List Archives

Sat Apr 21 10:37:36 BST 2007

Tony thanks for the comprehensive response, if I may make a few comments
about the case you have presented, I have done some cut and paste for ease
of response with my comments in italics between your statements below:

Since the tightening of guns laws in Australia in 1996, the homicide rate
associated wih guns decreased the following year.

Why select such a narrow window of data? we  have a decade of data to
evaluate, allowing us to look at what has happened over that time.  Homicide
rates in general (as well as firearm homicide) fluctuate from year to year.
As a result, we must look at longer term trends in the data, rather than
simplistically comparing one or two years.

I quote you a few figures below.

"Twelve days after 35 people were shot dead by a single gunman in Tasmania,
Australia's state and federal governments agreed to enact wide-ranging new
gun control laws to curb firearm-related death and injury. Between July 1996
and August 1998, the new restrictions were brought into force. Since that
time, key indicators for gun-related death and crime have shown encouraging
results.

Firearm-Related Homicide

"There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms
from 1997 to 1998."

-- Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999. Australian Institute of
Criminology. Canberra, Oct 1999

This report shows that as gun ownership has been progressively restricted
since 1915, Australia's firearm homicide rate per 100,000 population has
declined to almost half its 85-year average.

This asks the wrong question.  In Australia, firearm homicides have been
dropping steadily since the early 1980's.  As a result, the question is not
whether firearm homicides have dropped, but whether the pre-existing
downward trend (a) continued at the same rate before and after 1996, or (b)
sped up after 1996 (which would be expected if the laws had an impact on
firearm homicide).

Three papers have now looked at this question: Ozanne-Smith et al, looking
at Victoria alone (i.e., one Australian state), Baker & McPhedran (2006),
and Chapman et al (2006).  The latter two looked at Australia wide data.

All papers point in the same direction: the downward trend in firearm
homicide did not speed up post-1996.  It continued at the same steady rate
post-96 as it had previously.  Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the
laws had a significant impact on the existing trend in firearm homicides.

Homicide by Any Method

The overall rate of homicide in Australia has also dropped to its lowest
point since 1989 (National Homicide Monitoring Program, 1997-98 data). It
remains one-fourth the homicide rate in the USA.

The Institute of Criminology report Australian Crime - Facts and Figures
1999 includes 1998 homicide data showing "a 9% decrease from the rate in
1997." This is the period in which most of the country's new gun laws came
into force.

Again, this is a superficially appealing but very misleading argument,
particularly in light of evidence showing the laws had no impact on the
pre-existing downward trend. Homicide (non-firearm) has undergone a very
long, very slow decline in Australia.  Work by Chapman et al (2006) found
that although the trend in firearm homicide did not differ pre-and post 1996
(a result consistent with the earlier work of Baker & McPhedran) the rate of
homicide (non-firearm) dropped significantly since 1996/1997.  Consequently,
it appears that a range of factors may have affected homicide rates.

Gun-Related Death by Any Cause

The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts all injury deaths, whether or not
they are crime-related. The most recently available ABS figures show a total
of 437 firearm-related deaths (homicide, suicide and unintentional) for
1997. This is the lowest number for 18 years.

Again, this is a disingenuous argument. Firstly, about 70-80% of firearm
deaths are (and always have been) suicides.  Like firearm homicides, firearm
suicides have been steadily decreasing since the 1980's.  As pointed out
above, there has been on ongoing downwards trend in firearm homicides and
suicides, so the question is not whether they are at their lowest in 18
years, but whether that can be directly attributed to an impact of the gun
laws - which the evidence does not support.

Firearm-related homicides and suicides were at historically high levels in
the late 1970's and early 1980's, then started dropping.  If you want to
refer to long term data, you will note that the rate of firearm homicide at
present is about the same as it was at various points in the 1940's and
1950's.

Can you really conclude that the laws made a difference, when you are faced
with the historical records that show fluctuations up and down over time?
Can you say with absolute certainty that the declines that have taken place
since the early 80's represent anything more or less than "just another"
downwards trend, as we have seen on and off throughout the time series from
1915?

Following along those lines, can you really say that an 18 year low means
anything more than another low point, one that has occurred at various other
points over the 90 or so years of data we have?

The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains one-fifth
that of the United States.

Comparisons with a range of other countries, particularly those with similar
socio-economic and cultural circumstances to Australia, would be far more
useful and place this statement into perspective.

"We have observed a decline in firearm-related death rates (essentially in
firearm-related suicides) in most jurisdictions in Australia. We have also
seen a declining trend in the percentage of robberies involving the use of
firearms in Australia."

-- Mouzos, J. Firearm-related Violence: The Impact of the Nationwide
Agreement on Firearms. Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice No. 116.
Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, May 1999; 6

Once again, this statement needs to be contextualized.  There have been
ongoing declines in firearm-related death rates since before 1996.

Assault and Robbery

Those who claim that Australia suffered a "crime wave" as a result of new
gun laws often cite as evidence unrelated figures for common assault or
sexual assault (no weapon) and armed robbery (any weapon). In fact less than
one in five Australian armed robberies involve a firearm.

"Although armed robberies increased by nearly 20%, the number of armed
robberies involving a firearm decreased to a six-year low."

-- Recorded Crime, Australia, 1998. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Jun
1999

The number of robberies with a weapon (non-firearm) has also decreased over
that time.  Regarding sexual assault, the use of firearms has always been
infrequent.

Firearm-Related Crime in Tasmania

"A declining firearm suicide rate, a declining firearm assault rate, a
stable firearm robbery rate with a declining proportion of robberies
committed with a firearm and a declining proportion of damage to property
offences committed with a firearm suggest that firearm regulation has been
successful in Tasmania."

-- Warner, Prof K. Firearm Deaths and Firearm Crime After Gun Licensing in
Tasmania. Australian Institute of Criminology, 3rd National Outlook
Symposium on Crime in Australia. Canberra, 22-23 Mar 1999.

 Also worth noting that  Prof. Warner has a long association with anti-gun
groups that she seldom declares openly.  While this should not detract from
her statements, it is once again misleading to only provide information
about what happened after 1996.

Curbing Gun Proliferation in Australia

In the 1996-97 Australian gun buy-back, two-thirds of a million
semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns were sold to the
government at market value. Thousands more gun owners volunteered their
firearms for free, and nearly 700,000 guns were destroyed.

By destroying one-seventh of its estimated stock of firearms (the equivalent
figure in the USA would be 30 million), Australia has significantly altered
the composition of its civilian arsenal.

"Civilian arsenal" is an emotive term, and the question is not whether an
"altered composition" matters, but whether that scheme had any proven
effects.

There is insufficient evidence to support the contention that the
prohibition of certain firearms and their removal from legal owners had any
impact on firearm homicide rates.  The firearms handed in have been
characterized by the AIC as "low-risk" firearms, meaning that - by virtue of
being owned legally, and handed in as required by the law - those firearms
were unlikely to be used in crimes.  This is supported by AIC research
(National Homicide Monitoring Program) showing that the majority (between
85-95%, varying from year to year) of firearms used to commit homicide in
Australia are unregistered and the offenders unlicensed.

New Zealand provides a good comparison: the types of firearms prohibited in
Australia can still be used for the purposes of hunting and target shooting
by properly licensed individuals.  New Zealand has lower rates of firearm
misuse than Australia, and has not had a mass shooting in over 10 years,
either.

In addition, all remaining guns must be individually registered to their
licensed owners, private firearm sales are no longer permitted and each gun
purchase through a licensed arms dealer is scrutinised by police to
establish a "genuine reason" for ownership. Possession of guns for
self-defence is specifically prohibited, and very few civilians are
permitted to own a handgun. All the nation's governments, police forces and
police unions support the current gun laws.

What is the relevance of the latter statement?  "Support" for the laws - and
it would be interesting to know how you define that term - does not mean
those laws have had the desired effect.  The general statement now made is
that the buyback was "successful" because it destroyed a large number of
firearms (true, it did).  This is usually followed by a statement along the
lines of those you made above - that firearm related deaths have dropped
since 1996.  Yes, they have, but they also dropped before 1996, so that
statement becomes meaningless.

Other Countries

Similar reductions in gun death and injury have been noted in several
countries whose gun controls have been recently tightened.

In Canada, where new gun laws were introduced in 1991 and 1995, the number
of gun deaths has reached a 30-year low.

Canada has experienced downwards trends over the past two decades, just like
Australia and New Zealand.  Can you explain why, despite the different
legislative approaches of these three countries, the downward trend has been
similar?

Two years ago in the United Kingdom, civilian handguns were banned, bought
back from their owners and destroyed. In the year following the law change,
Scotland recorded a 17% drop in all firearm-related offences. The British
Home Office reports that in the nine months following the handgun ban,
firearm-related offences in England and Wales dropped by 13%.

Again these are  percentages over a short period of one to two years, rather
than looking at trends over time and trying to assess whether there has been
a definite, sustained impact of the laws.

A British citizen is still 50 times less likely to be a victim of gun
homicide than an American.

As noted previously, this would be more meaningful if placed in the context
of a whole range of other countries.  Just like comparing Australia and the
US, comparing Britain and the US ignores the huge differences between those
countries.  This would also be more meaningful if placed in the context of
relative rates of other crimes.

All gun deaths, be they homicides, suicides or unintentional shootings, have
decreased from a total of 521 in 1996 to 437 in 1997. This figure of 437 gun
deaths is the lowest number in 18 years (1)".

Again to have an fully open and honest discussion of this issue It is not
enough to give this information without putting it in its correct historical
context.

In 2001 the suicides due to guns was 267, in 2005 it was 147. Death by
assault with firearm in 2001 was 47, in 2005 it was 19.

Once again, you select a convenient time period while overlooking the long
term trends that give meaning to the post-1996 data.  You also neglect to
mention that suicides (non-firearm) began dropping in the late 1990's after
a long period of increases.  This strongly suggests factors such as the
introduction of the National Suicide Prevention Strategy (from 1995 onwards)
may have affected suicides overall.  This confounds the ability to draw
conclusions about the gun laws and firearm suicide.

This is a public health problem for the USA

Yes, and good public health policy comes from quality research, evidence,
and facts, not from a priori opinions backed up with unsuitable and
misleading data selection.  Good policy also takes time, thought, and calm
debate - which may explain why Australia's billion dollar laws have not had
any conclusive impact, since they were - as you pointed out - brought in
"overnight".

-----Original Message-----
From: trauma-list-bounces at trauma.org
[mailto:trauma-list-bounces at trauma.org]On Behalf Of Tony Joseph
Sent: Thursday, 19 April 2007 10:17 PM
To: trauma list
Subject: Re: Australia and Gun control...

Dear Julian
I am sorry that is incorrect.