This article from The Week has statistics that bolster and weaken arguments frequently used by people on both sides of the debate.
In several Western nations, massacres by gun-wielding nuts have led to strict gun-control laws without much political controversy. In 1996, a drifter gunned down 16 children at an elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year, Great Britain made it illegal to buy or possess a handgun. In Israel, gun-license regulations were stiffened after Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, in 1993. In Port Arthur, Australia, a deranged gunman massacred 35 people in 1996. Prime Minister John Howard immediately launched a campaign that culminated in laws banning 60 percent of all firearms then available, and restrictions and licensing of the rest. Gun-control advocates consider Australia one of their greatest success stories. Since 1996, the rate of gun deaths in Australia has fallen by half. Australia today has a per-capita gun-crime rate less than one-tenth of that in the United States.
Link to full article: Link
Reader comment:
Sean says:
The linked story is dead wrong about how "easy" it is to get
guns at flea markets or gun shows.
The Brady bill's requirements actually expired back in '98, when the new
instant background check became required for all purchasers at gun shows
from licenced dealers. The so called "gun show loophole" only applies to
private sales between people. Link to Wikipedia article on Brady law
Burris says:
While the US firearm homicide statistics are indeed staggering, the article fails to mention that a substantial portion are due to the US policy of drug prohibition. Americans have an enormous appetite for drugs but those involved in the illegal drug trade are unable to call the police or resolve their disputes in court. Ending prohibition would cut firearm homicides in half almost overnight.
Gauv says:
"Australia today has a per-capita gun-crime rate less than one-tenth of that in the United States."But Australia always had a much lower gun crime rate than us, even before their gun control measures passed.
"Gun-control advocates consider Australia one of their greatest success stories. Since 1996, the rate of gun deaths in Australia has fallen by half."
But how about the overall rates? There is a reason that gun control advocates only point to the drops in gun deaths.
We'll use the very source that the Brady campaign uses, the Australian Institute of Criminology. Please look at their document, Decrease In Firearm Homicides (one-page PDF file). Note the red line at the bottom of that graph that shows the average of firearm homicides. It's been on a consistent decline since long before the gun ban of 1997.
Now look over to the right — see how the yellow bar — firearm homicides — is lower than the previous years? Note how the blue bar — total homicides — is higher than the previous years? Note the red line at the top of the graph that shows the average of total homicides. See how it's been flatlined for close to two decades, unchanged by the 1997 gun ban? The same is true with Australian suicides — firearm suicides significantly decreased after the ban, but were almost completely replaced by an upsurge in hanging and suffocation suicides.
So yes, by focusing on lower firearm homicides and suicides gun control advocates show that gun control "works," but only by totally ignoring the overall homicide and suicide rates, which are totally unaffected by gun control. It's like triumphantly declaring that after banning red cars in Australia, red cars killed less people annually, while ignoring that total vehicular deaths didn't go down.
[Here is Gauv's entry about Aussie suicides]
