Does reasonable, sane Gun Control have any effect on murder rates?

[botias]

In 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.

Comments

[hobbituk.livejournal.com]

The trouble with statistics are that you have to take account of the base numbers - we have so many less gun killings here than in the US that the comparisons are meaningless. You also have to take into account that there aren't millions of people with guns in their cupboards - It's a whole different scenario here and the changes in the rules probably only affected a small % of the population. Apart from a comparatively small number of gun owners, in most cases only criminals (or aristocrats!) have guns outside of gun clubs and our gun crime tends to be handguns, not machine guns.

We have much more of a problem with knives, to be honest. The people planting bombs have usually been terrorists (and that is historical - we've been dealing with that since the sixties!)

What I can't get my head round personally is that the gun lobby in the US want to arm everyone - how many innocents are going to die if every upright citizen with a gun starts firing indiscriminately at a presumed assailant? In a darkened cinema, for instance? And why do people need weapons that fire hundreds of bullets a minute anyway??? Not for shooting at targets or hunting animals. They want something that will blow people's heads off, like in the pc games. Coming from a country where that just doesn't happen? Scary.

[deborahw37.livejournal.com]

Our murder rate has been skewed in some years by IRA bombings and in some by other acts of terrorism but it's still pretty low and very few firearms crimes are included. Not perfect by any means but crime in general is down with the sole exception of petty theft and that's usual in a recession.

Personally I like the LA gun buyback initiative and would extend that, close the gunshow and private sales loopholes and make sure background checks were aways undertaken..but hey, it's not my country.

[botias.livejournal.com]

Your point seems to be that the UK has a much lower murder rate than the US and that the two countries can not be compared. If you will look at my post again you will see that these statistics are UK murder rates over time and only the UK. Only the UK. There is no information about US murder rates or any comparison to it (besides an aside that our own rates are also trending downward over the last few years). My question is: did the UK gun ban cause people in the UK to murder one another less than before the bans? Did the lack of gun availability prevent some percentage of UK citizens from committing murder? Did the bans result in fewer victims of murder in the UK than before the bans?

I don't know what to say to your final paragraph there to be honest. It's tempting to frighten you further by telling you that private gun ownership in the US is at an all-time high and that the trend over the last twenty years is to fewer regulations rather than more. I think 39 of the 50 states are 'shall issue' now, meaning that any upright citizen must be issued a concealed carry permit for a handgun if they complete the application process for one. Our murder rates have not increased accordingly, however.

The only conclusion I can come to is that other forces are at work than gun availability when it comes to murder.

[elynne.livejournal.com]

The difference is that people that want me to be Christian only knock on my door and leave pamphlets. Really? I was under the impression that they were trying to pass laws, too... doing lovely things like dictating who can get married, what medical procedures people are allowed to have, and what kind of mythology gets taught in schools.

As to the actual gun thing--in talking about the recent round of yelling, somebody mentioned that the only statistics that both sides can agree on is that overall, homicide rates are going down, worldwide. Which means that, on average, we are statistically safer from being murdered now than at any previous time in history. Both sides are hammering on buttons that go directly to people's fears, which means that it's virtually impossible to have a rational discussion on the subject.

My opinion--I personally don't like guns. I've fired guns, and I would own, maintain, and practice with one if I felt I needed it, but I don't like them, for entirely emotional reasons. I'd love to be able to wave a magic wand and make it impossible to use a gun to hurt a human. But that's not going to happen, and in the absence of magic wand solutions, I really don't see America as being able to come to any kind of reasonable solution to the issue on either side any time soon. And I do mean on either side. I really don't like the idea of politicians climbing all over each other to pass laws fast in an emotionally charged climate; it means they're more concerned about winning points from their constituents than they are about creating careful, thoughtful, useful laws. It's the kind of situation that leads to massive screwups like the problems with the TSA, and Abu Ghraib, which are much harder to undo afterwards. But the NRA isn't doing themselves any favors right now; they're the biggest representatives that gun advocates have, and honestly, they're sounding more and more crazy every day.

[botias.livejournal.com]

Do you think it's possible that people bent on murder are not deterred by the absence of one particular tool?

But thank you for actually reading and understanding. :)

[hobbituk.livejournal.com]

It's a cultural issue I suspect. You come from a place where it is commonplace to see people packing weapons, whereas I come from a place where it is (thankfully) extremely unusual, even for the police to have weapons. Do I feel more afraid because of that? I'd have to say no.

I think you are misreading the statistics on our murder rates because the fact is we just don't have as many gun murders/shootings, full stop. Proportionally, shootings are quite low - and headline news if they do occur. It would be interesting to see the numbers of shootings in your murder rates, compared to ours. Stranglings, stabbings, bludgeoning or just beating up... much more likely here. We don't get many random killings of strangers either way - most are victims of crime, or domestic violence.

I don't think the gun ban made much difference simply because there just wasn't widespread gun ownership already. If you say people can't have guns but only 20% of the population have them, that means 80% are going to say "Huh, what??"

[botias.livejournal.com]

Really? I was under the impression that they were trying to pass laws, too...

I am ashamed. As a rabid liberal on all social issues, who named one of her children after an evolutionary biologist, I really ought to know better. Het privilege strikes again.

[botias.livejournal.com]

So your gun ban did not affect your murder rates, they continued to climb apparently and then eventually to decline. You suspect this was because the UK never actually had a gun problem. The US on the other hand, might be aided by gun control because we have always had a lot of guns in private ownership. I can see what you are saying. I disagree that gun control would have a different effect in the US than it has in the UK. This conclusion requires some assumptions that I am not convinced of at this time. Such as that the government has such good control over people's behavior that it can keep guns from people that really want them, and that people are prevented from murdering by the absence of firearms. In any case, it's moot due to the cultural issues that you cite.

For what it's worth, that's 'concealed carry' of weapons. My more knowledgeable spouse occasionally notices that someone is carrying a handgun, but showing your gun such that people might feel threatened is considered 'brandishing' and it's a crime. Though it's true that police and armed guards are openly armed. I don't think I would feel particularly less safe as a citizen if our law enforcement were not armed; their guns are not to protect me. They show up _after_ crimes are committed. But if I were a police officer I would certainly feel less safe without a gun. I wouldn't ask them to go unarmed.

[deborahw37.livejournal.com]

Yes or rather it becomes more difficult to commit a mass murder if certain tools are denied to you. Most bombing attempts fail and making a bomb leaves traces [purchases etc] which is how many plots are foiled.Sure you could mow people down in a car but you are going to risk personal injury rather than a swift suicide or suicide by cop.Also many shooters seem to crave the thrill and power a gun gives, a car isn't going to gie them that. You might kill a few with a knife but more likely to wound and be caught. Nothing is more likely to get a lot of people dead than a machine which can spray bullets around a confined area.If you can't fire as fast,fire as many bullets you'd have to target and ,since most shooters aren't crackshots, you't hit less.

By all means keep a gun for personal protection but you don't need an arsenal,
By all means hunt...but with guns designed for downing deer or rabbits one at a time
By all means shoot at targets but leave the guns at the range
And,just as laws about speed and improved safety features and the need to pass a test,have good eyesight and be in reasonable health and properly tax,insure and maintain cars are accepted in the cause of improving safety so with guns

These things seem common sense to me but I am a product of a different culture

[elynne.livejournal.com]

Heh... gun control is a nuanced cultural issue in which both sides have good points to make, and are coming from positions of legitimate concern and good intentions. People who spout "HURFBLURF CAN'T LET THEM GAYS GET GAY MARRIED" are bigoted assholes hiding behind religious distortions and lies, and I have no sympathy for them on that issue whatsoever. <-- my biases let me show you them

[botias.livejournal.com]

You are making a lot of statements here:

it becomes more difficult to commit a mass murder if certain tools are denied to you
many shooters seem to crave the thrill and power a gun gives
Nothing is more likely to get a lot of people dead than a machine which can spray bullets around a confined area.

These are all things you clearly believe. Is this based on any evidence? Have you read interviews with mass killers to find out about their feelings about guns? Do you have any evidence that people that have planned to commit mass murder were deterred by lack of gun availability? Have you read research about mass murders that concluded that guns are the most deadly means? You said these statements are simply common sense. But common sense has a very sketchy record. I can think of some very wrong stuff that used to be, and still is 'common sense'. While some of this information might be difficult to come by, it's my understanding that the most deadly mass murderers use bombs or arson.

One thing that seems 'common sense' to me is that guns designed for killing deer or elk humanely (i.e. one shot) need to be much more powerful than guns designed to shoot people. While a person could say that hunting should be given up in the hopes of reducing murder rates, I suspect that people who claim that they want to ban 'dangerous guns', but do not intend to infringe on hunting may not have looked into the matter closely.

[deborahw37.livejournal.com]

I saw an interesting statistic recently. LAPD fired more bullets in one incident than were fired by the entire German police service in the whole of 2011

[deborahw37.livejournal.com]

Heading for bed now but will respond in the morning

[botias.livejournal.com]

Hah! Eh, I'll buy that both sides have good points when I see their studies. Right now, I only see the gun nuts trotting out the data. I personally think it's a very similar case of phobic people wanting to write their fears into law.

[elynne.livejournal.com]

I've got "Mother Jones" on my Twitter feed, so I'm getting a lot of the anti-gun numbers instead. Six of one, half-dozen of the other at this point, really--it's nearly impossible to find data that can't be or hasn't already been skewed one way or another, just by sliding the goalposts around. I'm kind of glad I don't have a personal stake on either side of the argument at this point, though I will put money on it being a big issue in 2013.

[botias.livejournal.com]

I just Googled Mother Jones and gun control. The first article I found included this gem:

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

[deborahw37.livejournal.com]

When hunting you need to kill quickly but do minimum damage to meat or hide. A standard rifle will fell a deer or ,for that matter,with the right gun sight and ammo, a bear or elephant. You need maybe 2 bullets ....if you need more to make a kill you have no business hunting.The weapons and ammo allowed under UK Law are enough for any hunting for pot or vermin control or culling of deer. And that's not my opinion, it's the opinion of the farm's gamekeeper.

I've read widely and even taken a deep breath and visited the NRA forums.I have no evidence that lack of availability of guns has stopped anyone planning a mass murder but sadly there's lots of evidence of people getting a thrill from posing with guns and dressing in faux militaristic combat gear...just go to a pro gun forum and read and look at the images people post..Yes that's my opinion , and no I'm not saying that these gung ho idiots are potential mass murderers but frankly the macho gun culture is a huge worry to me...And to many others on those forums, especially ex military posters and genuine hunters. There are many moderate,sensible voices in the gun owning community who believe that better training and more responsible gun ownership would be a good thing.


Yes people will still be able to use bombs or arson...that's no reason not to regulate guns.


In fact in all of my reading and discussion I've yet to read one convincing argument against sensible controls.

I have never owned a gun but my father and grandfathers did and there is a gun room less than 50 metres from where I'm sitting. Wild shot game is a big part of our meat supply. I am not anti gun. I simply don't see why sensible limits are such a big deal.

[botias.livejournal.com]

I am not anti gun. I simply don't see why sensible limits are such a big deal.

The thing is 'sensible' is not a scientific term. It is completely individual. I find it the opposite of sensible to make law-abiding people into felons for no demonstrable benefit to public safety. Gun enthusiasts find it the opposite of sensible to be barred from purchasing a gun simply because it looks scary. You and I, both well-meaning, intelligent individuals, have opposite ideas on what is sensible. Gun ownership frightens you and makes you feel less safe; people that celebrate guns and the military frighten you. These are all emotional reactions which I am totally fine with and find valid. But you have yet to offer me one convincing argument in favor of regulating guns beside that it would make you feel more comfortable.

You claimed that your regulations had made the UK more safe and prevented mass killings, but I can see no evidence that UK citizens were made more safe from being killed by your gun bans, further I can see no evidence that Australians were made more safe. Neither do the gun bans seem to prevent mass shootings, much less mass killings, as I'm sure you heard about the events in Norway in 2011, and the school shooting in Germany in 2009 that killed 16.

Humans are extremely intelligent and resourceful. The notion that gun bans are a serious impediment to the determined criminal is not one that the evidence has supported, as gun restrictions have failed again and again to reduce murder rates and other violent crime.

[botias.livejournal.com]

I'd still rather go to Disneyland than Oktoberfest. Drunk people creep me out!