5 January, 2013 – I don’t usually comment on criminal events involving the use of firearms in the United States, as there are so many other websites out there that do. However there has been so much coverage of the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut that I’m forced to inject some facts and reality into the debate.
First of all, the use of semi-automatic firearms in crime is as old as semi-automatic firearms, as evidenced for example by the Sidney Street Siege in 1911. Also mass shootings are nothing new. There are so many in fact that Wikipedia has a hard time keeping up.
Second of all, there is no one single profile of a mass killer, they vary in age, sex and motive. Some are sane, some have serious mental health issues.
Third of all, and perhaps most relevant when talking about whether new gun laws could prevent further massacres, they have been committed with every type of firearm there is: single-shot shotguns, double-barrel shotguns, .22 rifles, pump-action shotguns, handguns, bolt-action rifles, lever-action rifles, semi-automatic rifles, machineguns and so on.
And fourth, if not already obvious, these incidents happen the world over, including in countries with very harsh gun laws, such as China, Japan and South Korea.
The impact of gun laws
Against this backdrop, it is very hard to think of any gun law that could stop mass shootings. Of course the media is quick to point out that countries other than the US with tougher gun laws have much lower firearm-related murder rates, usually pointing first to the UK as an example. But as anyone familiar with statistical analysis will tell you, you can prove anything with a sample size of two.
It is particularly difficult to compare two different countries and their crime rates, because there are so many possible differences, but at least in the case of homicide, you can assume the police found a body before they recorded the statistic.
Most people use the Small Arms Survey for their statistical comparisons, however having spoken to them in the past even they admit their figures are based on data that could be flawed, estimates of gun ownership in countries like the US for example are largely guesses, based on public opinion polling and other limited sources of information. But it’s all we’ve got.
So let’s take some low gun ownership, low firearm-related murder countries:
Firearm-related homicide rate per 100,000 | Firearms per 100 people | |
---|---|---|
England & Wales | 0.07 | 6.2 |
Japan | 0.01 | 0.6 |
South Korea | 0.03 | 1.1 |
And now some low gun ownership, high firearm-related murder countries:
Firearm-related homicide rate per 100,000 | Firearms per 100 people | |
---|---|---|
The Bahamas | 15.37 | 5.3 |
Trinidad & Tobago | 27.31 | 1.6 |
El Salvador | 39.9 | 5.8 |
Or… how about some high gun ownership, low firearm-related murder countries:
Firearm-related homicide rate per 100,000 | Firearms per 100 people | |
---|---|---|
Switzerland | 0.77 | 45 |
Finland | 0.45 | 45.3 |
Serbia | 0.46 | 37.8 |
My point being that you can prove anything with international comparisons, first of all you have to take a leap of faith that the data is even accurate. What it doesn’t prove though is that high gun ownership rates ipso facto mean higher firearm-related murder rates and even though there have been a lot of mass shooting incidents, they’re still too rare to use in any sort of statistical comparison.
You wouldn’t think this though if you read through the press, for example Jack Straw (Home Secretary when handguns were banned in GB) blathering on about how the ban “reduced the risk” of another massacre. There is no evidence to support this assertion, according to the data collected by the Home Office. In the years following the handgun ban (1997), handgun-related offences in England & Wales rose sharply, going from 2,600 to a high point of 5,800 a few years later. Firearm-related homicides rose, in fact they nearly doubled from 54 in 1997/98 to 97 in 2001/02. They have since fallen, but opinions differ as to why this is, partly because the Home Office changed their methods of collecting data after 2001/02. One explanation being used across the developed world is that as the population ages, crime levels fall. Another explanation is that a lot of handgun-related crimes were in fact committed with imitations and were misreported, and the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (which introduced controls on realistic imitations) may have caused a decline in more recent years. If that is the case, then the statistics have been wrong for a long time and there is little to be inferred from them, other than the homicide rates (you can’t commit murder with a gun that is purely an imitation, unless you beat the person to death).
But… you can go further back. Firearm-related offences also rose sharply after the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which was introduced after the mass shooting in Hungerford. The main provisions were the prohibition of centrefire semi-automatic and pump-action rifles as well as the introduction of shotgun registration. The Act was fully implemented in mid-1989 and looking through those statistics you can see a sharp rise in serious firearm-related offences in 1990 of 663 to 1,074 in 1994. The subsequent decrease is usually put down to the concerted effort of the Met Flying Squad in London focussing on firearm-related crime. However you want to characterise it, “reduced the risk” is totally inaccurate. And such statements are surely cold comfort to the victims of Derrick Bird.
So… international comparisons
People going on about how wonderful the gun laws are in the UK miss one rather important fact – because of the British Empire, many Commonwealth countries have gun laws based on those in the UK. A good example are The Bahamas. The gun laws in The Bahamas are virtually identical to those in Great Britain, having been written the year after – back when The Bahamas were still a British territory. The main differences in the laws are in fact that they are stricter: low-power airguns require the same type of licence as a shotgun and licences are renewable annually. Handguns have been virtually prohibited for decades and require a special licence for which the applicant must show a “genuine need”. But The Bahamas have a firearm-related homicide rate of 15.37 per 100,000, far higher than the rate in the US (about 3 per 100,000), let alone the rate in England & Wales.
Trinidad & Tobago also has a firearm control regime closely modelled on GB – the main difference being that the controls that apply to rifles in GB basically apply to everything that can be legally possessed there. And the firearm-related homicide rate there is even higher than The Bahamas: 27.31 per 100,000. Think I’m picking on the Caribbean? Lesotho also has very similar gun laws, unfortunately I don’t know what the exact firearm-related murder rate is for Lesotho but I doubt anyone would argue it is anywhere near as low as GB. As detailed on this site, the Republic of Ireland has gun laws that were modelled after British laws, yet their firearm-related murder rate is 0.48 per 100,000, many times higher than England & Wales.
I’m afraid saying tough gun laws make the world a safer place is simply not proven in fact. Both The Bahamas and Trinidad & Tobago have lower levels of gun ownership than GB, remember, if the Small Arms Survey is to be believed. So does Lesotho (2.7 per 100 people). And they have the same type of gun laws.
Beware of politicians bearing egos
There has also been a lot of press coverage of comments made by John Howard, former Prime Minister of Australia who takes the credit for foisting various anti-gun laws on Australia after the Port Arthur shootings. First of all, although he advocated for them, gun laws are primarily the responsibility of State governments in Australian law. Second, the Australian Institute of Criminology statistics do not seem to indicate that the gun laws did in fact lead to a lower murder rate – the murder rate was already declining before the laws were enacted (both with and without firearms) and the trend has continued since. Third, the Australian Crime Commission points out that firearms that were not surrendered in accordance with the 1996 laws are the primary source of illegal long guns used in crime in Australia, so the laws apparently created a black market. (Estimates vary as to what the compliance rate was, as several States such as New South Wales had no long gun registration at the time, but suffice to say the number not handed in is a significant number by any reasonable estimate. Look at the first table in this SSAA article – New South Wales has a larger population than Victoria but the number of guns handed in was substantially lower).
And most importantly of all, there has been a mass shooting in Australia since 1996, so the laws were changed again. Perhaps the 1996 laws did reduce the chance of a mass shooting, who knows, but the picture is a lot more murky than John Howard would have you believe. Tasmania did in fact have a firearm licensing law in place in 1996, the Guns Act 1991, but Martin Bryant had not obtained a licence and was illegally in possession of the guns he used.
And finally
Rarely do I ever hear calls for the military and the police to be disarmed. Even people who want guns banned still seem to think it is okay for the military and police to operate a monopoly of force. There have been many cases of rogue members of the military or the police committing mass shootings. There’s one currently facing trial as I write this. Here’s an example of a police officer who did it. Or they might just be career criminals (which is after all why the police carry guns, here’s another example).
I’m afraid there is no easy solution to stopping the phenomena of mass shootings, if there was, it would have been done already. I could explore some of the other options and reasons why they happen. Maybe I will at a later date, but suffice to say that gun laws do not possess the magical properties some politicians and certain commentators in the media bestow on them.
Scotland
On the subject of gun laws that won’t work, the Scottish Government has launched a consultation on airgun licensing. They’re clearly going to try doing it and I don’t see much way of stopping them since the SNP won the election.
People are trying though, petition and facebook page.
My view is that when you respond to the consultation, focus on demands for compensation and also that the licensing fee should be waived to begin with. When the cost of this madness dawns on them, perhaps reality will finally take a grip. Doubtful though, seeing as they ignored the Home Office, who pointed out that any licensing requirement could easily be evaded by going to England.
“We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on.” – 29th Canon of the Second Lateran Council, under Pope Innocent II, 1139.