![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
botiasIn the UK, they responded to the actions of one uniquely crazy individual by enacting strict rules for millions of normal people. Did it make them more safe? In the absence of firearms, those convenient devices for killing, did the men and women of England and Wales murder one another less than they had before? I got this graph from the UK's Guardian newspaper. The article is here, and is about how murder rates are looking rather nice lately, relatively speaking (much as they are in the U.S.). I indicated the dates of gun control legislation myself.
From this graph, I don't get the idea that UK murderers were rendered impotent by sensible, or even by strict gun control. In 2005, when someone decided it would be a good idea to kill a few dozen innocent people in the UK, they used explosives. I understand that telling a gun control supporter that laws won't make them more safe is very much equivalent to telling a Christian that there is no heaven. It's hurtful, and it's equally successful in changing that person's convictions. The difference is that people that want me to be Christian only knock on my door and leave pamphlets. Gun control advocates want to use force of law.
This graph was made by someone (else) specifically looking at this issue. The entire post is here, and makes interesting reading. These are homicide rates in Australia over time; the vertical black line indicates the date of their 'sensible' gun control, which was a strict ban.
I'm not impressed, yet one doesn't have to look very far today to find news articles suggesting that the US can learn from the Australian experience with gun control. I agree, but I don't think they are referring to the same conclusions that I come to when I look at the numbers.
ETA: Gun Nuts will sometimes say that violent crime in Australia went up after their gun ban. Bad, bad Gun Nuts! Violent crime in Australia was trending up before the gun ban, and statistically the ban doesn't seem to have had an effect either way. Some Gun Nuts will also tell you that rape is way up in the UK and Australia since their bans. What these Gun Nuts may not know is that rape is very under reported and NO ONE knows for certain what rape rates actually are. The rises in reported rapes may actually represent progress in this area, but reflect nothing about the rate of this crime.
From this graph, I don't get the idea that UK murderers were rendered impotent by sensible, or even by strict gun control. In 2005, when someone decided it would be a good idea to kill a few dozen innocent people in the UK, they used explosives. I understand that telling a gun control supporter that laws won't make them more safe is very much equivalent to telling a Christian that there is no heaven. It's hurtful, and it's equally successful in changing that person's convictions. The difference is that people that want me to be Christian only knock on my door and leave pamphlets. Gun control advocates want to use force of law.
This graph was made by someone (else) specifically looking at this issue. The entire post is here, and makes interesting reading. These are homicide rates in Australia over time; the vertical black line indicates the date of their 'sensible' gun control, which was a strict ban.
I'm not impressed, yet one doesn't have to look very far today to find news articles suggesting that the US can learn from the Australian experience with gun control. I agree, but I don't think they are referring to the same conclusions that I come to when I look at the numbers.
ETA: Gun Nuts will sometimes say that violent crime in Australia went up after their gun ban. Bad, bad Gun Nuts! Violent crime in Australia was trending up before the gun ban, and statistically the ban doesn't seem to have had an effect either way. Some Gun Nuts will also tell you that rape is way up in the UK and Australia since their bans. What these Gun Nuts may not know is that rape is very under reported and NO ONE knows for certain what rape rates actually are. The rises in reported rapes may actually represent progress in this area, but reflect nothing about the rate of this crime.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-12-30 10:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-30 11:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-30 11:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-31 12:33 am (UTC)Pratt believes gun rights are completely unfettered, and there can be no restrictions on fire arms, period. (In years past, he has joined with white supremacists, anti-Semites, and right-wing militia leaders to denounce gun control advocates.)
Holy frijoles!! I just about fell off of my chair! Are they really implying that to believe gun control laws are ineffective makes you a known associate of racists and anti-Semites??
Regarding the graph I posted above, I made a point to get my data from a mainstream paper in the UK, not gun rights website, and from an article not related to gun control FWIW. You already know where I stand on the issue, so maybe I won't be credible, but I have never owned a gun in my life. Most of what I know about them came from researching this issue. I don't believe that the Bill of Rights is infallible, or any other part of the Constitution. However, in my opinion Mother Jones is committing some serious journalistic malpractice on this issue. The math nerds do not seem to be on their side. http://michaelsiegel.net/?p=5506