America is unique. While we did not invent representative democracy, we are the first country to have successfully implemented it as our system of government. Our Constitution is a marvel of the modern world; it is a document that enshrines a covenant between government and the people. It is a guarantee that the government derives its power from the people and it even enumerates certain inalienable rights- not privileges– that are the God-given guarantees of our people.
These include rights never before seen in human history- a right to remain free from unwarranted searches and seizures. A right to assemble, to petition our government, a right to speak freely and openly and the right to do so in a free press are all protected. We enjoy the right to remain free from torture, to remain free from a lengthy judicial process that could hold people indefinitely without trial.
And yes, as much as the left tries to deny it, our rights include a God-given right to individual firearm ownership.
Now, Hillary Clinton says that in order to quell mass shootings, we should mimic the actions of other, less-free countries who hold no such provision of freedom. She has stated that a measure similar to Australia’s gun confiscation is something we should “look at.”
When liberals assert that other countries possess lower violent crime rates, they often cite heavily-manipulated facts.
Yes, Great Britain enjoys fewer gun-related deaths, but when we consider violent crimes that include knives, bats, chains and a various assortment of other weapons, Great Britain hardly appears to serve as a peaceful utopia.
To gain a better idea of what strict gun control would look like in America, we do not need to look elsewhere. We have it. Take a look at some of the places with the strictest gun control in the country. Places like Chicago, Newark, and Washington, D.C., remain awash in violence and yet, the left loves to pretend that more national laws are the answer to our problem.
On Friday, 2016 Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton claimed that Americans should look to Australia for an idea of how to deal with gun violence. After a horrific shooting, Australia underwent a mass gun confiscation and made the possession of a gun all-but illegally in most circumstances.
At an event at Keene State College, an elderly attendee asked,
“[Regarding] handguns…Australia recently managed to take away tens of thousands–even millions–of handguns, and in one year they were all gone. Can we do that? And if we can’t, why can’t we?”
Clinton eagerly took the bait and replied,
“You know, Australia’s a good example, Canada’s a good example, [and] the UK’s a good example. Why? Because each of them had mass killings, Australia had a huge mass killing about 20 or 25 years ago. Canada did as well, so did the UK. In reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws. In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program. The Australian government as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns and basically clamped down going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach–more of a permitting approach.”
First of all, Australia did not “buy-back” anything; they confiscated personal property and disguised tyranny as a forced sale. Also, Australia did not allow citizens to have “automatic weapons.” The left loves to blur the line between “semi-auto” and “full-auto.” The difference is like the difference between a bicycle and a motorcycle- yes, both have two wheels, but one “just goes” with minimal effort and the other requires continuous effort by the user.
Most importantly, however, not only is an “Australian approach” entirely incompatible with our system of government, the efficacy of the Australian gun confiscation (not a ban, mind you) has shown no clear results in homicides.
Yes- that’s right; the darling go-to point for the anti-Second Amendment liberal is a myth. Like the gunshow loophole and the existence of “assault weapons,” it’s just a flat-out myth.
The National Review reports on several findings related to the much-praised Australian gun confiscation program:
University of Melbourne researchers Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi concluded their 2008 report on the matter with the statement, “There is little evidence to suggest that [the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program] had any significant effects on firearm homicides.” “Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears,” the reported continued, “the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.”
A 2007 report, “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” by Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran similarly concluded that the buyback program did not have a significant long-term effect on the Australian homicide rate.
The Australian gun-homicide rate had already been quite low and had been steadily falling in the 15 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre. And while the mandatory buyback program did appear to reduce the rate of accidental firearm deaths, Baker and McPhedran found that “the gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia.”
It’s clear that Clinton has no idea what she’s talking about. If she’s going to try and out-flank Bernie Sanders by being the “anti-Second Amendment” candidate, she should first do her research to discover what has and what has not worked to aid in the reduction of violent crimes.
I’ll even start her off with a hint: stop looking to Australia and start looking at commonalities between states with low levels of violent crime. If she does, she will discover an almost-universally-applicable link between lenient gun laws that place guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens and lower crime rates.