we’ve been around this bouy (make sure you read the hidden text)
(side note: AU had 700 firearms deaths in 1987, when their popn was 16.25M. Scaled to a popn of 325.7M that would equate to 14,000 firearms deaths, or a bit less than half the US total today. So “better”, but very far from “great”. Is 14k deaths ‘swimming in blood’? That’s up to you to decide.)
Second, Australia’s legislation is a ban on all effective firearms anyway. It’s not ‘licensing.’ It’s “you can own single-shot rifles and some handguns and that only if you clear many hurdles.”
No, it isn’t. You can own a machine gun in Australia, if that is what your heart desires.
Third, they still have problems. A massacre in 2002 and a hostage situation that, but for luck, would have been a massacre in 2014.
The two examples you give are not representative examples of a wider problem, they are the complete problem space. You’ve listed every example of multiple firearms deaths in Australia since 1996^, and neither of them cross the threshold for many definitions of ‘mass shooting’.
Calling the outcome of the Sydney Siege “luck” is … contestable.
^ edit: wait, you missed the Hunt family massacre, the Hectorville siege, and Wright St. But none of those fit the definition of mass shooting either. Yet even if you do classify all five incidents as ‘mass shootings’, that still does not making licencing ineffective - that you would do so is pretty much a textbook example of the perfect solution fallacy.
