Once again, life has intruded into my writing; apologies for the delay. However, at least one good thing has come out of one of these life intrusions – I now have a new computer due to my old one going through a rather rapid process of zombification over the last two weeks and finally arriving at a complete state of putrification a few days ago.
Before I start up on Mr. Correia’s blog some more, I thought I should mention some recent gun news relevant to the subject of these blogs.
A shooting in Las Vegas that left two policemen eating at a CiCi’s Pizza, a bystander trying to stop the two shooters, and the shooters dead. In my first blog of this series, “Gun Violence Part 1: Armed Teachers”, I discussed why arming teachers was a bad idea. One of those reasons is because the shooters will always have the element of surprise going for them. Two trained police officers were attacked and killed before they could effectively fight back. I don’t think a teacher would do any better. Further, a bystander armed with a gun tried to stop them. And died. Seems to bring into question the saying that the only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.
Continuing on with my look at Mr. Correia’s blog about Gun Control from a gun proponent perspective. My last blog dealt with his subdivision starting on You don’t need assault weapons for hunting!. This one starts with:
Doesn’t matter. I don’t like them. We should ban them and take them all away like a civilized country.
In this part Mr. Correia deals with the claim that gun control has worked in other countries.
Australia had a mass shooting and instituted a massive gun ban and confiscation (a program which would not work here, which I’ll get to, but let’s run with it anyway.). As was pointed out to me on Facebook, they haven’t had any mass shootings since. However, they fail to realize that they didn’t really have any mass shootings before either. You need to keep in mind that mass shooting are horrific headline grabbing statistical anomalies. You are far more likely to get your head caved in by a local thug while he’s trying to steal your wallet, and that probably won’t even make the evening news.
And violent crime is up in Australia. A cursory Google search will show articles about the increase in violent crime and theft, but then other articles pooh-pooing these stats as being insignificant and totally not related to the guns.
So then we’ve got England, where they reacted swiftly after a mass shooting, banned and confiscated guns, and their violent crime has since skyrocketed. Their stats are far worse than Australia, and they are now one of the more dangerous countries to live in the EU. Once again, cursory Google search will show articles with the stats, and other articles saying that those rises like totally have nothing to do with regular folks no longer being able to defend themselves… Sensing a trend yet?
….
And then we’ve got South Africa, which instituted some really hard core gun bans and some extremely strict controls, and their crime is now so high that it is basically either no longer tracked or simply not countable. But obviously, the totally unbiased news says that has absolutely nothing to do with people no longer being able to legally defend themselves.Then you’ve got countries like Norway, with extremely strict gun control. Their gun control laws are simply incomprehensible to half of Americans. Not only that, they are an ethnically and socially homogenous, tiny population, well off country, without our gang violence or drug problems. Their gun control laws are draconian by our standards. They make Chicago look like Boise. Surely that level of gun control will stop school shootings! Except of course for 2011 when a maniac killed 77 and injured 242 people, a body count which is absurdly high compared to anything which has happened America.
Now, after going through these countries he then goes on to the second part of his argument – if guns are not available, then criminals will use bombs or whatever else they can get their hands on.
The biggest mass killings in US history have used bombs (like Bath, Michigan), fire (like Happyland Nightclub) or airliners. There is no law you can pass, nothing you can say or do, which will make some not be evil.
And all of this is irrelevant, because banning and confiscating all the scary guns in America will be national suicide.
MY RESPONSE
Before I start going into the facts about each of the countries he has mentioned, I want to point out Mr. Correia’s double standard. He caustically dismisses any arguments that the supposed increases in crime and violence in England and Australia are the result of anything other than gun laws, but then dismisses Norway’s success (before mentioning their one catastrophic failure) as being the result of “an ethnically and socially homogenous, tiny population, well off country, without our gang violence or drug problems”. Double standard indeed.
Australia
Let me just provide a quote from a study, “Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings” published in the peer reviewed journal Injury Prevention:
Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.
Conclusions: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.
Please note that, contrary to Mr. Correia’s claim that Australia never had a mass shooting before the one that was the impetus for their new gun laws, there were in reality 13 mass shootings over the previous 18 years. Since the 1996 gun reform laws, there have been no mass shooting, as well as “accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern”.
Now, Mr. Correia does have a point about an increase in crime in Australia since the 1996 gun reform. However, he both greatly overstates it and does not provide any information showing that the increases that did occur are due to banning guns. From the Australian Institute of Criminology
• Recorded assault increased again in 2007, to 840 per 100,000, compared with 623 per 100,000 in 1996. The 2007 rate was the highest recorded since 1996.
• The rate for robbery peaked in 2001. Rates have declined by 38 percent since 2001, to 86 per 100,000 per year.
• The rate of kidnapping remained between three and four per 100,000 per year from 1996 to 2007.
• The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in 1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest recorded (since 1996).
• The rate of recorded sexual assault increased between 1997 and 2007, from 78 to 94 persons per 100,000 per year.
Looking at the above we can see that rates of assault and sexual assaults have increased since 1996. However, robberies peaked in 2001 and have been declining since then, kidnapping remains constant, and homicide rate has decreased.
How much of those increases and decreases were due to the new gun laws? Hard to say with just this information. For example, sexual assaults; there has been a systematic effort to better deal with rape which can and has led to an increase in reports of these crimes. So, how much of this increase is the result of this push for greater openness in dealing with rape and how much of this is a result of an actual increase in rapes? What is not questionable though is that there has been a substantial decrease in gun homicides without an increase in other types of homicides.
For more on this, here is a link to a Factcheck article
In 1996, the government banned some types of guns, instituted a buyback program and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements. Gun ownership rates in Australia declined from 7 percent to 5 percent. Another law in 2002 tightened restrictions a bit more, restricting caliber, barrel length and capacity for sport shooting handguns.
Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.
Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than murders in general since the 1996 gun law. In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007. That’s a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law to which this message refers.
England
In regards to Mr. Correia’s statements about England’s increase in violent crime, does this look like an increase?
This graph is based upon the one from the Office for National Statistics, “UK’s largest independent producer of official statistics and is the recognized national statistical institute for the UK. It is responsible for collecting and publishing statistics related to the economy, population and society at national, regional and local levels.
• Between the 1995 and the 2001/02 surveys, the number of violent crime incidents fell, from 4.2 million in 1995 to 2.7 million in 2001/02. Since then there has been a general trend where the CSEW has seen a period of modest annual decreases (though often not large enough to be statistically significant year on year). The estimated number of violent incidents decreased by 13% between the 2007/08 survey and the 2012/13 survey. The CSEW showed a non-statistically significant 6% decrease in 2012/13 compared with the previous year.
• In 1995 (when crime was at its peak) 5.3% of adults aged 16 and over were a victim of violent crime compared with the 2012/13 CSEW where the victimisation rate was less than half the rate in 1995 (2.6%).
• Over recent years, the number of currently recorded homicides has shown a generally downward trend and the numbers for 2012/13 (551) and 2011/12 (530) were the lowest since 1989 (521).
…• In 2012/13, the police recorded 8,135 offences in which firearms were used, a 15% decrease compared with 2011/12. Offences involving knives or sharp instruments also fell by 15% between 2011/12 and 2012/13 (to 26,340). For context, overall police recorded crime fell by 7% over the same period.
As for why there are so many claiming there was an increase in violent crime in England – well, it was due to one of those “other articles saying that those rises like totally have nothing to do with regular folks no longer being able to defend themselves”. Again. from the Office of National Statistics:
…there have been changes to the way that police record crime, including a major change in April 2002 with the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS). This change was thought to have resulted in a rise in the volume of offences recorded by the police,
Whether Mr. Correia likes it or not, such factors affect how accurate numbers are, and if you are truly interested in what the reality is instead of just finding what fits your beliefs and prejudices, then you need to seriously take them into account. Of course, as I pointed out at the beginning of this blog, when it suits him, Mr. Correia can take account of some of those other factors as he tried to do with Norway.
Norway
Gun ownership is common in Norway. Not as common as in the United States with its 88.82 firearms per 100 people, but at 31.32 firearms per 100 people its citizens own guns at a higher rate than most European countries. And this in a country with very strict gun control laws – showing that gun control does not mean taking away the right to own guns. Gun ownership and gun control are not contradictory ideas.
As for the mass shooting in Norway that left 76 people, most of them teens, dead, it is a tragedy and one that, hopefully, we can learn enough from to prevent it from occurring again. However, there is a peculiar mindset among many of those advocating no or weak gun laws. If the laws cannot prevent all shootings, murders, mass killings, and so forth then it has failed and should be scrapped. I do not know what world they live in, but in mine there are very, very few perfect solutions.
A more valid way to look at this is to look at the number of deaths by guns without such laws and with such laws. If there is a large difference in the two cases – as there is – then even though there will be failures at times, the solution is still good. Look to improve the solution when a failure happens, do not get rid of it and go back to something worse.
South Africa
Yes, South Africa does have a huge problem with crime. And, again, Mr. Correia dismisses any analysis of why if it doesn’t fit his bias against gun controls. Not only that, but he doesn’t even get his facts right. There has been a decrease in murders and “contact crimes” since the enactment of South Africa’s gun control law, not an increase as he insinuates. The actual numbers, from the Law Library of the Library of Congress, “Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: South Africa”.
Before the FCA took effect, firearms-related crimes were very high. In 1994, 26,832 murders were committed, 11,134 of which involved firearms.[122] While the country saw a decline in overall murders from 1994 through 2000, there was an 8% increase in the number of firearms-related murders, from 41% of all murders in 1994 to 49% in 2000.[123] The number of crimes committed with firearms, which had accounted for 48% of all crimes in 1995–96, jumped to 63% by 1998.[124]
Accurate information on the distribution of and crimes committed with firearms after the FCA took effect in 2004 is difficult to obtain. This is in large part because the South African Police Service (SAPS) reportedly stopped releasing data on the subject in the early 2000s.[125] In addition, it appears that South Africa is still fine-tuning its firearms regulatory regime; the FCA has been implemented incrementally, and various key amendments made to it in 2006 took effect only recently, with more yet to come.[126]
Nevertheless, the limited number of sources located for this report suggest that there has been a general decline in firearms-related crimes since 2004. A recent statistical report issued by SAPS showed cases of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition exhibiting a slight decline. In 2004–2005, 15,497 cases of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition were reported, while in 2011–2012 the number of similar cases was down to 14,461.[127] Recent SAPS data also shows an overall decline in the prevalence of contact crimes (murder, attempted murder, sexual offenses, assault, robbery with aggravated circumstances, and common robbery) since 2004.[128] For instance, from 2003–2010, there was a marked downward trend in murders (with an 8.6% decrease) and attempted murders (which declined by 6.1%).[129] Since the FCA took effect, firearms-related offenses are said to have fallen by 21%.[130]
While a causal link cannot be firmly established between the gun laws and a decrease in fire-arm related homicides (and homicides overall), there was no explosion of gun deaths as a result of the incremental implementation of these laws as Mr. Correia seems to believe.
I would also point out the many social, political, cultural, and historical forces that are behind this problem. Until the mid 1990s South Africa was a state in which the minority whites ruled over the majority blacks, and did so brutally. This is a country coming out of a violent history filled with repression and injustice and revolution. And yet Mr. Correia does not seem to believe that these factors have any relevance here.
In 2010 the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation came out with a report on crime and violence in South Africa. From its Executive Summary:
Noting the distinction between acquaintance violence and stranger violence, the report finds that “the core of the problem of violent crime in South Africa is a culture of violence and criminality, associated with a strong emphasis on the use of weapons, in which these two forms of violence coalesce”.
Specific factors which sustain this culture are:
• Inequality, poverty, unemployment, and social exclusion and marginalisation.
• Perceptions and values relating to violence and crime.
• The vulnerability of young people, linked to inadequate child rearing and inappropriate youth socialisation.
• Weaknesses of the criminal justice system and aligned systems.
• The availability of firearms and widespread use of other weapons, the role of alcohol, attitudes of male sexual entitlement and the domestic, regional and local criminal economy.
Let me also mention that, among its many other recommendations, they include that of gun and weapon free zones.
Finally, here is a look at what the worldwide data does show about gun control and violence. From Vox:
How does this relate to homicide rates? Not simply. For instance, the United States has over 12 times as many guns per person as Honduras, but the 2012 US gun homicide rate per 100,000 people (2.97) is 1/22 of Honduras’ (68.43). That’s because, while guns make murder easier, wealthy industrialized countries generally have significantly lower rates of violent crime than comparatively impoverished ones.
But when you compare the United States to nations like Britain and Japan, it becomes clear that firearm ownership contributes to America’s murder problem. The American firearm homicide rate is about 20 times the average among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries (excluding Mexico).
Harvard researchers Daniel Hemenway and Matthew Miller examined 26 developed countries, and checked whether gun ownership correlated with murder rates. They found that “a highly significant positive correlation between total homicide rates and both proxies for gun availability.” They also didn’t find much evidence that a higher rate of gun murders led to lower rates of other kinds of murder (i.e., stabbings).
Interestingly, these results tended to hold true even when you exclude the United States and its super-high homicide and gun-ownership rates. “More guns are associated with more homicides across industrialized countries,” Hemenway and Miller conclude.
Data from inside the United States suggests the same thing. A recent, highly sophisticated study found that, once you control for general crime rates and other confounding factors, “each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership” translated to a 0.9 percent increase in homicides. A meta-analysis — study of studies — found a strong consensus among researchers that access to guns correlated with higher homicide rates in the United States.
As for Mr. Correia’s second argument, let me state that his argument that killers will find other ways to kill is flawed on two counts. First, there has been no data supporting the idea that a decrease in gun deaths resulted in an increase of other types of deaths.
Second, he is only looking at murders and mass killings here. However a more valid comparison is to look at total gun deaths – including those by accidents, when the criminal takes the gun away from a victim and kills them with it (as happened with a priest in Arizona a few weeks ago), and other gun deaths.
And let me add a third. This smacks of an all or nothing approach that I mentioned earlier in this blog. I agree, that we are not going to eliminate all murders, mass killings, terrorist acts, accidental deaths, and so on. However, being able to greatly reduce them seems to me to be a goal that is worthwhile, and much better than putting up with what we have now.
I can now say definitely that there are two more blogs left. The next one will deal with the Second Amendment and the last with what I feel are our basic differences are on this issue. Between the two, I will wind up dealing with the rest of Mr. Correia’s subsections.
Leave a comment