gun control – who is it saving
Thursdays article about trends in gun deaths published in the Sydney Morning Herald points out that the gun buyback appears to have resulted in a significant decline in gun related deaths. Whilst this might initially sound like a compelling case for the 1996 gun reforms it actually isn’t.
The first thing to note is that gun related deaths includes suicide by shooting and nearly all of the decline in deaths that shows up in the statistics is due to a reduction in this method of suicide. Clearly the reduction in suicides by shooting would appear to be a good thing but in reality it is misleading. All that has happened is that there has been a displacement effect. Where depressed people used to shoot themselves they now hang themselves. There has not been a decline in suicide that can be attributable to gun control.
There has also been a decline in the homocide rate since 1996. However this is easily explained by the decline in young male adults as a proportion of the population and is in keeping with earlier trends. One of the lowest levels of homocide rates in Australian history occured during WWII when a lot of young males were absent from the country. This is in spite of the fact that guns were much more prevalent in society during that era.
The gun control advocates can point to the absents of mass shootings as some form of support for their policy position. However whether you are a victim of homocide in a crowd or on your own is at the end of the day not overly relevant. It is the total homocide rate that should be of most interest. Of course the community impact of a mass shooting should not be entirely discounted.
36 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Recent Comments
Here on Discussion 
Jerry on Bob Carr on the wrongs of a bi… 
Michael Sutcliffe on Discussion 
'Nuke' Gray on Discussion Annette on Discussion 
Semi Regular Liberta… on More guns, less crime 
Fermi on More guns, less crime 
Semi Regular Liberta… on Discussion 
Ben on Discussion 
TerjeP (say tay-a) on More guns, less crime 
papachango on Sean Penn Suggests Prison Time… Semi Regular Liberta… on Why I am opposed to an Austral… 
Victor on The British Libertarian P… 
Shem Bennett on Sean Penn Suggests Prison Time… Ben on Why I am opposed to an Austral…
LINKS
Featured Book
Stats
ALS elsewhere
So we have an admission that gun laws do not deter criminals in general, but an ambit claim that they do stop mass-murderers.
How many mass murders were committed before guns were regulated at all?
The absurd claim would be predictably withdrawn and more claims for gun control would be made if there was another massacre. Morbidly, we could claim that there is no effect on massacres and crime in general as tighter restrictions were called for.
The whole study reminds one of a certain episode of the Simpsons; re “Bear Control”
http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/tigerrepellantrock.html
That is I see some rather technical statistical tests proving Granger-causality or exogeneity.
To my mind, the differences between nations with regards to gun use and gun deaths is almost entirely cultural. Eg Switzerland, where there are heaps of guns, doesn’t have the problems that the US does.
However, I support gun control to a certain extent because I believe Australia’s gun culture is negligible, almost non-existent, and I don’t want it to change. Laws have an impact on culture in the long term, and I fear a relaxation or liberalisation of gun laws will initiate a cultural change. I don’t want having guns to be the norm, I don’t want guns to be widely available.
Normally I dislike ‘thin end of the wedge’ arguments, or ones about ’sending messages’, but in this case I think it’s appropriate.
I have started a thread on this at the following:
http://ausgunowners.wordpress.com/
Mass murders are very rare and it is quite wrong to claim causation from correlation. There have been mass murders since 1996, it just so happens none were committed with a firearm.
Chapman and Alpers are notorious anti-gun fanatics and their arguments are, as usual, false.
I don’t want having guns to be the norm, I don’t want guns to be widely available.
Sorry fatfingers, but you are quite wrong. Guns have been quite widely available for a hundred years and are still very prevalent. Just counting the legal ones (less than a third of the total, by my estimation), there are literally millions.
If the availability of something that can be misused worries you, you must be worried a lot.
Come to my rifle or pistol club and have a try for yourself. You’ll soon get over your concerns. (That’s a serious offer by the way. I’m in Sydney)
“Guns have been quite widely available for a hundred years and are still very prevalent.”
You can’t get them at Bunnings, or in the supermarket. They’re not given away with new bank accounts or with new cars. You can go your whole life never seeing one in the flesh, so to speak. They don’t form part of growing up rituals for most. It’s not a recreation tool for most.
“If the availability of something that can be misused worries you, you must be worried a lot.”
I can tell you use that line a lot. Unfortunately, you have misused it in this case (pun not intended). I’m not worried about the guns, but what the guns could come to mean to people.
I’m not worried about the guns, but what the guns could come to mean to people.
Aha. So society needs to be protected from people who have improper thoughts?
I know a woman who lives in fear of rape. She’s not worried about penises, but what what they mean to some people.
“Aha. So society needs to be protected from people who have improper thoughts?”
No, no, no. Are you even reading my posts? Or are you being deliberately obtuse? Or is this some sort of wind-up?
I am worried that Australia could develop a culture similar to the US’s with regards to firearms if we start allowing them to become more prevalent, more “normal”. Clear enough for you?
I am worried that Australia could develop a culture similar to the US’s with regards to firearms if we start allowing them to become more prevalent, more “normal”. Clear enough for you?
Not clear at all and it’s not clear from your earlier posts either.
What is it about the US’s “culture” that concerns you? What is not “normal” about firearm availability? Why do you conclude firearms are not prevalent just because you can’t buy them in Bunnings?
if we start allowing them
So you propose to not “allow” things (via the government, of course) that you fear? Presumably you won’t mind if others do the same thing regarding things they fear as well? Like free markets, lower taxes, abortion and stem cell research?
“Not clear at all and it’s not clear from your earlier posts either.”
Then I can’t really help you, as I can’t make it much clearer. You will just have to try harder.
“What is it about the US’s “culture” that concerns you?”
Being blase about guns. Not having enough respect for them. Feeling entitled to guns, even very powerful military-type guns. Massive amounts of gun crimes and accidents.
“What is not “normal” about firearm availability?”
In an Australian context, the norm is for people NOT to have guns. I don’t want that reversed, as I think familiarity and availability will breed contempt, eventuate in greater numbers of fatal accidents, result in more crimes of passion committed with guns, raise the incidences of fatalities, make criminals more dangerous.
“So you propose to not “allow” things (via the government, of course) that you fear?”
Again, you are confusing a fear of guns with my fear of a culture that sees guns are nothing much to worry about and therefore the population suffers unduly. I don’t think the sky will fall in if we relax gun control, I just see it as a step towards an end that should be avoided.
“However, I support gun control to a certain extent because I believe Australia’s gun culture is negligible, almost non-existent, and I don’t want it to change. Laws have an impact on culture in the long term, and I fear a relaxation or liberalisation of gun laws will initiate a cultural change. I don’t want having guns to be the norm, I don’t want guns to be widely available.”
What about the Swiss?
Furthermore, the US gun homicide rate probably is just a larger part of the utterly stupid “war on drugs” where over half a million are in gaol for drug related offences. Tim Lambert didn’t think this was important – I don’t know why, unless he’s proven there is no causation between drug prohibition and crime, and he’s disproved the argument against the “war on drugs”.
There should at least be a vector auto regression (VAR)/intervention analysis of the policies in use.
In the USA they also stab and kick eachother to death more often than in other countries. The gun homocide rate in the USA is high because the general homocide rate in the USA is high. If you normalise the gun homocide in various nations using the non-gun homocide figures then you find that gun ownership has no notable influence on homocide.
Motive not means dictates the homocide rate.
However, I support gun control to a certain extent because I believe Australia’s gun culture is negligible, almost non-existent, and I don’t want it to change.
I like it when governments force my biases on others as well. I don’t really relate to gay people, so the Howard government’s prevention of gay marriage and strongly conservative values don’t really bother me. In fact, they probably make Australia a nicer and less confrontational place for me to be in. Drugs aren’t my thing either, so having them pushed into the underground actually works nicely for me, as I rarely have to see them. I’m not overly Christian, but I do think a bit of ‘churching up’ and the good book is a positive thing for society, so although I think Tony Abbott’s hard-core Catholisim doesn’t really belong in politics, I like it anyway! (also, I find the thought of abortion unpleasant). And in all honesty, I don’t really want to make the effort to speak to someone who doesn’t speak fluent english. So this migrant entry test is a winner with me!
You know Fatfingers, you and I have more in common than I originally thought: we both want the government to enforce the sort of culture that we are most comfortable with. Cool. Here’s to another term of conservative government!
Wow, Michael, you got me – I’m a filthy statist.
Though you do me an injustice with your clumsy satire. I am trying to evaluate public policy on a cost/benefit basis. Thus I support gays not being discriminated against by government. I support decriminalisation of drugs. I don’t think religion should be advocated by government. I advocate open immigration – just ask Strawman! Where did he go anyway? Did he ditch his moniker like Mark did?
I am trying to evaluate public policy on a cost/benefit basis.
Your reference was to a ‘gun culture’ that you didn’t want to change. There was no reference to ‘cost/benefit’ (although I admit you didn’t specifically mention a preference for a non-gun culture). Also, this:
Again, you are confusing a fear of guns with my fear of a culture that sees guns are nothing much to worry about and therefore the population suffers unduly. I don’t think the sky will fall in if we relax gun control, I just see it as a step towards an end that should be avoided.
suggests to me that although you don’t think guns are particulary dangerous, you just dont like them.
Show me your cost/benefit on guns. I honestly don’t beleive there is a net benefit to bans, and I’d be keen to see proof of one that I could actually say was consistent, whole and without bias. Until then mate, you keep your biases to yourself and I’ll do the same.
I think Strawman is still arouund. He comes and goes in cycles.
I think the benefits of our current cultural attitude towards guns is worth the cost of keeping gun laws as they are, give or take, considering the relatively minor reduction of freedom they embody.
I think the possible cost of relaxing gun laws outweighs the meagre benefits that could be gained.
I have no data, studies, or empirical evidence to back this up. It is just my supposition based on my observations and deductions and biases.
Terje, what about gun accidents? And do you have a source I can look at for your homocide normalisation claim? Thanks.
I have no data, studies, or empirical evidence to back this up.
Indeed, nothing but simple prejudice and intolerance. I bet you don’t even know what the current gun laws are.
Feeling entitled to guns
We are entitled to anything. It’s what we do with it that matters. If you do not trust yourself with guns (as John Howard doesn’t trust himself), you should not obtain one. But for normal people, entitlement is not subject to someone’s approval.
even very powerful military-type guns That’s probably .223 calibre is it? Or perhaps 5.56? Or how about a Dirty Harry style semi-automatic self-loading revolver with a 12 round magazine?
Pretty much every possible argument against liberalising gun laws was rebutted on this previous thread.
If you read the entire thing you’ll see I came up with a few objections myself, but nope, the pro-gun lobby has a watertight case. Sorry fatfingers…
“I bet you don’t even know what the current gun laws are.”
I know they’re not onerous, and hardly worth the time I’ve spent defending them. And not worth your time or effort changing them.
“We are entitled to anything.”
Riiight. (Backs away slowly, avoiding eye contact)
“But for normal people”
Implying I’m not normal. Yet I represent the majority view. Therefore I am normal, YOU are not. I think you (LDP) have more potential votes in durg liberalisation than gun liberalisation.
“That’s probably .223 calibre is it?”
See this: http://savvysurvivor.com/chapter_one.htm
Sukrit, I was reading that thread earlier (before it got to 55 comments). Something you said there parallels my point:
“Apart from the insurance angle, social norms are more influential than many people think. Someone in this thread or another mentioned something along the lines of they wouldn’t be friends with someone who owns a gun. That’s social pressure on the gun owning individual right there.”
I don’t want to change the laws that could change the social pressures in the long run. And I don’t think gun owners have it so bad that this is an issue of pressing importance.
Conrad’s point in that earlier thread about experimenting to see whose thesis is more correct is self-defeating also applies. I would have mentioned this earlier but ran out of time (work pressures).
I must emphasise something – I’m not advocating banning guns entirely, or even mostly. Blanket bans don’t work. The regulation and limits that we have now seem OK to me. I honestly don’t see why this is such a bugbear for some people that they would become politically active just for that. I mean, a Shooters Party? How silly.
The above is meant to include:
“After reading the whole thread carefully, I don’t consider the arguments against gun law liberalisation rebutted at all. Eg – arms race, increased generalised danger to public. Case not watertight. Sorry Sukrit.”
I don’t want to change the laws that could change the social pressures in the long run. And I don’t think gun owners have it so bad that this is an issue of pressing importance.
I’ve read of many studies that show that social pressures can and do outweigh legal ones. The same studies have demonstrated that compulsion by legal means dimishes the impact of social pressures. I’d like to post some cross references, but unfortunately I don’t have them to hand right now. However, it can be shown that compulsion can lead to diminished repsonsibility by those subjected to the law.
If only one Australian at the Port Arthur Massacre had had a gun, the death toll may have less.
Of course the above is anecdotal, but no less relevent to your desire for a gun free culture.
When I travelled in the USA it was novel to look in the window of a gun shop or examine the guns on sale at a country service station. However it was not as if the man in the street was packing a six shooter on his belt or waiving a rifle about. Other than on the television I didn’t see anybody being blase with a gun. The USA taken as a whole is a peaceful place.
“The same studies have demonstrated that compulsion by legal means dimishes the impact of social pressures.”
What about seat belts? There was virtually no social pressure to wear them until laws and public education campaigns gradually changed people’s behaviour. Drink driving is another example. And smoking. I don’t like some of the laws put in place to reduce smoking, but it serves as an example of laws changing social pressures.
“it was not as if the man in the street was packing a six shooter on his belt or waiving a rifle about.”
Strawman argument.
“I didn’t see anybody being blase with a gun.”
You have your impressions, I have mine.
“The USA taken as a whole is a peaceful place.”
Wasn’t it you that said “In the USA they also stab and kick eachother to death more often than in other countries. The gun homocide rate in the USA is high because the general homocide rate in the USA is high.”
Also, can I see some figures on your normalisation claim, please?
Where I grew up guns were normal, recreational AND a growing up ritual. And that was in Australia, and not too long ago.
I could shoot a gun by the time I was 12 but somehow have so far managed to not shoot any humans. I don’t even own a gun now because I don’t really need one.
Aversion to guns as fatfingers has is not really his fault. I can see how they would be scary to someone who has never known any gun owners and has never fired a gun themselves.
I was scared too when I was a kid and saw my dad using a gun, but after I became more familiar with them they were just another tool.
Guns aren’t the only tools that can be dangerous either. Many more deaths and serious injuries are caused by saws and drills than guns.
Dad taught me to use a gun when I was 12, but I wasn’t allowed to use the chainsaw until I was 16. That should tell you something.
Some of the cutting tools used in the construction industry are highly dangerous and even the tiniest of errors could kill you. I’m personally way more frightened of a quickcut than I am of any gun.
“Where I grew up guns were normal, recreational AND a growing up ritual.”
I know it happens. That’s why I said it doesn’t “for most”. That is still true.
“I can see how they would be scary to someone who has never known any gun owners and has never fired a gun themselves.”
My best friend in high school came from a military family, and they all regularly went out shooting together at a club. They typically topped the scoreboard. I went along once, fired two pistols and a rifle. It was fascinating. I flinched every time I shot a round, but wasn’t scared. I’m not scared of guns unless they are pointed at me. I prefer knives (which I collected at one stage) to guns, but that’s just an aesthetic bias.
“Guns aren’t the only tools that can be dangerous either. Many more deaths and serious injuries are caused by saws and drills than guns.”
Yes, many things are dangerous. Although saws and drills are both more common and used much more frequently than guns, so I don’t think it’s a valid comparison.
Here’s a better one: name number of any inanimate objects that engender human activity, particularly violence and crime.
Fatfingers does not know what the current laws are, but likes them anyway.
He couldn’t nominate any real difference between the US (which he says has a gun culture) and Australia (which he says he does not want to acquire one.)
He is entitled to his opinion, of course. But my main concern is that he wants the government to spend taxpayers money and use the coercive force of the police and legal system so as to prevent a “gun culture”.
Remove the word gun and replace it with gay, Jew, capitalist or black.
Get the picture?
“Fatfingers does not know what the current laws are, but likes them anyway.”
I don’t know the specifics, but I know generally what they are. Sufficient to have an opinion on them, anyway.
“He couldn’t nominate any real difference between the US”
You could only think that if you didn’t read my posts.
“But my main concern is that he wants the government to spend taxpayers money and use the coercive force of the police and legal system so as to prevent a “gun culture”. ”
Whereas you want to spend taxpayers’ money, etc, to change gun laws. But yes, you’ve got me – I think the government can do good.
“Remove the word gun and replace it with gay, Jew, capitalist or black.”
Strawman argument, and evidence of the dearth of real arguments.
So let’s turn it around – what exactly is it about gun laws you don’t like? Since you know them in forensic detail.
How about the onerous laws one must surmount to own one fats. The five hours of pathetic instructions, the intrusive behavior of authorities checking to see if the gun is in a screwed down safe, the licensing laws, the taxeating fees gun owners have to pay for the privilege of being allowed to own one, the wait time to speak to some retarded public servant about some retarded question on the annual renewal form. In other words being treated like a infectious leper because you like skeet shooting.
And stop this shit about strawmen and straw-women. It’s just a form of leftist speak anyway used as device to stop an argument when the flames get too hot. If you don’t like the other persons point of view explain why and tell the audience how the other persons argument has taken a wrong turn. The only strawmen around are lefties who can’t debate properly… Like you fats.
And all the while, if one was a crim you would buy a gun off the street for a few hundred bucks.
fatfingers,
The following charts were made by me (during the time I was shifting opinion on the issue of gun control). I have not been able to track down the original spreadsheet with the links to the raw source data however from memory it was a report on criminality across different nations and different crimes. I did not cherry pick the data set however without my original source there is something of a credibility issue (ie trust me I’m not a liar). Also it is possible that the original data set was cherry picked although that seems unlikely as they were not to know that I was going to use the data for this purpose.
The three charts are here:-
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~terjep/gun-debate/homocide.gif
The first chart on the image shows several countries plotted with total annual homocide of all types on one axis and percentage of households with guns on the other axis. It shows a clear relationship between homocide and gun ownership. However there are three possible conclusions.
i) The correlation is statistical pot luck (or worse).
ii) gun ownership makes society more violent
iii) violent society makes people more likely to want a gun
The second chart is essentially the same plot except it only shows gun related homocide. The pink fitted curve on this chart implies that there is no general correlation between firearm homocide and gun ownership.
However this flat curve concerned me. I figured that it was possible that the data was skewed due to some societies being less violent than others. So I created chart 3 to try and normalise the curve. It is a crude normalisation however I figured it was not unreasonable. Essentially it upgradesgrades the firearm homicide rate if the society is generally non-violent and downgrades the rate if the society is generally violent.
Chart 3 reveals that there is still no significant relationship between gun related homicide and gun ownership even if we normalise for societal violence.
Chart 3 and chart 2 lead me to conclude that with regards to chart1 the correct conclusion is option (iii).
Regards,
Terje.
notes:-
To get chart 3 essentially what I did with the raw data was this:-
define V = Background societal violence
calculated V = Total Homicide – Firearm Homicide
Normalised Firearm Homicide = Firearm Homicde / V
P.S. The above is not an outline of why you should be convinced that gun control is pointless. It is more a summary of one of the factors that helped me became convinced that gun control is pointless.
Does anybody know whether the 1996 reforms are based in federal or state law. Obviously the buyback was a federally funded initiative but could the states roll back the restrictions without any federal veto?
Presumption of freedom fatfingers… presumption of freedom. If you can show how government coercion brings a benefit then we can consider whether those benefits are likely, significant and worth the sacrificed liberty… but I’m afraid I’m not convinced simply by conservative arguments. And in different circumstances, neither are you.
As Dave said, we are entitled to anything. What was implicit (and I think you knew this) is that we are entitled to do anything with what we own and that nobody has a pre-existing right to control another person. Government action can be justified only on the grounds that it makes us better off.
At the moment, there is no evidence that tight gun laws give us a benefit.
Having said that — this isn’t my central concern & I agree it’s a hard sell and that we probably would get more votes out of drug legalisation. But principles are principles and I can’t throw them out when they’re politically inconvenient.
Does anybody know whether the 1996 reforms are based in federal or state law.
The laws are all state based, but the content was at the insistence of the Commonwealth with the threat of withdrawal of funding if not implemented. The Commonwealth only has jurisdiction over imports.
The states could roll back the restrictions, but in practical terms it would not be an option unless the Commonwealth dropped its obsessive fixation.
A revealing look at the left’s view on gun control can be found at the link below. Those who favour gun control are in illustrious company.
What I find curious is that the left historically favoured arming the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeois state. Also, shooting is predominantly a working class sport. Now, neither the proletariat nor their sport attract much support. The new proles are the extreme greens.
http://www.nsw.greens.org.au/policies/policies.php?subaction=showfull&id=1162588400&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&