Tyndmyr wrote:Ranbot wrote:What if the US just got to Australia levels of gun regulation? A country that spans an entire continent, democratic style of governance, English speaking, former colony of England, a nation with one of the larger economies in the world, contains a mix of modern urban areas and vast rural and agricultural areas where gun ownership is part of the culture..... sound familiar?
To what end?
Gun regulation isn't a good thing in itself. No regulation is, really. Australia has fairly low violence rates but...they've been decreasing steadily for 25 years, which predates their gun ban/confiscation attempt. Fans of gun banning would love to give the gun ban credit for it, but...it could easily be something else, and the trends that predated the gun banning pretty much have to be, causality not working backward and all.
And, even if you accept that somehow, guns are connected to the decreasing homicide rates in Australia, gun ownership rates are increasing, not decreasing in Australia. The country has about 50% more guns per person than they did when they passed the 1996 ban.
The answer to "To what end?" would be fewer "assault-style" guns, like Australia has restricted. Statistics relating all guns to all murders misses the mark of what gun control regulations are trying to do. No one really cares if anyone owns 50+ hunting rifles; but they do care if someone owns 50+ assault style guns... [OR one assault style gun and 50+ large capacity magazines]. Relating all guns to all murders is also mostly irrelevant because gun regulation laws aren't inspired by or designed to stop individual murders. What people really care about is trying to stop mass shootings in schools, movie theaters, concerts, churches, night clubs, etc. These mass shootings and home-grown terrorists are what drain our society, government, and economy trying to defend against and clean up after. That's what gun regulations are principally trying to stop or reduce. So, the statistics of overall gun ownership and overall murders are red herrings and miss the point. Now, getting back to Australia's gun ban, I think you can find a correlation between Australia's 1996 ban on specific types of assault-style guns and their incidents of mass shootings since then... there have been ZERO mass shootings since 1996.
You have also stated or alluded to cultural difference between the US and Australia that could account for the difference in murders.* The fact that Australia was even able to pass and enforce their assault weapon ban shows their culture probably is a little different, but when I brought up Australia's gun ban I had a reason for listing the many ways Australia and the United States history, geography, economics, and government are very similar. I don't believe the cultures are as drastically different as some people purport. I have an extremely hard time believing that Australia's 20+ years without a single mass shooting incident is 100% cultural and not at all related to their regulations.
(* and I presume you would correlate mass shootings to culture too, although I know you didn't say anything about mass shootings specifically... if not I take it back.)
Also it's been stated in the discussion above that regulations eventually can influence culture, like how smoking restrictions have helped society smoke less. Or seat belt regulations for cars have slowly become a widespread social habit for most people to buckle up. So, if there's a problem with our culture of violence and guns, then maybe it's time for regulation that will help shape that culture in a more positive and safer way for everyone.