Guns or Terrorists?
In 2001, 2,977 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. The response was to come down hard on terrorism so the American people could feel safe. This has led to shoes being removed when you board a plane in case you have a bomb in them and you can’t travel with such deadly weapons as nail clippers. The effort would appear to be working as nothing even remotely as devastating has happened since. The only exception to that was the Boston bombing in 2013 where 3 people died plus one officer when trying to apprehend the bombers.
Do we take from this that these extreme measures are working at reducing the effects of terrorism on US soil? Seems to, doesn’t it. Terrorists kill people so we do everything we can to eliminate the threat of terrorism. Perfectly reasonable response.
Now 13 people have lost their lives in the UCC shooting. Just before that, as of 29 September 2015, there have been 293 mass shootings. That’s more than one a day. So what’s the response to this situation.
People need to be better armed. Really? There are over 11,000 firearms deaths every year. Americans are in much greater risk of being shot by their neighbour than they are from a terrorist attack. The solution still seems to be a “better armed populace” to combat the staggering number of gun deaths.
In 1996, Australia had one of the worst mass shootings the world had ever seen with 35 people killed.
Their response? Ban semi-automatic weapons and tighten the restrictions on accessing guns.
The result? Zero mass shootings since. That’s right, zero, zip, none, not one but still the likes of the NRA argue that more guns, not less guns is the solution.
So in Australia, they have had no mass shootings in the last 19 years whereas in the US they are having them at a rate of more than one a day.
What catastrophic event will it take for sense to prevail? I dread to think.