A bang. A scream. A shout. In an instant, bodies scatter across the bloodstained tile floor. Distant, muted cries echo and bounce off the rigid walls as gunshots pierce the thick air. One more shot, a heavy thud, and it’s over – it’s done. Disaster strikes yet again; loved ones mourn over their lost ones. Sadly, this situation exists not as a gruesome horror story, but as a brutal reality. In the last few years, the United States’ attention has turned to mass shootings, indicating the necessity for stricter gun control. The nation should look to other industrialized countries to implement stringent gun laws in order to reduce gun violence, specifically mass shootings. The Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy seared into my mind, lingering
…show more content…
One of the most common arguments against the implementation of stricter gun regulation is the cultural difference between the United States and countries which show successful results in gun control, and therefore the United States is an exception. However, the logic behind this flawed mentality fails to prove trustworthy. For example, Australia, which has one of the most effective gun regulation systems, displays a drastically different culture compared to Japan, and yet they both uphold stringent gun laws and low gun violence rates. From population to land size and language to pop culture, Japan and Australia display examples on opposing ends of the spectrum. However, cultural differences aside, Australia and Japan both manage to recognize the threat guns pose to a healthy society. According to data collected by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Small Arms Survey, Australia’s percentage of homicides by firearms is 11.5 and Japan’s is 1.8, compared to the United States’ staggering 60 percent. What makes America any different? Why should America identify as “culturally different” to justify its guns when actual culturally differing countries successfully reduce gun violence through gun regulation? According to a study conducted by Professor S. Chapman and her associates, who are associated with the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney, Australia …show more content…
Furthermore, the U.S. does not keep licensing records of individuals, whereas both the UK and Australia maintain records. Moreover, in most jurisdictions, the U.S. allows citizens to own handguns privately in comparison to Australia, where individuals under the most strict conditions may possess handguns, and the UK, which completely prohibits handguns. Similarly, carrying a handgun in the U.S., both openly and concealed, is legal in certain jurisdictions, In contrast, the UK prohibits handgun ownership and Australia only allows it with legitimate reason, which does not include personal protection. Clearly, a pattern can be traced among these countries and their gun laws. Australia had 30 homicides by firearms, the UK, which is comprised of four nations, had 62, and the U.S. had 9,146; our gun violence rates are some of the highest in the world, but at least our culture and constitutional rights are protected (United Nations Office…). Considering this incriminating evidence, the United States should clearly adopt stricter gun regulation. Despite the arguments stacked against it, gun regulation in the form of restrictions on handguns, high-powered guns, and more is
One of the most common arguments against the implementation of stricter gun regulation is the cultural difference between the United States and countries which show successful results in gun control, and therefore the United States is an exception. However, the logic behind this flawed mentality fails to prove trustworthy. For example, Australia, which has one of the most effective gun regulation systems, displays a drastically different culture compared to Japan, and yet they both uphold stringent gun laws and low gun violence rates. From population to land size and language to pop culture, Japan and Australia display examples on opposing ends of the spectrum. However, cultural differences aside, Australia and Japan both manage to recognize the threat guns pose to a healthy society. According to data collected by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Small Arms Survey, Australia’s percentage of homicides by firearms is 11.5 and Japan’s is 1.8, compared to the United States’ staggering 60 percent. What makes America any different? Why should America identify as “culturally different” to justify its guns when actual culturally differing countries successfully reduce gun violence through gun regulation? According to a study conducted by Professor S. Chapman and her associates, who are associated with the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney, Australia …show more content…
Furthermore, the U.S. does not keep licensing records of individuals, whereas both the UK and Australia maintain records. Moreover, in most jurisdictions, the U.S. allows citizens to own handguns privately in comparison to Australia, where individuals under the most strict conditions may possess handguns, and the UK, which completely prohibits handguns. Similarly, carrying a handgun in the U.S., both openly and concealed, is legal in certain jurisdictions, In contrast, the UK prohibits handgun ownership and Australia only allows it with legitimate reason, which does not include personal protection. Clearly, a pattern can be traced among these countries and their gun laws. Australia had 30 homicides by firearms, the UK, which is comprised of four nations, had 62, and the U.S. had 9,146; our gun violence rates are some of the highest in the world, but at least our culture and constitutional rights are protected (United Nations Office…). Considering this incriminating evidence, the United States should clearly adopt stricter gun regulation. Despite the arguments stacked against it, gun regulation in the form of restrictions on handguns, high-powered guns, and more is