In the wake of the Port Arthur Massacre (March 1996), gun laws in Australia were tightened.  The immediate and predictable effect was to cause the growth rate of armed robbery, which had been growing at about the same rate as unarmed robbery, to double that of unarmed robbery:  (The Australian Bureau of Statistics does seem to move it's web pages around a lot.  Previously I supplied links to relevant pages.  Now, to confirm the data below, you will have to search the ABS site.)
 

(The Australian Bureau of Statistics has found) "that a robber today is less likely to use a gun than at any time during the past eight years - however people are almost twice as likely to be robbed.  It is clear that the number of firearms used in robberies and murders is decreasing, but the overall number of murders and robberies has nearly doubled over the same period."

An increase in the number of armed citizens coincided with the reduced crime & murder rate in the USA.  An increase in gun control in the UK (from zero control circa 1900 to zero handguns in 2002) is what has coincided with increased crime and violence in the UK.

When will the people of Australia realize that the best way to reduce crime in a democracy is to allow the citizens to bear arms?  We are not irresponsible children.  Let those among us who so desire bear arms.  Or is that significant proportion of people who wish to bear arms to be muzzled by the fearful nannies among us?

Those who believe that a high homicide rate results from greater firearms availability might like to consider the data compiled by the National Injury Surveillance Unit (from Killias 1993, another copy here) comparing firearms ownership and homicide rate in Switzerland with that in England & Wales (reproduced below).

If availability of firearms caused homicide, then why do the SWISS, who have five times as many guns per head of population when compared to ENGLAND, have fewer murders per head of population?

"Well why", you might ask, "do the Australian authorities not admit that they were wrong, and liberalize gun laws?"

Why indeed.  As my grandfather used to say, "That is the $64,000 question".

Perhaps the $64,000 answer is that there is self interest by those who wield political and media power.  While it is a proven fact that guns reduce violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assult against the population at large (see below), it would appear that those with a high media profile are in fact at greater risk when guns are held by ordinary citizens.  For instance, out of 43 past US presidents, 4 were "removed" from office by guns, and another four took sick leave as a result of guns.  (Those odds are much worse than for a soldier in Afghanistan).  And a disproportionate number of governors, senators, representatives and media personalities (e.g. John Lennon) have been murdered by nutcases.

John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois  60637 and David B. Mustard; Department of Economics; University of Chicago; Chicago, Illinois  60637 wrote an academic paper dated July 26, 1996 on their research into "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns".  Following is the abstract:

Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths. If those states without right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, county- and state-level data indicate that approximately 1,500 murders would have been avoided yearly. Similarly, we predict that rapes would have declined by over 4,000, robbery by over 11,000, and aggravated assaults by over 60,000. We also find criminals substituting into property crimes involving stealth, where the probability of contact between the criminal and the victim is minimal. Further, higher arrest and conviction rates consistently reduce crime. The estimated annual gain from all remaining states adopting these laws was at least $5.74 billion in 1992. The annual social benefit from an additional concealed handgun permit is as high as $5,000.

When the Lott-Mustard article originally appeared it provoked an uproar among control advocates.   In 1998 local gun control advocate Associate Professor Chapman admitted defeat when he wrote "With the national armed robbery rate up 47%, . . no downturn in gun suicides or domestic slayings . . was it(i.e. the taxation funded buyback of guns) all for nothing?

In the intervening seventeen years nobody has been able to refute Lott & Mustard's findings.  Many have tried, but read them yourself.  (e.g. google "refutations of Lott Mustard paper").  They mostly aren't worth reading, and one cannot help but  wonder how the authors were ever employed as research assistants. 

This column was started in September 1997.

email from here