One argument against banning guns is that the criminal underclass will always be able to obtain guns, even if they’re illegal. Can someone point out a good example? A country where it was illegal (or practically so) for private citizens to possess guns, yet this made next to no impact on the possession of guns by career criminals?
*I say “foreign” (=outside USA) because whatever local or state laws might be in effect in various jurisdictions, it’s obviously not that hard to obtain guns elsewhere in the nation. I’m thinking of a national ban, where all guns have to either be smuggled into the country or stolen from the police and military.
I’ve seen the UK ban on handguns following the Dunblane massacre cited by pro-gun people, since the possession of handguns increased following the ban. However, the actual numbers were so negligible per head of population as to be statistically insignificant. That said, there’s a steady rise in criminal gun possession here. But it’s still negligible.
Meaning what exactly? That is was low before guns were banned and remained low? It was high before and remained high? That Australia’s crime statistics are similar to countries that haven’t banned guns?
The UK has much higher crime overall than the U.S. except for rape and murder. Some say this is because criminals basically have a license to pillage because most of the police don’t even carry guns. There is nothing definitive however.
As the article pointed out, the rise in the crime rate didn’t coincide with any change in long established gun control laws. So it’s most likely some other factor is the real explanation.
If these numbers here are accurate, then Australia’s crime rate has been increasing at the same time that the United States’ crime rate has been decreasing. Of particular note is the huge upswing in robberies since guns were banned.
This pro-gun control website has an article crowing about a reduction in gun deaths since the ban, but they don’t say anything about actual crime rates. The numbers they cite include accidents and suicides. (I was surprised to see that suicide is by far the most common cause of death-by-gunshot in Australia.) A drop in accidental and suicidal shootings is significant, but it doesn’t mean that the overall suicide rate has dropped. This other page asserts that
Oh yeah, it turns out that what I heard was wrong. Gun control has apparently made Australia’s crime rate worse. Only the number of accidental shootings has definitely improved, and that shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody.
I’m a little suspicious about a site that includes phrases like “when the physically weaker are barred from possessing the best tool for self-defense, they are rendered helpless” and “women pay the price when politicians use tragedy as an excuse to eliminate armed threat to their power”. It indicates they might have some bias on the issue.
I also heard it said that head-to-head comparisons of crime rate statistics are not always as objective as they may appear. Different countries use different definitons of what constitutes a crime. Two countries that appear to have radically different levels of “assault” are really just acting two different things.
Oh there’s definitely bias, but the pro-gun-control sites aren’t any better, with articles titled “Port Arthur - Remember the Victims, Remember the Lessons” and “The Gun Lobby Plays Its Latest Trick.”
This seems to be one of those topics that everybody has strong feelings about. I can’t find any numbers that don’t come from someone with an adgenda. Still, the pro-gun sites all seem to be talking about how the crime rate is increasing in Australia, while the anti-gun sites all seem to be talking about how the overall gun death rate has dropped. This suggests to me that the basic facts aren’t really in dispute; the question is how you interpret them and what’s important to you.
Point taken, but I doubt that Australia’s definitions of “assault” and “robbery” are too awfully different from their American counterparts. Plus, the trends should still be valid – however Australia defines “assault,” they rose 39% between 1995 and 2001. And robberies increased 70% (!).
Mexico. Canada. Yeah, there’s VERY limited lawful possession in both of these countries, but for practical purposes, general personal ownership is very limited.
The head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics regularly provides updates that the violent crime rate is continually decreasing. “The murder rate last year - 1.0 per 100,000 people - was down from a rate of 1.4 in 2003 and is the lowest rate since murders were first recorded separately from manslaughter and attempted murder.” SMH 2005
I would say you have two category of gun homicide in Australia.
The hardcore criminals who carry handguns to commit premeditated crimes clearly haven’t handed their weapons in or had much trouble obtaining more illegal weapons.
The other category is the spur of the moment suicide, murder or murder suicide using a hunting weapon that just happened to be siting around I supposer this might have fallen, common sense would indicate it might fall over time.
No doubt Australian crime has a lot more to do with the ups and down of the heroin trade than the availability of guns.
The Chronwatch figures are distorted and therefore very suspicous. I just checked rape, because they seemed ludicrous to me, a woman living in Australia. And they are.
The Chronwatch site quotes Rape: AUS – 86 US – 32 per 100,00 people.
The source quoted agrees with the 86 per 100, 000 :
but that is for sexual assualt, which in Australia can include all sorts of things. Inappropriate touching, for example. Not in the same ball park as rape. Rape is extremely rare.
So why are the figures so deliberately distorted? Obviously the truth doesn’t work for the argument! And we Australian women are not suffering for lack of protection from firearms. We live in safety because men don’t have them! I know NO Australian women who doesn’t want even stricter gun laws.
Sorry - you won’t be able to make any genuine Australian figures support your goal.