BARVENNON.COM
CLIMATE
AUSTRALIAN  DIARY
KILLERBELT
GUNS
TRANSPORT
FUTURE
SOUTH ASIA
LINKS

Update April 2015
GUNS IN AUSTRALIA.

No law that restricts access to guns will do anything to stop criminal violence, because,
after all, criminals don't care about laws.   That's what makes them criminals.

The situation in NSW Australia in 2015 has gone along the path that would generally be predicted in the circumstances.  The circumstances being the unwillingness of Australians to accept peer reviewed evidence that conflicts with their prejudices.

The USA, which listens to it's eminent scientists (such as John Lott) has liberalized gun ownership and "right to carry" laws since 1996 and, predictably, reduced the incidence of violent crime.  Excepting in schools and educational institutions and other places where law abiding citizens do not go armed because it is forbidden.  In those places, mass gun murders seem to happen with clockwork regularity.  Think Columbine, Colorado Aurora theater. Do a web search "school shootings in US".  That is because there are no armed law abiding citizens in those locations to protect the innocent.

Surprisingly, most citizens do not need to own a gun for society to gain the social benefit.    The evidence suggests that that 1% - 2% of citizens owning or carrying a concealed weapon produces a marked reduction in street attacks and home invasions.

The mere possibility that the intended victim might be armed serves to deter most criminals.

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. That liberal institution have deleted their web page, but a copy exists here) comparing firearms ownership and homicide rate in Switzerland with that in England & Wales (reproduced below).

Country
% Households
with Firearms.
Homicides per
100,000 Pop
Switzerland
27.2%
1.2
England & Wales
4.7%
1.3


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?"

Perhaps the answer is that there is self interest by those who wield political and media power.  While it is a proven beyond reasonable doubt fact that guns reduce violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assult against the population at large (see John Lott 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 an active war theater.  (10% fatality rate, 10% wounded rate).  And a disproportionate number of governors, senators, representatives and media personalities (e.g. John Lennon) have been attacked.


WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE

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.
The original paper was written for an academic audience and has a lot of jargon in it.  The subject is treated in a more comprehensible & user friendly manner in John Lott's book.

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 nineteen 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.



In the final analysis, we in Australia prefer our prejudices to truth.

We prefer a nanny government limiting our liberty "for our own good", even if it demonstrably results in harm.

We do not want an honest government that defends our liberty against pedagogue politicians promoting the latest "politically correct" dogma.




email from here