Eric Swalwell, a Democratic candidate for President, hates guns. The only thing he hates more than guns are people that refuse to hand guns over. In fact, his hatred for gun owners runs so deep that he’s willing to go to war over them, setting him apart from fellow advocates of an assault weapons ban. Not only is he willing to kill you over guns, but he is willing to level entire towns over “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons.” Yet, he thinks that the right to life is supreme, with every other right falling below it (unless you’re a fetus). As Democratic candidates struggle to find their breakout moment on a crowded debate stage, it shouldn’t be too hard for Swalwell to garner attention with his message of war, death, and pistols of mass destruction.
In the wake of the Virginia Beach Shooting, we once again see calls for change in the world of guns. Why that never happens is a different story, but we once again hear a ruckus in favor of adopting the ‘Australian Model.’ It seems to be a tried and true example of mass gun reform that has concrete results, right?
Well, not exactly. The facts tend to be skewed around this method of gun reform, and whenever that happens it poses a threat to constructive discussion. To find out what to do about the Australian model of gun reform, we should first see what it actually was, see what the results are, and lastly figure out if it would work in the United States.