New Zealand Mosque Killings and Gun Law Reforms

"Guns don’t kill people, people do."

This is a common refrain from those who support gun-ownership.

But is it a valid statement?

No, it is not.  It is logically fallacious. Or that’s what ‘logic’ teacher David Kyle Johnson says in his article against this phrase (Psychology Today, 12 Feb 2013).

But I am writing today, not about logical fallacies. I am writing today about the need for gun law reforms.

Following the recent shooting tragedy, where 50 people were killed in two mosques, at Christchurch, New Zealand, it was somewhat relieving to hear the country’s leadership discussing gun-law changes.

Jacinda Arden, New Zealand’s Prime Minister, is proving to be an exemplary leader, not only by the way she quickly reached out to the Muslim community that lost its loved ones, but also by the way she quickly announced that her country’s parliament would soon – within days – change laws on gun ownership.

Sadly, until now many have failed to see common-sense logic that, pistols or revolvers aside, civilians simply should not be free to own lethal automatic or semi-automatic assault guns; which this hate-filled terrorist had used on innocent worshippers.

This New Zealand terror draws our attention to earlier two mass-shootings– one in Australia and one in Scotland – which have resulted in tighter gun-laws in their respective countries.

Of course, it also draws our attention to numerous mass-shooting instances in the USA. However, we know that no strong action is taken towards reforms. The powerful gun-lobby there keeps citing the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects their right ‘to keep and bear arms’.

But, take the case of the Australian mass-shooting of 1996. It had shocked the country, when in Tasmania, 35 people were brutally killed by a gunman Martin Bryant.  Intellectually disabled, with a history of erratic behaviour, he had later pleaded guilty, but never gave reason for his gruesome killing spree at Port Arthur.

And what was its outcome, in Australia?

Under the then Prime Minister John Howard, this massacre resulted in stricter gun controls, with a ban on almost all fully-automatic or semiautomatic firearms. The government had even instituted a gun-buyback program which made people surrender some 700,000 firearms. They were later destroyed by the government
(click here for the latest, on gun control following this Port Arthur massacre from NZ Herald).

Interestingly, I had read that the Christchurch shooter had once discussed the Port Arthur massacre, of Tasmania, with one of his associates in New Zealand.

And what is also interesting, is that even the Port Arthur massacre shooter had admitted drawing inspiration from an earlier mass-shooting incident in Scotland.

A month earlier, a gunman had invaded a primary school in the small Scottish town of Dunblane and shot to death 16 young children and their teacher, before turning the gun on himself.

And what was its outcome, in UK?

In February 1997, the UK Parliament passed a law banning private ownership of handguns above .22 calibre; and in November 1997 the ban got extended to all handguns.

Following mass shootings, both, Australia and UK had responded swiftly with tighter gun-laws. And New Zealand too, seems to be on the right path. What about USA’s?

Let’s look at some facts. In 2017, in Las Vegas, Nevada, 58 people were killed by just one man, with assault rifles, who shot into a concert crowd.  In 2016, 49 people were killed by just one man with an assault rifle, at a gay night-club in Orlando, Florida. In 2007, at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, just one man goes on a shooting spree, killing 32 people. (You can click here to check out "Deadliest Mass Shootings in Modern US History -- Fast Facts" from CNN)

And what was its outcome, in USA?

Zero. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Sadly, when it comes to USA’s gun-law reforms, any glimmer of hope is still too faint to be noticed.