Australia - Case Study on the Failure of Gun Bans

Australian native Julie posted this link in a comment over at Robb Allen's.  The article is  all about how Australia "got it right" and is safer now because they banned guns.  They cite some "study" in the American Journal of Medicine. This "study" conveniently looks at only "gun death" or "gun crime" as every anti-gunner ever tends to do.  Why?  Their goal is to ban guns, so a woman beaten to death with a lamp in her own home is not important, nor is an old man beaten with a hammer, or a jogger beaten to death by a larger man's fists.

Statistics don't matter to my rights, but they are useful in pointing out where the anti's get it wrong.

To quote the article,

"It found the gun rate per population was "a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country" and those with the lowest rates, including Australia, were safest."

Ah yes, so they only looked at "gun ownership rates" and "gun death rates" so that they could put out dishonest propaganda.  Just like very anti-gunner ever.

Now, here's what the Australian Institute of Criminology found

"Gun-related homicide dropped to a historic low of 13 per cent but the frequency of people dying from stab wounds jumped from 30 per cent to 41 per cent over the previous decade."

Hmmm, this is the same thing we've seen here in the U.S.  The killings still occur, the weapon of choice just changes.  It happened in New York. Gun homicides fell, but knife homicides rose and the overall homicide rate actually increased.  People were objectively more likely to be murdered despite falling gun death rates.

As the Sydney Morning Herald article reported

"Stab wounds were the most commonly recorded cause of death at 38 per cent, followed by beatings at 25 per cent with gunshot wounds accounting for 13 per cent."

You mean to tell me the two leading methods of recorded homicides were stabbing and beating deaths?  But I thought if they banned guns it'd be a violence free utopia?  Certainly not for those beaten and stabbed to death who couldn't shoot their attacker.  Oh, but I forgot, to an anti-gunner someone beaten to death (hello George Zimmerman) is morally superior to someone shot to death.

"Double or single barrelled shotguns were the most commonly used firearm.

Quick!  Someone tell Joe Biden.  If you don't think the anti's would come for your old shotgun after they've banned other guns, just look at this report and think how they'd use it to say we needed to get these "dangerous military shotguns" off our streets.

''Since the [study] began in 1989-90, homicides resulting from the use of a firearm have decreased,'' the study found. ''Conversely the proportion of homicides involving knives has increased.''

So, take a relatively safe, homogenous, island nation with little homicide, ban all the guns and take them away from millions of people who did nothing wrong, and yes, bad guys "might" not use guns as often to kill, but they'll still kill, some will still kill with guns, and all their victims are now defenseless.  Sounds wonderful eh?

And here's a link to the actual government findings

Remember that after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre Australia instituted a sweeping gun ban and confiscated millions of guns from millions of law-abiding Australian gun owners.  If you look at the graph of homicide by firearm from 1915 to 2003.  You'll see that the gun homicide rate in 2003 was roughly the same as it was at times during the 1920's, 1940's and 1950's.

The numbers also point out another truth.  Australia didn't have much of a gun homicide problem before they banned guns.

Sick and not in a writing mood.....

I'm sick with a cough, chest cold & sinus infection. (And I don't think i'm quite ready to try the remedy Breda posted.) So I'm posting something old and gun-related from my LJ. I have a few Delaware gun- related things I'd like to get to writing about later.

Also, someone please use that coupon code I posted and comment if you do. I'd rather not see it go to waste. (I know, I don't have many readers)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments were my thoughts on this article in the Brandeis University newspaper.

I used to think college was a place where we were taught how to think for ourselves. Unfortunately however, I'm beginning to feel like their main goal is indoctrination. Enter one of the most illogical student editorials I've ever read. It's a piece written by Jeffrey Dobereiner regarding the possibility of arming the police at Brandeis University.

1st off, accepting that it is possible you could be a victim of violence and preparing yourself accordingly is by no means "obsessing" or "living in fear" The author starts off by saying that Brandeis is "pretty safe" and thus arming the police is unnecessary. (This is the same argument made by the administration at UD as to why they won't arm our campus police) Amazingly his logic goes even further off the deep end from here.

"What threat could possibly strike our campus which would require our police officers to fire upon someone? Guns are tools of fear and intimidation, and the presence of officers wielding firearms will doubtlessly have a subduing effect on campus speech and student spirit."

Hmm, let me think really hard here for a second..... I seem to remember a threat on a campus about 6 months ago that would have required police to use a firearm. His name was Cho. Of course, I'm sure Brandeis is so secure that no violent criminal could ever walk onto the campus, and if one did Mr. Dobereiner would simply talk him out of hurting anyone, into putting down his gun, or find a pretty girl who could use her sex appeal to disarm the bad guy. Yes, that sounds like an excellent plan! Or maybe the police can yell "STOP!!" and if the bad guy doesn't comply, they'll yell "STOP!" again, in a louder, more demonstrative tone. After all, that worked well in the movie Judge Dredd right?

And is he seriously saying that the sight of a firearm on a cops belt will "have a subduing effect on campus speech and student spirit?" Yes, the sight of armed cops somehow magically makes everyone shut up. The sight of a holstered gun has such a subduing effect that once arrested no accused person EVER says a word to the police until they have a lawyer present. Right?

Jeff says that better mental health facilities are what we need not guns. I hate to ruin his dream world but not every violent person is a mentally unstable nutcase. Many violent criminals simply have no concern for anyone but themselves and no respect for human life. Not to mention Jeff's article talks of mental health for students, but what if the next campus shooter isn't a student? Student mental health facilities won't do a damn bit of good then will they?

"Ah, but, here’s what guns will do for us:

Thief one: “Man, let’s rob the cars on the Brandeis Campus. We can go unarmed because those cops don’t have guns. We’ll just run if we’re seen.”

Thief two: “Dude, I heard they’re going to start arming their cops with pistols.”

Thief one: “Well hell, I guess we’ll have to bring our guns, then!”

(High Five)"

So, by Jeff's logic arming the police is going to cause criminals to say "Gee, I guess I need to get a gun now" I suppose he thinks if all police and law-abiding citizens give up their guns the criminals will decide they don't want / need them either. Eureka, problem solved! Maybe he should write a letter to the Massachusetts state police explaining how their carrying guns is causing all the criminals to have to carry as well.

"I know how to stop the thief. Hire a security guard (or a ninja) to stand behind a tree near J lot. When they see someone about to shatter a window have them run out and throw a net on the criminal! Then they can call the Brandeis Police, and the problem will be resolved. In all seriousness, paying a couple of officers overtime to stake out the parking lot would be prudent."

The mention of a Ninja, whether serious or not, makes me laugh. An unarmed security guard standing behind a tree in a dark parking lot? On second thought, maybe a ninja with a net wouldn't be that bad of an idea. I think they should hire Austin Powers to Judo chop the criminals into submission in J lot. That's about as realistic as a ninja or unarmed security guard being able to stop anyone (especially someone with a weapon) from committing a crime. Honestly, the campus PD are nothing more than unarmed security guards with a bit more legal authority.

"Overzealous security steps like giving pistols to our police officers don’t compensate for glaring oversights like a lack of sufficient cameras in J-lot, or low numbers of patrols."

Sure, arming the campus police is "Overzealous" That must be because nothing bad ever happens on campus right? So if nothing bad ever happens anywhere else in the state, I guess you'd consider it overzealous to arm State or local cops as well? What makes Brandeis such a mecca of safety compared to the rest of the State? The campus perimeter line must signify a fairy-tale place where use of force is never employed by an aggressor, and where everyone magically turns into a perfect angel incapable of harming a fly.

Go ahead Jeff, fix the lights and hire some ninjas since you're sure that'll make you safe. The rest of the country will continue to use things like guns that are a proactive means of keeping people safe. (of course guns would be far more proactive in the hands of potential victims and not in the hands of a stranger who hopefully comes to their aide in time.)

Then again, Jeff is so enlightened that he doesn't even want the strangers he naively expects to protect him to be armed. I wonder who he thinks is going to protect him and his fellow students?

But I Thought Guns Were the Problem?

Despite all of the gun control in the UK they are still suffering from alarmingly high violent crime rates. 2,034 per 100,000! Higher than any other EU country, higher than the U.S., and higher than South Africa. To put that crime rate in perspective, the rate in "gun-free" Washington DC for the year 2007 was 1,414.3 / 100,000. The rate for Delaware, where unenlightened, barbaric 'Murricans can strap on a gun and walk around legally was 689.2 / 100,000 in 2007.

Predictably, some idiot will come along and say that it's not true, that gun control in the UK has resulted in far less gun crime than other countries, including the U.S. Funny how they never seem to explain why "gun crime" should be the only determining factor in the discussion.

It would seem to me (and any other rational person) that if violent crimes with firearms decrease 25% but overall violent crimes jump 250% then then overall crime has increased and the country is in fact less safe. Kind of shoots holes in the whole argument that gun control is necessary for "public safety"huh? Then again, coming to such an obvious conclusion would require anti-gunners to be logical and rational. They routinely demonstrate that they are not.

I'm sure I'd be real safe living in a "gun-free" paradise where the violent crime rate is 3 times what it is here in Delaware.

Update - Linoge has an excellent synopsis of how the Brits got to this point. If you want to see the end results of the "progress" that the Brady's and other anti-gun bigots would like to take here in the U.S. look no further than Britain. If the anti-gunners got their way our gun laws would like those in the UK, with the same disasterous results.

H/T to Saysuncle