![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
And Again... And Again... And Again
May. 25th, 2022 06:35 pmSo, Kari... how do you like our 'restricted freedoms' now??
On a more serious note, here's an article about Australia's gun laws introduced in 1997, with some input from an ex-pat Australian ((now living in the USA) view on the US issue with gun control...
1. A conservative and popular leader willing to take on the gun issue. Australian PM John Howard was an experienced conservative politician who ran to the right on several issues, but was willing to challenge gun ownership after the Port Arthur Massacre.
2. One-party control gives power to take action. In the Westminster style of government, the leader of the country is the head of the largest voting bloc in the lower house. The upper house (Senate, in Australia) can limit the lower house, but is no where near as powerful as the U.S. Senate. The heads of departments also serve in the Parliament on the same side as the PM, which means that the agencies are directly answerable to the legislature. State governments are comparatively weak. Thus, the executive running the country also runs the legislature, and the administrative agency, and there are few “checks and balances.”
3. One-party control gives more responsibility. While the ruling party has a lot of power and discretion, they are rewarded for good decisions and blamed for bad decisions. And the electorate WILL hold them responsible. When there is a mass shooting in USA, the Democrats blame the GOP about lack of gun control, and the GOP can blame Democratic gun control for the lack of a hero to stop the bad guys. In Australia, whoever is in power will be blamed for the mass shooting and for taking away people’s guns, and rewarded for the lack of gun deaths. The party in power has to decide whether any decision is makes will be rewarded or punished by the electorate, and the Australian PM picked correctly (he was reelected several times).
4. Pragmatic approaches to policy. The USA is fundamentally idealistic and optimistic and so will cite lofty ideas and the constitution as a reason to never get anything done. Australians are fundamentally pragmatic and pessimistic and, if they see a serious mass shooting, will change the law to stop it. So while both Americans and Australians are skeptical of government, the USA will use that as an good reason to do nothing about gun control, while Australians will use a massacre as evidence of government incompetence that needs to be fixed.
5. Different expectations of government. Australians want the government to leave them alone in some areas, but be active in others, and are pretty open and pragmatic about accepting those things. The government has a lot of power (see point 2) and the electorate are pretty clear that they will reward or punish the government on the decisions it makes (see point 3). So, if there is a government program, it should be well run. If the program is too intrusive and bureaucratic, it can be changed. Thus, before the Port Arthur massacre in Australia, every gun was registered at the police station, and gun ownership required a license and some sort of screening. It was reasonable and not intrusive. After the massacre, people accepted more regulation as a way to stop more killings. In the USA, the agencies run more independently of the legislature and executive, and hence of the electorate. For example, the U.S. military exists in the popular imagination as almost a stand alone entity (like the Catholic Church, or “the media”), and not a large program funded by and overseen by the government. There is an almost schizophrenic approach to government: the programs that you like just get accepted as part of the way things are (Social Security) while the things that don’t work (like the TSA) are blamed on “Washington.”
On a more serious note, here's an article about Australia's gun laws introduced in 1997, with some input from an ex-pat Australian ((now living in the USA) view on the US issue with gun control...
1. A conservative and popular leader willing to take on the gun issue. Australian PM John Howard was an experienced conservative politician who ran to the right on several issues, but was willing to challenge gun ownership after the Port Arthur Massacre.
2. One-party control gives power to take action. In the Westminster style of government, the leader of the country is the head of the largest voting bloc in the lower house. The upper house (Senate, in Australia) can limit the lower house, but is no where near as powerful as the U.S. Senate. The heads of departments also serve in the Parliament on the same side as the PM, which means that the agencies are directly answerable to the legislature. State governments are comparatively weak. Thus, the executive running the country also runs the legislature, and the administrative agency, and there are few “checks and balances.”
3. One-party control gives more responsibility. While the ruling party has a lot of power and discretion, they are rewarded for good decisions and blamed for bad decisions. And the electorate WILL hold them responsible. When there is a mass shooting in USA, the Democrats blame the GOP about lack of gun control, and the GOP can blame Democratic gun control for the lack of a hero to stop the bad guys. In Australia, whoever is in power will be blamed for the mass shooting and for taking away people’s guns, and rewarded for the lack of gun deaths. The party in power has to decide whether any decision is makes will be rewarded or punished by the electorate, and the Australian PM picked correctly (he was reelected several times).
4. Pragmatic approaches to policy. The USA is fundamentally idealistic and optimistic and so will cite lofty ideas and the constitution as a reason to never get anything done. Australians are fundamentally pragmatic and pessimistic and, if they see a serious mass shooting, will change the law to stop it. So while both Americans and Australians are skeptical of government, the USA will use that as an good reason to do nothing about gun control, while Australians will use a massacre as evidence of government incompetence that needs to be fixed.
5. Different expectations of government. Australians want the government to leave them alone in some areas, but be active in others, and are pretty open and pragmatic about accepting those things. The government has a lot of power (see point 2) and the electorate are pretty clear that they will reward or punish the government on the decisions it makes (see point 3). So, if there is a government program, it should be well run. If the program is too intrusive and bureaucratic, it can be changed. Thus, before the Port Arthur massacre in Australia, every gun was registered at the police station, and gun ownership required a license and some sort of screening. It was reasonable and not intrusive. After the massacre, people accepted more regulation as a way to stop more killings. In the USA, the agencies run more independently of the legislature and executive, and hence of the electorate. For example, the U.S. military exists in the popular imagination as almost a stand alone entity (like the Catholic Church, or “the media”), and not a large program funded by and overseen by the government. There is an almost schizophrenic approach to government: the programs that you like just get accepted as part of the way things are (Social Security) while the things that don’t work (like the TSA) are blamed on “Washington.”
