Some facts on gun control and gun buy backs. Yes, facts, for a change.

Posted: January 9, 2013 in Political musings, Popular Culture et al
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Can we research the gun control issue with a minimum of opinion?

Can we look into the gun control issue with a minimum of opinion?

I am often being asked, particularly by United States residents, if I can help to elucidate the effects of the much-discussed Howard Government’s gun buy back (which removed about 650,000 weapons from Australian society, for which compensation was paid) following the Port Arthur massacre in which 35 people were killed.

It is difficult to be precise, as studies are still on-going, but in a bi-partisan spirit I post the following links for people to investigate for themselves if they so wish.

Results confused

This joint Canadian-Australia research study finds a drop in gun suicide rates of 80%. Suicide rates are often the forgotten element in the gun control discussion – a 2010 study found that the gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides 74%, thus saving 200 lives a year. The Canadian-Australian study, by Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh also found that states such as Tasmania, which withdrew guns quickly, had a bigger decline in firearm suicides than states such as New South Wales, which withdrew more slowly. The authors found no evidence of substitution of method of suicide in any state, although other studies have argued that this has happened. The study finds other violent deaths unaffected in the main, although it believes that overall gun violence diminished.

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

Effect on massacre killings

The Wikipedia page on Gun Politics in Australia is helpfully unbiased and full of data. It shows, in effect, that the effect of the gun buy back is disputed (hardly surprising with strong opinions on both sides) but that one area where it is likely there will be agreement is that guns have almost disappeared from massacre-style killings.

Hypothetically, I would argue that this is because the nature of the weapons restricted are those that typically allow considerable damage to be done in a short space of time, as in the recent school killings in the USA. This may be helpful in considering, for example, whether the USA should ban semi-automatic weapons or large magazine weapons.

Cultural change

This study into an Argentine gun buy back programme notes the effects of the buy back in Australia, and particularly emphasises that any changes that have taken place as a result of it are because it was not just about removing weapons from the community but also about a wider range of restrictions, as in a similar scheme in Brazil, and also a concomitant cultural change, brought about by a generalised revulsion at the Port Arthur massacre. Interestingly, though, despite not finding much impact on the overall problem of gun violence, this study finds a significant reduction in deaths from gun accidents in the Argentine.

Gun suicide and gun accidents

The effect on the reduction in gun suicide and accidental gun deaths in the USA needs to be considered as a part of any overall gun control discussion there.

23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States occurred during 2000. Annually, about 600 people are accidentally killed. You either consider this a lot, thinking about 600 families losing someone, or a little, compared to the overall gun population. Or you can hold both thoughts simultaneously, as I do.

Just over half of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, and firearms remain the most common method of suicide, accounting for 50.7% of all suicides committed in 2006with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths a year later in 2007 being decided to be suicide. It is worth noting that some of these suicides also occurred after one or more murders, such as in a family murder-suicide situation. In this respect, there would seem to be some advantage to reducing the number of households in a society with firearms.

National may work, local doesn’t

My reading seems to imply that the success or otherwise, in any sphere, of a gun buy back programme is critically determined by whether or not the activity is national, rather than state based or city based. This seems to be because if one can simply travel across a border to buy a weapon or type of weapon that is restricted in a particular community then the effect of the buy back is reduced or negated. Also, small-scale gun buy backs (such as a city within the United States) do not have a large enough impact on the overall gun population to make a serious statistical impact.

gun deaths v traffic deaths

The role of guns in death and injury in the USA would seem urgent, and not just because of the recent sad mass murders. As this graphic and article from Bloomberg reveals, gun deaths will out-number traffic deaths within a couple of years.  As we work to make driving a car safer and safer in so many ways, it surely makes sense to make the same effort for weapon ownership.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Vividhunter says:

    Interesting and informative article. I’m glad the Howard government pushed through the gun buy-back scheme after Port Arthur, even despite the opposition. I wonder if it could be replicated in America?

    Like

    • Well, that’s the $64,000 question, isn’t it? I mean, I think it could. But it would require a national consensus, which to his credit Howard – a very conservative man, actually – created in Australia. It could be the atmosphere in the USA is too partisan to allow such a move.

      Like

  2. mlshatto says:

    Thank you very much. This is quite helpful information for countering the wild claims one finds circulating on the internet.

    Like

    • You’re welcome. It is quite difficult to find consensus opinions, and even then, as you can see from Richard’s comment, they are treated with suspicion. I do believe, somehow, we need to take the heat out of the debate, and I have been just as guilty in the past as anyone of allowing emotions to overpower logic. It is, of course, for obvious reasons, an extremely emotive topic.

      Like

  3. Richard Ember says:

    I look forward to you coming to Texas and spinning this nonsense. You, of course, totally fail to mention that ‘suicides by gun’ would be replaced by ‘suicide by pills/knife/car’ etc etc etc. Your presentation of the ‘facts’ is just a collection of stats spun heavily to suit your opinion which, fortunately, doesn’t count for anything in the USA. Come back when you have some objectivity and can at least present a balanced blog.

    Perhaps you would like to include the effect of the liberal decriminalisation and relaxed attitude to drugs had on the young man currently being tried for the murders at The Batman Theatre? Oh no, of course you wouldn’t.

    Like

    • No, that’s not fair Richard. I am providing the links for people to read and make their own minds up, and have gone out of my way to make my own opinions frankly clear, so people know where I am coming from, as well as emphasizing that not everyone who disagrees with me is a red-neck extremist. I don’t know what else one can do to try and achieve a debate which is reasonable.

      The argument that suicide by gun is automatically replaced by other forms of suicide seems, from my research, to be one of conjecture. If you can find statistical or academic evidence to support that point of view (as opposed to Internet tittle-tattle or opinion) I will gladly publish it.

      As for drug-affected people, I am sure you know that the Portuguese experience is that de-criminalization (not legalization) had been extremely successful and is probably the way the world will move, when our political masters listen to the health and law enforcement professionals. I would simply point out that a drunk with a gun is just as dangerous as someone on some other form of intoxicant, as many dead victims of domestic violence (mostly women) could attest.

      Like

What do YOU think? That's what matters. Please comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s