opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald
IT SHOULD be troubling to
Australian governments that since 1988, after more than 1 million guns
have been destroyed as a result of government buyback programs, numerous
amnesties, voluntary returns, the banning of semi-automatic weapons and
the tightening of gun import controls, the number of guns in private
hands in Australia is as large as it has ever been.
It's not hard to see why. Since 1988, while governments have been running
a
variety of gun control programs, 1,055,082 firearms have been imported
into the country, an average of almost 44,000 a year. As a result, there
are now as many guns in private hands in Australia as there was at the
time of the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, when there were an estimated
3.2 million firearms in the country.
With millions of guns in
private hands, it was always going to happen that one day someone would
go on a shooting rampage, and fate chose a pretty place in Tasmania,
where 35 people were killed and another 23 wounded by a lone gunman.
The killings galvanised the then prime minister, John Howard, and
state governments, and after ownership of semi-automatic weapons was
banned and a series of buybacks, the number of guns fell and the risk of
an Australian dying by gunshot fell by more than half.
We are now
back to having more than 3 million guns in private hands. Admittedly,
Australia has more than 4 million more people than it did in 1996, so
the rate of gun ownership is lower, but the number of guns is not. These
figures come from a study by Philip Alpers at the University of Sydney
released this week. Two statistics contained in the study are troubling.
One is that Australia's rate of gun homicides, at 0.13 per 100,000
people, is four time higher than in Britain, where the rate is just
0.03.
Another troubling statistic is the rate of gun homicide in
Switzerland. The Swiss have national military service and an extensive
army reserve program, which means there are guns in most homes.
Switzerland is held up by the gun lobby in support of the adage that
guns don't kill, people do.
It turns out that Switzerland is not
the paragon it appears. The rate of homicides involving guns in
Switzerland is 0.52, four times higher than the Australian rate and more
than double the rates in France and Germany. The only nation that makes
Switzerland look good is the United States, which is so far above all
other advanced economies, with a rate of 3.59 gun homicides per 100,000
people, that it is in a category of its own, with a grisly sequence of
gun massacres to show for it.
Australia's rate of gun homicides is
just 3.6 per cent of the rate in the US, which points to a very
different, less violent gun culture, and successful gun controls. During
the past 25 years, federal and state governments conducted 38 amnesties
that resulted in 728,667 guns being handed back in return for
compensation. Overall, more than 1 million guns were handed in during
that period.
It turns out that Switzerland is not the paragon it appears. The rate of homicides involving guns in Switzerland is 0.52, four times higher than the Australian rate and more than double the rates in France and Germany.
ReplyDeleteAs always, those who support gun control use “gun death, or in this case “gun homicides”, to paint a different picture than what is really important- murder rates.
Australia: 1.1
UK: 1.0
France: 1.0
Germany: 0.8
Switzerland: 0.6
Oh, look at that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Once again, TS is confused by statistics. His link refers to intentional homicide rate, which varies in definition from country to country. In fact, his comparison mismatches years.
ReplyDeleteAs the link is prefaced with the following caveat: "The reliability of underlying national murder rate data may vary.[1][dead link] The legal definition of "intentional homicide" differs among countries. Intentional homicide may or may not include infanticide, assisted suicide or euthanasia.[2]
"Intentional homicide demographics are affected by changes in trauma care, leading to changed lethality of violent assaults, so the intentional homicide rate may not necessarily indicate the overall level of societal violence.[2] They may also be underreported for political reasons.[3][4] Another problem for the comparability of the following figures is that some data may include attempts. In general the values in these lists should not include failed attempts except when mentioned otherwise."
OTOH, gun homicides are gun homicides.
Regardless, it's just another TS smokescreen to pretend gun violence isn't a problem and we should just ignore it.
Jade, all stats vary from country to country. They are defined and collected by separate agencies (including “gun homicides”) and all these stats are not separating out legitimate self-defense either. We can take these stats with a grain of salt, but that doesn't mean they are throw-away (and you’ll happily use these sources to compare these countries to the USA murder rate). The differences will be small between these countries though. The biggest differences will be when comparing to countries that have corrupt governments that hide murders (which are already showing significantly higher rates of violence anyway). Do you really think Switzerland has more murders than Australia, Jade? Do you really think that “gun homicides” is a more important metric than murder? They took a stat that makes it look like Switzerland is four times worse than Australia, when really it’s significantly better.
DeleteAgain, you plow right ahead into the snowbank of wrongness. As your own cite points out, things like euthanasia, infanticide, homicide attempts may--or may not be counted as intentional homicides.
DeleteI realize you dearly want to make the argument that a gun death is no different than a stabbing death and is no different from a clubbing death, etc.
But you cannot for several very good reasons. First, you assume that if a would-be murderer couldn't get a gun--he'd simply go get a bat or a knife and perpetrate his crime. But, as we all know, a gun greatly enhances the feasibility and ability to kill. With a gun, a would-be murderer doesn't have to get particularly close to a victim. He could use a gun from a place of concealment or without having been visible to a victim or possible witnesses. If one were bound and determined to kill Mike Tyson--there aren't too many folks who would want to get within arms reach.
Second, guns tend to be really good when you want to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. It's really hard to commit mass murders with a club or a knife.
Regardless, your argument fails because you really can't show that murder rates would stay the same with or without guns.
Look, even Mike has moved passed “gun deaths” by saying murder rate is the valid metric. It took him a while, but he got there. You? I don’t know…
DeleteJade: “I realize you dearly want to make the argument that a gun death is no different than a stabbing death and is no different from a clubbing death, etc.”
Yes. Dead is dead. If your contention is that there will be less death where there are fewer guns, then you should have no problem looking at murder rates instead of “gun deaths”.
Jade: “If one were bound and determined to kill Mike Tyson--there aren't too many folks who would want to get within arms reach.”
Or, if Mike Tyson is bound and determined to kill you, then you’re probably going to want a gun.
Jade: “It's really hard to commit mass murders with a club or a knife.”
Uh huh, and it is much harder to stop someone committing mass murder with a club or a knife. Additionally, there are tools that just as good or even better at committing mass murder than guns, like bombs, fire, airplanes, etc. You keep going back to the same arguments with me Jade, like you are incapable of learning or adapting. Let me say this one more time: guns are better than knives at killing people AND defending yourself. They are better for both.
Jade: “Again, you plow right ahead into the snowbank of wrongness. As your own cite points out, things like euthanasia, infanticide, homicide attempts may--or may not be counted as intentional homicides.”
Australia has nearly twice the rate of Switzerland. Are you telling me that this is because Australia counts hundreds of euthanasia and infanticide events a year and Switzerland doesn’t? Remember, the author is trying to make it seem like Switzerland is four times worse than Australia by using “gun homicides”- this is what you people do. I am here to point out how big of a difference this can be. In this case, it is an 7x swing.
There are differences in reporting. It’s not fair to look at these numbers and conclude that Australia (1.1) is worse than the UK (1.0). For all intents and purposes just call them equal. But Switzerland is nearly half that of Australia. Quite the opposite of what the author was trying to convey.
Hey, TS, does it seem to you as if we are being told that A) Switzerland has a significantly higher rate of "gun deaths" than Australia, B) Switzerland, much like Australia, has restrictive gun laws, and C) that these two facts offer a relevant and instructive commentary on the efficacy of "gun control" for reducing "gun deaths"?
DeleteAh, yes--yes it does.
Well if the gun homicide rates for the countries are given and then you look at the overall murder rates for the countries it seems that yes people that did not have access to a gun picked a different weapon to commit murder in places like the UK and Australia. That is what makes their overall murder rates higher. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?
Delete"Look, even Mike has moved passed “gun deaths” by saying murder rate is the valid metric."
DeleteWell, sort of. I still never got a satisfactory explanation from you about what would happen to all those gun murders if there were no guns. For your explanation to really hold water, every single murder would have to be committed with a different weapon - something that obviously would not happen since guns are so good at what they do.
" Are you telling me that this is because Australia counts hundreds of euthanasia and infanticide events a year and Switzerland doesn’t? "
DeletePerhaps, But the larger driver is likely to be manslaughter which is counted as an intentional homicide. IOW, somebody kills someone in a DUI--that counts as an intentional homicide.
The differences in reporting makes a world of difference. Why compare apples and oranges when we have the avbility to compare apples to apples?
Kurtie: Your argument seems to be that if there are any gun deaths then gun control doesn't work. By such logic, we should just abandon medicine because people still die.
Kurt, Indeed, Jade has difficulty staying on point and often contradicts himself immediately after making a statement. A comical example is where he says, “We have no gun control… but the gun control we have works…”
DeleteMikeB: “Well, sort of. I still never got a satisfactory explanation from you about what would happen to all those gun murders if there were no guns. For your explanation to really hold water, every single murder would have to be committed with a different weapon - something that obviously would not happen since guns are so good at what they do.”
Mike, I address that exactly during our last “what if all guns magically disappeared” conversation. Yes, some of the gun murders would happen with other weapons, and some of them would instead result in survivable injuries, and other attacks may not even happen at all. But there is a flip side. There are murder that would now happen because there are no guns around to offer the best means of personal protection, and public protection by police. Reread what I said below, or go back to the whole thread:
TS (3/18/2015): “You'll note that in my hypothetical discussion, I acknowledged that some of the gun murders wouldn't be murders when the weapon [is] replaced with something less efficient. It's your turn to acknowledge that there is a flip side- that some additional lives would be lost due to the removal of the best self-defense tool (both active and passive). You didn't speak at all of that. You just came back with "what of all the mass shootings?!"”
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2015/03/better-than-somaia-how-to-feel-good.html#comment-form
But this magical never-gonna-happen hypothetical has nothing to do with the question of whether murder rate is a better metric in the real world than “gun deaths” or “gun homicides”. You agree that it is, right? That is what Jade and I were just talking about.
Jade: “Perhaps, But the larger driver is likely to be manslaughter which is counted as an intentional homicide. IOW, somebody kills someone in a DUI--that counts as an intentional homicide.”
No, the difference between manslaughter and murder is intent. Manslaughter means the intent to kill was not there, but the actions of the person were so negligent and irresponsible that it rises to the level or criminal punishment- like drunk driving. If they ruled a drunk driving incident as intentional homicide, that must mean they think the driver intentionally steered the car into the victim (while also being drunk). The reason why this list uses “intentional homicide” is because it is a better way to sync the definition across multiple counties than “murder”, but no, it is still not going to be exact. Of course one could still intentionally but justifiably commit homicide, something which we’d see more of when the people are allowed to have the best tools for self-defense at their disposal, so not all of these are bad.
Jade: “The differences in reporting makes a world of difference. Why compare apples and oranges when we have the avbility to compare apples to apples?”
Ok, so then perhaps our murder rate is actually lower than the UK? Who knows? All these murder stats are throw-away according to you, and we won’t expect to hear any comments from you going forward that the USA has more murders than some other industrialized nation of choice. Right? The only viable murder stat for you then is to look at what the FBI collects (apples to apples). But we already looked at murder rates by state compared to strength of gun laws and gun ownership rates and that didn't turn out so well for you.
As I've sagely noted before re Switzerland--it isn't as if the militia weapons are there for the general populace to plink beer cans in the backyard. In fact, the weapons are fully automatic, military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly accounted for.
ReplyDeleteSwitzerland also has gun control. Thecantons (states) issue licenses for handgun purchases on a "must issue" basis. Most, but not all, cantons require handgun registration. Any ammunition bought on the private market is also registered. Ammunition can be bought unregistered at government subsidized shooting ranges, but, by law, one must use all the ammunition at the range.