The (in)effectiveness of gun control

Nov. 28 - A report in today's Toronto Sun features a new study by The Fraser Institute on the effectiveness of restrictive firearm legislation in 3 Commonwealth countries: Australia, Canada and Great Britain, with results that are more devastating than even a could-be gun-totin' person like me would have thought probable.

To be honest, I chiefly oppose firearm regulation and registration on philosophical grounds: so long as I comply with the responsibilities that accompany ownership and use of a firearm, I see no reason to be restricted much less deprived of my inherent right to possess firearms. I'm pro-choice! It's not that I want to carry a gun, I just believe I have the right to choose.

This study casts that right in a different light which concludes that depriving law-abiding citizens of their rights has been accomplanied by an increase in violent crime, which was a reasonable, logical suspicion but until this report could not be proven based on actual fact. [Isn't it telling that private citizens are able to distinguish between proven and unproven yet a government cannot?]

Short version: If I am believed to be capable of defending myself, someone with ill intent is going to steer clear of me. If I am believed to be an easy target, I have just become potential prey.

That has always been a logical premise, and it seems it has been proven in the negative sense in that citizens of those Commonwealth countries studied which have restricted firearm possession have been victimized because they are indeed perceived to be incapable of defending themselves.

The report, The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, can be read in .pdf format online. The Executive Summary on that page states that

The widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearms crime. Since firearms are only a small fraction of criminal violence, the public would not be safer if the new law could reduce firearm violence but had no effect on total criminal violence.

Affirmation of the adage Never bring a knife to a gunfight.

The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates because the criminal justice system there differs so drastically from those in Europe and the Commonwealth. Not only are criminal penalties typically more severe in the United States, often much more severe, but also conviction and incarceration rates are usually much higer. Perhaps the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed handguns for self-defence. During the past few decades, more than 25 states in the United States passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states where citizens can get such a permit.

The upshot is that violent crime rates, and homicide rates in particular, have been falling in the United States. The drop in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world.

So violent crimes committed with knives, for example, have also been reduced in the US because the Justice System heavily penalizes those who commit such crimes not because we're vicious, but because we regard such crimes as intolerable in a civilized society.

The US government and justice system are based on the philosophy of "Social Contract." Citizens have the right to bear arms for non-criminal purposes, and that right is counter-balanced with harsh penalties when the terms of that contract are broken.

This report has special significance for Toronto because there is a mini-controversy in which the Toronto Star claims that violent crimes are down, and takes issue with Police Chief Julian Fantino's call for a public inquiry over concerns that violent crime is up (Jack is all over this one, and News Junkie Canada brushes aside accusations of being too blunt (heh) and weighs in.)

The Fraser Institute's press release not only calls the legislations "a failure", but makes what many opponents of the registry cite as the main crititcism:

Disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined in this study. In all these cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the effort meant setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. Mauser points to these trends in the countries he examined: [England and Wales, Australia, and Canada.] (Emphasis added)

Good old entrenched bureaucracy. Admitting the gun registry is useless and abandoning it would mean a reduction in civil service jobs, and for them, it is deemed better to continue making the same errors than admitting failure, right? We're talking about a special interest group that never shows it's true face. Who runs these countries anyway, the Parliaments or the civil service? In who's interests are these countries run, those in the civil service who want to protect their useless jobs, or citizens, who are entitled to to protect their lives?

If we were discussing a fad treatment which made claims not only that it cannot prove but can be demonstrated to be false, wouldn't the fraud squad be called in?

The press release on the report cites that in England and Wales,

Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997.

Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased.

Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States.

They are very critical of the confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms in Australia, citing it cost over $500 million and the police services bureaucracy including that which oversaw the registry increased by $200 million. Armed robberies, on the other hand, have increased 166% since restrictive legislation was introduced in 1997.

The release calls Canada's gun registry "a farce."

The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.

The Canadian experiment with firearm registration is becoming a farce says Mauser. The effort to register all firearms, which was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 billion. The final costs are unknown but, if the costs of enforcement are included, the total could easily reach $3 billion. (Emphasis added.)

“It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters?” says Mauser.

Now my American dander is really up. I am not a victim. I am a human being, and I have the right and obligation to defend myself and mine.

Blame it on Sept. 11 if you wish, because the fact is that one of the legacies of that day was the extradordinary actions of the crew and passengers aboard Flight 93 and the decision of those ordinary citizens to act to defend their country, their familes and themselves.

We rambled along in the 90's thinking the government should do everything we were too lazy to do, and it was a huge mistake. The blinders are off, and we have to assert that we are willing to take responsibility for ourselves as free people, including our own self-defense.

UPDATE: This should really infuriate the weasels at the Toronto Star: Chief Fantino wants the 3 young murderers of a 12-year old tried in adult court. Their weapons of choice were knives and baseball bats, and it seems these young offenders had a hit list of between 13-15 additional targets.

Posted by: Debbye at 08:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1350 words, total size 10 kb.