Both the U.S. and Australia are ex-colonial nations that used to be controlled by Britain in which a large percentage of the natives have died, both had their area expanded by the individual efforts of many citizens for whom owning guns was a necessity in order to defend against the wild animals of the frontier, both are developed nations with a large role in the global economy, and both experienced a rise in mass shootings in the end of the 20th century (and into the 21st for the U.S.). One would think that the similarities are such that either the second factor or the fourth factor would win out in both countries, but instead, the gun laws between them are very different in nature. Why? What cultural factors throughout history primed Australians to accept reforms after Port Arthur, but cause Americans to avoid enacting reforms even after shootings like Columbine and Newtown?
Of course, no political stance intended, and please do answer as neutrally as you can. Hopefully this isn't on the FAQ and is r/AskHistorians material, I'm trying to make it as much about history and as little about current events as I can.
Thanks!
You list four common factors: ex colonies, area expanded through individual efforts of citizens, developed nations, and rise of mass shootings.
These are not really good reasons for thinking they would end up in the same place. Australia’s history as a colony is shorter than America’s, and its transition to ex-colony happened in quite a different fashion. American cultural memory of the War of Independence ingrains rebellion against tyranny as a cultural normative value, and associates it with the provision of militia. There was no rebellion in Australia, no use of citizen militia in an independence war, and no tradition of gun ownership to prevent tyranny. Similarly, Australian political history has never enacted a bill of rights, and Australian culture has developed its individualism in different ways to America. There is no corollary to the 2nd amendment in Australia, no individual right to bear arms.
You are correct to say that Australia has a number of mass shootings in the late 20th century, 13 from 1979 to 1996. However after the Port Arthur shooting in 1996, Prime Minister John Howard implemented gun reform law, massively restricting private ownership of semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and introducing reforms in firearms licencing (private protection is not a valid reason for possessing SA and FA weapons). This was accompanied by a widespread buyback scheme. The move was supported bipartisanly, there was no significant political opposition to it. Gun ownership at the time reduced dramatically, and there hasn’t been a mass shooting since. It also led to reduction in gun suicides and gun homicides (though studies linking these reforms to actual statistical changes are not in agreement).
There was little political resistance to this because (a) Australia doesn’t have a political history of private gun ownership as an individual right, and (b) arguments in favour of gun ownership in Australia are primarily oriented towards use by farmers, and recreational use by hunters and gun enthusiasts. I should state, there was some resistance, but it was not widespread and it was politically ineffective.
I won’t comment directly on US gun laws and mass shootings, my knowledge here is primarily limited to the Australian side of the issue, but the comparison you make is flawed. Being developed countries is simply not enough of a factor to think they would be the same. Their path to ex-colony status was quite different. ‘Areas expanded through individual efforts of armed citizens’ glosses over huge historical differences between American and Australian colonisation, and the rise of mass shootings does little to explain why the US has continued to experience these and Australia has not.