# Are the examples of UK and Australia gun bans applicable to the US? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 15, 2014, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425 "2014-02-15T16:10:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425/21 "2014-02-15T21:27:04Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Correlation does not equal causation here too. There are plenty of less-well-armed nations with far higher murder rates than the U.S. There’s no particular reason to expect the U.S. rate to be identical to the UK/Canada/Australia rates, when they are different nations with different cultures, demographics, approaches to crime, and so forth. Clearly, guns aren’t the whole story - in 2012, [Minnesota’s murder rate](http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/mncrime.htm) was just under 2 per 100,000, comparable to Canada’s 1.6, and it has [plenty of guns.](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/06/28/states-with-the-most-guns.html) Guns aren’t the whole story, but they’re at least a significant part of it. Minnesota has one of the lower murder rates, and yet it’s still higher than Canada. ---
**Author:** ![BrokenBriton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@BrokenBriton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrokenBriton)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425/22 "2014-02-15T22:22:55Z")
The UK and Australia follow a very different social/cultural path to the rather unique USA; there is simply not the fear. ---
**Author:** ![BrokenBriton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@BrokenBriton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrokenBriton)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425/23 "2014-02-15T22:24:13Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I’ve seen plenty of episodes of Luther and they’ve got plenty of criminals with guns so it’s pretty obvious that the UK’s anti-gun laws don’t work. Post of the Week. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425/24 "2014-02-15T22:41:26Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > The gun control advocates claim that the virtual elimination of firearms from the UK and Australia are proof that it can be done. [There are more firearms in Australia today than there were before they were “banned”.](http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/australias-leading-gun-control-experts/2025913/) So that’s a pretty stupid argument. Firearms have in no sense been “virtually eliminated” in Australia. They have provably proliferated. The numbers of some weapons have decreased. Semi automatic longarms, air rifles and paintball guns primarily (yes paintball guns and BB guns were restricted :rolleyes:). But conversely, [the use an importation of illegal handguns has skyrocketed since the restrictions were imposed](http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_image/tandi361.png). That’s not really surprising. Criminals will find ways to get weapons, and if semi-auto longarms and semi-auto handguns are both equally illegal and unobtainable, then the handguns become a preferred weapon. So basically, the argument is based on a lie. Firearms have in in no sense been eliminated from Australia. At best semi-automatic longarms have been largely eliminated, and replaced with semi-automatic handguns. > [@](#): > > Particularly I’m wondering if gun control in those countries started from already low levels of gun ownership… Not especially. Australia had lower ownership rates than than US, but it was (and is) still in the range of one firearm per 10 people. > [@](#): > > …how successful the restrictions have actually been, overall crime rates irregardless of firearms, etc. Quite simply, there’s no evidence they had any effect at all. Firearm crime was already on the way down. Homicides rates were already on the way down. Those trends continued regardless of firearm ownership. The only real effect is that handguns were substituted for longarms in homicides, as you’d expect. The number of homicides and attempted homicides followed exactly the same trend as they had before the restrictions. The use of firearms in homicides followed exactly the same trend as they had before the restrictions. And with the recent increase in firearm ownership, the same trends have continued. There was no change in trends when firearm ownership decreased, and no change when it increased again. there’s just no link between firearm ownership and crime in Australia. ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425/25 "2014-02-15T23:49:14Z")
There are more PEOPLE in Australia than before the gun ban. The population has increased 20% since the gun ban was enacted. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2014, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425/26 "2014-02-16T00:07:01Z")
> [@Eliahna](#): > > There are more PEOPLE in Australia than before the gun ban. The population has increased 20% since the gun ban was enacted. Can you explain what effect the increase in population is supposed to have on homicide (or violent crime) rates? ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2014, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425/27 "2014-02-16T00:21:09Z")
The previous post stated we have the same number (or more) guns as before the ban. We have had a 20% increase in population in the same time. Can you explain the statistical significance in 22.5 million people owning as many guns as 18 million people? Especially as the ban introduced in 1996 hasn’t been lifted so the guns that have been imported since are not the same kinds of guns. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2014, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425/28 "2014-02-16T00:32:47Z")
The United States explicitly set gun rights in the late 18th century, and I believe gun ownership in the UK at this time by the low-born was completely illegal. Wide spread gun ownership in the US really didn’t happen until after 1865. I guess my point is that guns are part of American culture, whereas not so much in the UK. How hard would it be to have all the people in the UK disavow the Queen, compared to having her disavowed in the US. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2014, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425/29 "2014-02-16T00:51:30Z")
> [@Eliahna](#): > > The previous post stated we have the same number (or more) guns as before the ban. We have had a 20% increase in population in the same time. Can you explain the statistical significance in 22.5 million people owning as many guns as 18 million people? Especially as the ban introduced in 1996 hasn’t been lifted so the guns that have been imported since are not the same kinds of guns. Perhaps you can explain why you think it is relevant. The rational behind the firearms bans was expressly \*not \*that law abiding people were committing crimes. That from the mouth of the PM himself. It was that the more firearms there were in the country, the easier it would be for criminals to obtain them. That was why the ban was on the existence of firearms, not on who could own firearms. This is also the rationale behind limiting firearm ownership per person in the US and in Australia. It’s not how many people own guns, it is how many guns are owned by people that is supposed to be correlated to crime. If this weren’t the case, then why isn’t a licenced Australian able to legally obtain hundreds of weapons? Why does she have to show cause for every single weapon of the _exact same type_? So why does it matter how many people there are? If there are 15 million firearms in the country, then according to the rationale behind the bans that should result in more firearms crimes than if there are 20 million. Why would population be expected affect this. If anything we would expect that with more people, there would be more criminals vying to use those firearms wouldn’t there? So with more people and the same number of firearms we would expect to see an increase in firearms crimes. Correct? Note that the figures provided are total crime rates Why would the dilution of firearms in the population be expected to decrease the total (not per capita) crime rate? Are you suggesting that with a population of 15 million people and 5 million firearms we would expect 3 million criminals to be able to obtain guns, but that only 1 million criminals will be able to obtain guns when there are 20 million people and 5 million firearms? Is there some sort of random factor at play here that causes the decrease? I honesty don’t understand what your argument is. And of course it isn’t borne out by the figures either. For the past 10 years firearm ownership has been growing faster than population (obviously). Yet crime rates have been gong down. That alone falsifies any hypothesis you might have that there is some sort of correlation between ownership rates and crime. ---
**Author:** ![Cugel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cugel/32/1199_2.png) [@Cugel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cugel)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2014, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425/30 "2014-02-16T01:35:58Z")
> [@Eliahna](#): > > There are more PEOPLE in Australia than before the gun ban. The population has increased 20% since the gun ban was enacted. Perhaps it’s the gun nut population that’s more relevant. If it remains low, we’re relatively safe. ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2014, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425/31 "2014-02-16T01:36:59Z")
My argument is that “as many guns as before the ban” still means “fewer guns per capita” given the population growth, and guns of a different type to boot. How on earth is it relevant that we have as many guns as before when the population has increased AND the guns legally imported since 1996 don’t include those targeted by the ban? ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2014, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425/32 "2014-02-16T01:47:16Z")
We need guns to protect ourselves. Haven’t you heard about all the crazies out there with guns? It’s a virtuous cycle. > [@bob\_2](#): > > The severe penalties, and the low chance of being shot, tends to deter criminals from going armed. The bank robber with a sawn off shotgun is ancient history. The scrote who burgles your house may carry a knife (though probably not) but he is very unlikely to be armed. Talk about weak tea. Why not get medieval on their asses? Maybe instead of a rifle or shotgun above the mantle have a friggin’ pike. Or polearm. Or a shovel… ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2014, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425/33 "2014-02-16T01:58:00Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Particularly I’m wondering if gun control in those countries started from already low levels of gun ownership, whether the political systems there made top-down government mandates easier to impose, how successful the restrictions have actually been, overall crime rates irregardless of firearms, etc. In short, are the prospects for the success of gun control different in the USA then they were there? I don’t think the lack of guns made the government more able to exercise tyrannical power (which is what you seem to be implying), I think the scarcity of guns made the population more comfortable with the elimination of something very few people (including criminals and police) had to begin with. It could never happen here. > [@toofs](#): > > This is why American gun rights groups so strongly oppose firearms registration. It would never happen here. I would bet my retirement that we would not have a federal level gun confiscation. We have had private ownership of fucking 50 caliber MACHINE GUNS and FLAMETHROWERS without anyone coming to confiscate them. They have been registered for over 75 years so we know where they all are and noone has come around to confiscate them. We are NEVER going to confiscate guns at the federal level and federal registration of guns is never going to lead to confiscation a the federal level. If we ever manage to pass handgun registration at the federal level, I think it is likely that the federal law would be drafted to preempt all state and local laws. > [@Lumpy](#): > > That reminds me of another question I hope someone can answer: in the US, are there any laws specifying that committing a crime _with a gun_ gets a more severe penalty than with a non-gun “deadly weapon”? These sort of laws are usually state specific. There is no federal law that distinguishes between a gun and a flame thrower. Some states have extra penalties for the use of guns in the commission of a crime. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > What’s stupid about his argument? > > Granted, he could have made a better argument. > > I’ve seen plenty of episodes of Luther and they’ve got plenty of criminals with guns so it’s pretty obvious that the UK’s anti-gun laws don’t work. I saw almost every episode of Friends and it is clear to me that large two bedroom apartments in trendy Manhattan neighborhoods are well withing the means of coffee house waitresses and young paleontology professors. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2014, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425/34 "2014-02-16T02:22:37Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Guns aren’t the whole story, but they’re at least a significant part of it. Minnesota has one of the lower murder rates, and yet it’s still higher than Canada. Sorry to have to drag race into this, but it’s a fact that statistically murder and violent crime is much higher in the African-American community than the national average. Minnesota is mostly lily-white except for the urban populations of the Twin Cities metro area. If you omitted Hennepin and Scott counties, or possibly just Minneapolis and Saint Paul proper, the murder rate for the rest of the state would be equal to or lower than the Canadian average. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2014, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425/35 "2014-02-16T02:29:21Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think the lack of guns made the government more able to exercise tyrannical power (which is what you seem to be implying), No, I didn’t mean that at all. What I meant was whether in the UK and Australia it’s easier for the government to enact social policy decisions from the top down, and harder for grass-roots public opposition to forestall or reverse them. ---
**Author:** ![PlaceboTarget](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/placebotarget/32/1073_2.png) [@PlaceboTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlaceboTarget)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2014, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425/36 "2014-02-16T06:32:00Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Presuming the answer is the USA, I thought the overwhelming cause of our incarceration rate was drug possession and overall violence (not just guns). High gun ownership rates correlate with more numerous and more serious crimes. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2014, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425/37 "2014-02-16T08:20:19Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Sorry to have to drag race into this, but it’s a fact that statistically murder and violent crime is much higher in the African-American community than the national average. Minnesota is mostly lily-white except for the urban populations of the Twin Cities metro area. If you omitted Hennepin and Scott counties, or possibly just Minneapolis and Saint Paul proper, the murder rate for the rest of the state would be equal to or lower than the Canadian average. So then you’d have to do the same for the Canadian figures, i.e. discount any Canadian areas of higher than average murder rates…_.then_ compare the underlying rate. ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2014, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425/38 "2014-02-16T08:22:45Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > We have had private ownership of fucking 50 caliber MACHINE GUNS and FLAMETHROWERS without anyone coming to confiscate them. They have been registered for over 75 years so we know where they all are and noone has come around to confiscate them. Nitpick: Flamethrowers are not regulated as destructive devices under the NFA (at least they weren’t - this may have changed since 9/11) and are not registered at the federal level. Back in the mid 90s, I had the opportunity to purchase a working ex-Soviet issue flame thrower for $500. It was from a lot of 50 that had been used by a company cleaning up unburnt oil following the Gulf War. They explained that since it doesn’t fire a projectile, it isn’t a firearm and not regulated as one. I always regret not buying it. B) If anyone cares, while I don’t support registration of firearms (and certainly not confiscation or banning classes of them), I do support the licensing of firearm owners with the equivalent of a concealed handgun license, without which you couldn’t purchase firearms or ammunition, but with which you could carry where you wanted to. That is probably as politically untenable as registration or confiscation, but there it is. Rob ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2014, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425/39 "2014-02-16T08:53:29Z")
It is pointless to try and compare countries. The UK is a very different beast. Consider that here we average only 1 gun killing _a week_ for the whole country (and that includes gang related gun crime hotspots) and you see that our culture just does not see it as an issue. I’ve never seen a handgun in real life other than in the holster of policeman at the airport or at a museum, certainly never held one or fired one and my experiences are not unusual. Here’s an [interesting paper](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116483/hosb0212.pdf) (warning pdf). This doesn’t stretch back to before the handgun ban because the means of data collection have changed. But look at pages 30 onwards and it is clear that murders overall are down over the decade, shooting murders are down also but were at such a low level as to be almost negligible anyway. The Hungerford and Dunblane massacres probably had no effect on firearm deaths overall, what they did do was cement the public’s distaste of firearms in general. The public determined that there was no compelling reason to own weapons of that kind in\* our\* society. They were “lines in the sand” moment. Note that the laws did not ban the ownership of rifles and shotguns where a utilitarian need could be shown and stringent checks could be passed. We are happy with that. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2014, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425/40 "2014-02-16T09:55:51Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > This is a modern myth that just won’t die. Good writers write what they know, and guns are all over the stories of Arthur Conan Doyle. This is a joke, right? American detectives all wear grubby raincoats, smoke cigars and drive quirky old French cars. I saw it on _Columbo_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-examples-of-uk-and-australia-gun-bans-applicable-to-the-us/681425.md?page=3)