I’d love to live in a country that only had three mass shootings in 22 years. If anything, this is red meat for the gun grabbers, not a repudiation.
The thing is, you shouldn’t need to pick a single data point out of the pack to prove a logical point. The mass gun confiscation in Australia was admittedly performed as an emotional act and likely it made a negligible change in shooting deaths since mass shootinns were already quite rare and a lot of people still kept their guns, particularly the criminal class.
Australia had a low rate of shootings to start with because it’s a big place with not too many people living there. Australia is practically the same size as the continental US and has less than 1/10th of the population. The population isn’t nearly as stratified ethnically as the US, and even though school shootings get the lions share of the press, most mass shootings occur in high crime and economically depressed areas filled with drugs and corrupt democrat-led government. Even if there were as many shots fired per capita, there aren’t nearly as many targets and they’re more spaced out.
Australia has 1/14 of the U.S. population, and has never had a school shooting.
For many years the people who push for a disarmed population crowed about there being *no* mass murder by shooting in Australia since 1997.
Former PM George Howard even lied about it to push that narrative.
Australians are very law abiding and have been since the European colonization.
Constant warfare, homicide and cannibalism were the normal course of events before the European colonization.
The primary driver of mass murder by shooting is the media coverage. Media coverage in Australia went from predicting a mass murder by shooting *soon* a few months before Port Arthur, to crowing about how no more mass shootings would be done by Australians after the Media pushed through the extreme gun laws.