One of the most highly debated topics in the west is that of gun regulations. But such a broad topic cannot be analyzed in a single paper. This paper will focus on the rhetoric of both sides while also examining and critiquing their values and the angle of their views. Mainly referencing the rhetoric triangle of logos, pathos, and mythos (Downs). It will consist of multiple authors and texts which will bring a form of consistency for the overall underlying argument had by both factions. Australia’s gun laws were properly put into effect after the 1996 mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania, which left thirty-five people dead. The Australian government swiftly put in a ‘national firearms agreement’ which states that firearms cannot be in possession or sold unless it is for “military use; police or other government purposes; occupational categories of shooters who have been licensed for a specified purpose (e.g., the extermination of feral animals)” (Australasian police ministers council). Many people have used Australia as an example of gun control for the United States. The United States has gone through turmoil in the last decade on whether to tighten gun control. The second amendment states that “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (Council on foreign relations). This piece will not state how either country should manage its gun policies, but rather the underlying reasons why there is such a fiery debate around gun legislation. Contrasting the vastly different legislative makeups of the two countries while also the different societal values held. Therefore, there is difference that exists between America and Australia. As America has a legal makeup unlike Australia’s which would be difficult to create laws comparable. Whether that be down to the legal values held but also the social values between the two countries.
One area of debate was the deep-seeded history of gun use in the United States which isn’t as prevalent in Australian society. As stated above the second amendment allows for American citizens to bear firearms. Something that isn’t heavily seen in Australian history. Guns were largely if not all used for hunting, protecting livestock, and leisure. With nothing in the original declaration of independence about being allowed to carry or own firearms. The constitution which was made in 1901 for Australia mainly states how the democratic government is to be run while still being a part of the commonwealth. The only similarities are in the control by the federal government as the constitution explains that “legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives” (Constitution of Australia). But since there is no law allowing the right to bear weaponry, Australia had an easy transition in the collection of firearms in 1997. Especially with Australia originally being a penal colony with limited independence from the United Kingdom. This point of argument is vital as the deep-seated presence in American culture cannot be underestimated. In the case of McDonald vs City of Chicago in 2010, where citizens were feeling frustrated because of Chicago’s gun restrictions not allowing them to keep a firearm in their house. Although the state put in regulations against owning firearms in the city, it was overruled due to the fourteenth amendment. The fourteenth amendment states that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Interactive Constitution). Thus, bringing under it the second amendment. The court ruling stated that the “founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights” (Lawrence). Hence, this disparity between constitutions cannot be overlooked as it already provides problems for a dramatic change of gun control nationwide. As this takes precedence over most of the underlying disagreements (Porter). This is a reason for the past decade why neither party nor supportive authors can take great strides in implementing their ideologies.
Furthermore, a lot of anti-firearm establishments argue that the United States would see lower crime rates with guns; Australia being the key example. While also stating that the accessibility of firearms is a danger to society. The strict gun laws put in place from 1996 to 2017 make it virtually impossible to illegally source firearms in Australia if you do not meet the criteria. With Australia cultivating a strong pro-gun outlook in the last 50 years (commonwealth influence), the government introduced a buyback plan from households that had banned guns which would lessen the overall distaste for such substantial change in policy (Rand). This key point made by anti-firearm enthusiasts is also the ‘turning point’ that lowered crime rates in Australia. In 2010, found a 65% decline in the firearm homicide rate and a 59% decline in the firearm suicide rate in the decade following the implementation of the NFA, with no parallel increase in rates of non-firearm related homicides or suicides (Leigh et al). On the contrary, establishments state that gun-controlled areas increase crime rates, and those firearms are federally safe enough for society to acquire one. The NRA states that in 2020, New York who has one of the strictest gun laws saw “homicides increased 41%, and shootings increased an astounding 95%” (NRA). Something that is in hot contention in the United States in whether these statistics are reliable. The NRA is also a strong advocate for leaving the background checks on firearm purchases as further changes wouldn’t work. For instance, the NRA argues “Federal studies have repeatedly found that persons imprisoned for firearm crimes get their firearms mostly through theft, the black market, or family members or friends” (NRA). Backing their point by stating that “Less than one percent get guns at gun shows” and that “about 1.4 million guns, or an annual average of 232,400, were stolen during burglaries and other property crimes in the six-year period from 2005 through 2010” (Langton). This is repeatedly disputed by both sides with no clear winner. As authors like Hirsh, repeatedly maintain that “licensed dealers are legally obliged to conduct background checks, relevant records are often incomplete because states do not always report mental health adjudications or criminal convictions to the federal government, meaning disqualified persons have a good chance of successfully purchasing firearms from a licensed dealer” (Hirsh). Since laws vary from state to state, the use of statistics is inconsequential. Thus, both sides use it more to appeal to people’s values and to evoke remorse through those gruesome figures. It really comes down to the personal beliefs and culture of the area a person lives in to cultivate their views on statistics mentioned above. Australian statistics seem to show that it has reduced gun-involved crimes, but as stated previously, the impact of these laws holds more weight than what either organization or followers appreciate.
Equally, both establishments have flaws, whether that be in their argument or in their image. There is uncertainty on how accuracy of the NRA’s judgment and motives. There have been a plethora of situations that put the NRA and its supports in a bad light. As early as January 15th, the NRA and their CEO filed for chapter eleven bankruptcy which according to a New York judge was “to gain an unfair litigation advantage” (USA today). In a Q&A, the NRA responded to a question about their financials stating that it “is in its strongest financial condition in years” (Genovese). Similarly, huge anti-gun figures ‘come out of the woodwork’ once a mass shooting occurs. For instance, Barrack Obama in 2013 after the Sandy Hook massacre, called for bans on assault weapons and armor-piercing bullets and a limit on the size of magazines. The lack of a consistent figure and basing opinions on emotion is how the NRA has become a staple in American society. These horrific events bring into question people’s values and evoke the pathos which so many politicians tend to go after. But once the news articles stop reporting about them, life goes back to normal and any chance to spur the people into action is lost. This is why Australian anti-gun activists haven’t had a hard time cultivating the public’s support. After a horrific event at Port Arthur, the government evoked the public to uphold their values and to agree with the new NFA. Which has been a struggle in the United States.
Overall, both establishments have a well-constructed argument which many people have tried to bring down. The gun system implemented in Australia has for the most part shown success or at least has kept the majority content. While the debate in the United States will only rage on. Further evaluation is a need and possibly individual papers on each underlying disagreement are needed to really rectify the situation. The value of guns to American society is so deeply rooted that any changes whether large or small will bring with it chaos.
Words: 1570
Andrew Leigh and Christine Neill, ‘Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence from Panel Data’ (2010)
Lynn Langton, Firearms Stolen during Household Burglaries and Other Property Crimes 2005-2010, BJS, November 2012, p. 1.
“The Effects Of The 1996 National Firearms Agreement In Australia On Suicide, Homicide, And Mass Shootings”. Rand.Org, 2018, https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html. Accessed 19 July 2021.
Fantinel, Kate. “Aim for Common Sense.” IPA Review, vol. 72, no. 4, Summer2020/2021 2020, pp. 60–66.
Gretel Kauffman Staff. “Why Australia Isn’t a Model for US Gun Control.” Christian Science Monitor, 23 June 2016, p. N.
Clark, Helen. “Could the US Learn from Australia’s Gun-Control Laws?” Christian Science Monitor, 24 Dec. 2012, p. N.
Siegel, Michael. “Implications of the Australian Experience With Firearm Regulation for US Gun Policy.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 108, no. 11, Nov. 2018, pp. 1438–1439.
Hirsh, Lauren. “Brothers in Arms Control: Introducing Australian-Style Gun Control in the United States.” Macquarie Law Journal, vol. 12, Jan. 2013, pp. 81–108.
Constituteproject.Org, 2021, https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Australia_1985.pdf?lang=en. Accessed 20 July 2021.
“The 14Th Amendment Of The U.S. Constitution”. National Constitution Center – The 14Th Amendment Of The U.S. Constitution, 2021, https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xiv. Accessed 20 July 2021.
“NRA Bankruptcy Dismissed: National Rifle Association’s Chapter 11 Case Rejected As Not ‘In Good Faith'”. USA TODAY, 2021, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2021/05/11/nra-bankruptcy-chapter-11-national-rifle-association/5043456001/. Accessed 20 July 2021.
Doug, Downs. Making sense of Rhetoric 2021, https://dougdownsteaching.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/downs-rhetoric.pdf. Accessed 21 July 2021.
Porter, James E. “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 5, no. 1, 1986, pp. 34–47. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/466015. Accessed 21 July 2021.
Association, National. “NRA-ILA | Background Checks | NICS”. NRA-ILA, 2021, https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/background-checks-nics/#_edn7. Accessed 21 July 2021.
Association, National. “NRA-ILA | Background Checks | NICS”. NRA-ILA, 2021, https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/background-checks-nics/. Accessed 21 July 2021.
“Bans On Specific Types Of Firearms – Gunpolicy.Org”. Gunpolicy.Org, 2021, https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/982. Accessed 21 July 2021.
Genovese, Daniella. “NRA Says Strongest Financial Position ‘In Years’ Despite Filing For Bankruptcy. Here’s Why”. Fox Business, 2021, https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/nra-strong-financial-position-condition-despite-filing-bankruptcy. Accessed 21 July 2021.