Political Response to Firearm Violence Resulting in Mass Casualties in New Zealand and the United States: Worlds Apart
Authors: Andrew Anglemyer, Annette Beautrais
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2019)

Ideas and Opinions3 September 2019Political Response to Firearm Violence Resulting in Mass Casualties in New Zealand and the United States: Worlds ApartFREEAndrew Anglemyer, PhD and Annette Beautrais, PhDAndrew Anglemyer, PhDNaval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California (A.A.)Search for more papers by this author and Annette Beautrais, PhDUniversity of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand (A.B.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/M19-1567 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail On 14 December 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, a man took his family's firearms and killed 26 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Although it was not the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, the age of the victims makes it one of the most tragic. On 15 March 2019, in Christchurch, New Zealand, an assailant targeted 2 mosques during Friday prayers, killing 51 worshipers and wounding an additional 49. It was the worst mass shooting in the country's history. These tragedies have tested each country's political will. Here, we contrast the immediate, forceful political response in New Zealand with the slow, anemic response in the United States within the context of how each country views firearms.Political Response to Acute TragediesWithin 5 weeks of the Sandy Hook tragedy, President Obama signed 23 executive orders and made 12 congressional proposals. In turn, the U.S. Senate voted on the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, which failed to pass by a vote of 40 to 60 (1). In addition, the Manchin–Toomey Amendment, which aimed to improve background checks for gun sales (2), failed to pass by a vote of 54 to 46 (60 votes needed). Underscoring the political reluctance to act, perhaps the most productive federal actions since Sandy Hook were simply clarifying that firearms research is not prohibited by federal agencies and the signing of a bill that fixed loopholes in the federal background checks system. Conversely, the Trump administration and Congress reversed an executive order by the Obama administration that made it more difficult for mentally ill persons to purchase firearms (3). Six years after Sandy Hook, in February 2019, the Violence Against Women Act, which restricted domestic violence offenders from purchasing firearms, expired and has not been reauthorized by the Senate. Although states can regulate firearms, their laws cannot contradict federal laws. A recent example is Duncan v Becerra, in which a California law that restricted magazine sizes to 10 rounds was ruled unconstitutional by federal courts.Within 6 days of the Christchurch tragedy, the New Zealand prime minister announced a proposal to ban semiautomatic weapons. Within 2 weeks, a formal introduction of the bill occurred. Twenty-six days after the attack, the bill passed by a vote of 125 to 1 (4). The new firearm laws in New Zealand amend the Arms Act by banning most semiautomatic firearms and some shotguns and large-capacity magazines, as well as introducing restrictions on who is exempt from possessing a prohibited firearm. A large buy-back program for prohibited weapons will be introduced in 2019. In addition, tougher penalties were instituted for persons illegally possessing prohibited firearms and parts.Gun Ownership and Gun LobbiesPerhaps the resistance to legislate firearm safety in the United States is because of the National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the nation's most influential lobbies. The NRA has more members (about 6 million) than there are citizens of New Zealand (about 4.8 million). It has donated more than $4 million to active members of Congress during the past 20 years (5). In addition to pressure from the gun lobby, politicians represent many gun owners in their districts. The estimated total number of civilian-owned firearms in the United States is 393 347 000 (6), more than 1 per citizen. The high prevalence of gun ownership may be a result of its constitutional footing. The right to bear arms is defined by the Second Amendment and has been reestablished by federal case law, although federal courts and the Supreme Court do not always agree on its interpretation (for example, Silveira v Lockyer and District of Columbia v Heller).Gun ownership is relatively common in New Zealand, with an estimated 1.2 million legally owned firearms (6)—approximately 1 firearm for every 4 citizens. However, in contrast to the United States, New Zealand has no constitutional basis for firearm ownership, and any influence from the gun lobby is small. One of the largest groups is the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners, with several thousand members. Although some gun ownership groups in New Zealand espouse firearm rights rhetoric similar to that of the NRA, their influence on gun legislation is limited. Perhaps the tempered influence of the gun lobby and strong political response in New Zealand reflects the practical role firearms play in their society. Firearms in New Zealand are generally viewed primarily as tools of the trade for farmers and hunters. Further, New Zealand police affirm that possession and use of firearms is not a right, but a privilege that comes with responsibilities (7). Similar to the United States, New Zealand has no comprehensive registry, and estimates of firearm ownership may be inaccurate. Specific firearms need to be registered, namely military-style semiautomatic weapons and handguns.Firearms Deaths in the United States and New ZealandAlthough firearms are common in New Zealand, firearm fatalities are rare. From 2001 to 2014, the annual average number of firearm deaths was 56 (annual average of 10 non–self-inflicted deaths, including accidental injury and homicide) (8), compared with an estimated 35 000 firearm fatalities annually in the United States (98 firearms deaths per day) (9). The total firearm death rate in New Zealand is 1.3 per 100 000, driven mainly by suicides (1.1 per 100 000) (9). The total firearm death rate in the United States is 11.2 per 100 000, which is 4 times higher than the next high-income country (9). The U.S. firearm suicide rate is 6.9 per 100 000, the highest among all high-income countries (9).Worlds ApartComparison of these countries in terms of their views on gun ownership and the roles firearms have in suicide and death highlights the reality of 2 very different gun cultures, which have determined their respective countries' responses to tragedy. The stark contrast between these cultures can affect our understanding of how to address gun violence. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern echoed this sentiment recently: “Australia experienced a massacre and changed their laws. New Zealand had its experience and changed its laws. To be honest with you, I do not understand the United States” (10). Indeed, the 2 countries are worlds apart.References1. Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, S. 150, 113th Cong (2013). Accessed at www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/150/actions on 28 June 2019. Google Scholar2. S.Amdt.715 to S.649, 113th Cong (2013). Accessed at www.congress.gov/amendment/113th-congress/senate-amendment/715/actions on 28 June 2019. Google Scholar3. Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, H.J.Res.40, 115th Cong. Accessed at www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/40?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22firearm%22%5D%7D&r=1 on 28 June 2019. Google Scholar4. New Zealand Parliament. Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill. Accessed at www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_86423/arms-prohibited-firearms-magazines-and-parts-amendment on 28 June 2019. Google Scholar5. Williams A. Have your representatives in Congress received donations from the NRA? Accessed at www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/nra-donations/ on 28 June 2019. Google Scholar6. Karp A. Estimating global civilian-held firearms numbers. Accessed at www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/T-Briefing-Papers/SAS-BP-Civilian-Firearms-Numbers.pdf on 28 June 2019. Google Scholar7. New Zealand Police. Firearms changes FAQs. Accessed at www.police.govt.nz/advice/firearms-and-safety/changes-firearms-law-prohibited-firearms/firearms-changes-faqs on 28 June 2019. Google Scholar8. Ministry of Health. Mortality 2015 data tables. Accessed at www.health.govt.nz/publication/mortality-2015-data-tables on 28 June 2019. Google Scholar9. Grinshteyn E, Hemenway D. Violent death rates in the US compared to those of the other high-income countries, 2015. Prev Med. 2019;123:20-6. [PMID: 30817955] doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.02.026 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. John T. New Zealand's Jacinda Ardern ‘does not understand' why US has failed to toughen gun laws. Accessed at https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/14/asia/jacinda-adern-extremism-intl/index.html on 28 June 2019. Google Scholar Comments0 CommentsSign In to Submit A Comment Alan R. ErtleEmeritus Enterprises, LLC20 August 2019 Worlds Apart I read the opinion article by Anglemeyer and Beautrais with interest. They close their piece with the statement, “Indeed, the 2 countries are worlds apart.” Their statement is completely unfulfilling and lacks any understanding of why the United States and New Zealand are worlds apart. Both New Zealand and the 13 American Colonies were largely British colonies. Gun ownership during these colonial periods was relatively uncommon in Great Britain. As one might recall, the American colonies rebelled against the British Crown and fought the American Revolutionary War to win independence. In New Zealand, the British Colonists rose from 1,000 in 1831 to over 500,000 by 1881 completely usurping the indigenous Māori population through confiscations of land, disease, assimilation, and intermarriage. For the most part, the British Colonists in New Zealand didn’t need guns to do this.During the Weimar Republic in Germany, prior to the rise to power of Hitler and the Nazi party, few German citizens were entitled to own firearms due to strict gun control laws. The laws were strengthened when the Nazi’s assumed power, and they systematically disarmed “unreliable” people, particularly the Jewish population.Mass shootings are horrific. The United States should require that owners of assault style weapons have additional BATF approval, as is required for owning suppressors. The media must stop covering mass shootings as they do, as this only adds to the allure to potential perpetrators. Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California (A.A.)University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand (A.B.)Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official views of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, or the Naval Postgraduate School.Disclosures: Authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest. Forms can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M19-1567.Corresponding Author: Andrew Anglemyer, PhD, Naval Postgraduate School, 1411 Cunningham Road, G-239, Monterey, CA 93943; e-mail, [email protected]edu.Current Author Addresses: Dr. Anglemyer: Naval Postgraduate School, 1411 Cunningham Road, G-239, Monterey, CA 93943.Dr. Beautrais: University of Canterbury, 71 Grey Road, Timaru, New Zealand 7910.Author Contributions: Conception and design: A. Anglemyer, A. Beautrais.Analysis and interpretation of the data: A. Anglemyer.Drafting of the article: A. Anglemyer, A. Beautrais.Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: A. Anglemyer, A. Beautrais.Final approval of the article: A. Anglemyer, A. Beautrais.Statistical expertise: A. Anglemyer.Administrative, technical, or logistic support: A. Anglemyer.Collection and assembly of data: A. Anglemyer, A. Beautrais.This article was published at Annals.org on 13 August 2019. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited byBang for the buck: The impact of political financial contributions on firearm law 3 September 2019Volume 171, Issue 5Page: 364-365KeywordsConflicts of interestDeath ratesDisclosureDomestic violenceFire safetyFirearm injuriesHomicideLegislationSuicideViolent crime ePublished: 13 August 2019 Issue Published: 3 September 2019 PDF downloadLoading ...