Aside from the obvious, of course... Why hasn't a wealthy, law abiding citizen committed mass murder of an outdoor concert in Australia by firing into a crowd from an elevated position? Allow me to snuff out the usual anti-gun retorts... Under Australian law, the analogue shooter would not be denied the purchase of a firearm, assuming he could devise a "genuine reason". Under Australian law, this rifle is perfectly legal in Australia: https://pof-usa.com/bolt-action-rifles/ This rifle, after a moment's work, will accept this receiver, also perfectly legal in Australia: https://pof-usa.com/shop/complete-upper-receivers/complete-p-308-edge-upper-receiver/ Thus, the gun(s) the shooter used in LV are indeed available in Australia. So, why hasn't it happened?
Because australia as a nation decided gun control is important and has created the standard that a gun is not the way to solve problems
So is it your position that the LV shooter considered "bro-country" a problem and used guns to solve it?
Are you saying we do not have a very strong gun culture in this nation that some who might be on the edge could exploit for murderous aims?
Culture is most CERTAINLY at least part of the reason but certainly not the sole reason. That is just silly.
Gun control is part of the culture in Australia. It isn't in the US. As for why it didn't happen in Sydney, well, who knows? I mean, really, who knows? Certainly the type of weapons Paddock used would not be easily available in Australia. That might be one reason. It could also be something to do with the difference in population. The US is far larger in poplulation than Australia. It stands to reason that there are going to be more nutters. That and the ready availability of some pretty powerful firearms might be one reason.
Good question - and the answer is Someone buying THAT much firepower and ammo would have shown up on the police radar BEFORE the shooting and they would have made sure it all turned copper
Population density is much the same though D in our bigger cities at least Some of it is that there is a "copy cat" efffect. Some is that there is a '"notoriety effect". But I think access to guns is so much more restricted here. Look at Man Monis - now there was someone who would have had more firepower than he did if he had had access to same
I think the comedian Jim Jeffries nailed it when he said "After the Port Arthur shootings our government said "Obviously we cannot trust you lot with guns!" And we said "fair enough" After the Sandy Hook shootings the American government said "Maybe, just maybe we might take away the BIG guns?????" And you lot said "Rack off!"" Roughly - at least. Yes there is a perceptible culture difference. We simply do not feel the need to be armed.
Yep!!! Unless you have a lot of underworld connections it is not that easy to get a rifle here in Australia without going through legal channels.
It is a mix of things One of the problems is that Americans have become desensitised to firearm mortality and morbidity. Here someone being shot is BIG news and everyone gets outraged about how come it happened and why did we not stop this And the reason is that these crimes are relatively rare. The rarity of the crime also allows the police to put adequate resources into the investigation so that they CAN track where the gun came from and what happened
False. A rifle or other fireams can be made by anyone with enough skill. Imported too, as has been proved by your border patrol.
But a law abiding millionaire with no bad history could buy a bolt action SMLE with no problem, right?
True, but not very difficult for someone with no record to purchase an SMLE and 100 rounds of ammo. That's 10 shots fired in less than ten seconds, and mere seconds for a reload. Firing into a crowd from a protected vantage point, how many dead and wounded in 10 minutes?
its true, he noted that rifles that are fairly available in Australia could be used to cause massive deaths and yet it hasn't. gun control has nothing to do with that