslims is required to justify the illegal invasion, destabilization, and mass murder of regions that are home to Muslim people. An industry and ideology grows around propaganda that supports the pretext of the state that acts on behalf of the agenda of it’s directors. I’ve attended discussion groups consisting of people from the right and far right who will tell you what Muslims believe based on the interpretation of Islam by non-Muslims with an agenda to prop up state positions. I would tell them if they were really interested in understanding Islam they should talk to an Imam, and some would say that Muslims will lie to non-Muslims about what they believe.
The ignorant masses who lack the ability for analysis and critical thought, whose minds are made up for them by others, actually believe that stricter gun laws can prevent incidents of mass murder. I’m actually neutral on the subject of gun control, but I am against gun control as a solution to preventing mass murder. I’m critical of the position because A: it will not prevent incidents of mass murder or limit casualties in mass murder, and Australia is a prime example of that fact. B: It distracts from the causes of mass murder events.
For a comparison of homicide in general, we can compare the US against countries with strict gun laws like Russia. Russia has more murder per capita than the United States despite stricter gun laws. (3) The bottom line is as long as people want to kill people, people are going to find a way to kill people even if you restrict their access to guns.
1: Democracy Now “After Deadly 1996 Massacre, Australia Over Hauled Its Gun Laws. New Zealand Now Plans to do the Same”. 3/18/2019 https://www.democracynow.org/2019/3/18/after_deadly_1996_massacre_australia_overhauled