Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence According to New Study

Fraser Institute (Simon Fraser University) ^ | 27 November 2003 | Gary Mauser

[45Auto]

Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce gun violence in Australia, Canada, or Great Britain. The policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure, according to a new paper The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, released today by The Fraser Institute.

“What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns, and more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be reduced by limiting access to firearms,” says Gary Mauser, author of the paper and professor of business at Simon Fraser University.

This new study examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations. Mauser notes that the widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearm crime.

The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates as that country has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence over the past decade – for example, the homicide rate in the US has fallen 42 percent since 1991. This is particularly significant when compared with the rest of the world – in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s.

The justice system in the U.S. differs in many ways from those in the Commonwealth but perhaps the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed handguns for self-defence. During the past few decades, more than 25 states in the U.S. have passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states where citizens can get such a permit.

Disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined in this study. In all these cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the effort meant setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. Mauser points to these trends in the countries he examined:

England and Wales

Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997.

Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased.

Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States.

Australia

The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997. However, the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise – for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.

The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms has cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of the police services bureaucracy, including the costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997.

“And for what?” asks Mauser. “There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers’ money for no decrease in crime. For that kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or better equipment.”

Canada

The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.

The Canadian experiment with firearm registration is becoming a farce says Mauser. The effort to register all firearms, which was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 billion. The final costs are unknown but, if the costs of enforcement are included, the total could easily reach $3 billion.

“It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters?” says Mauser.

[Barnacle]

Great find!

[Blue Collar Christian]

It's redundant to see these studies reveal what we already know, but the repetician of the facts is eventually going to be effective on the populace, which may swing more folks to the realization of how we need to keep and bear arms.

Yesterday, while shooting clays and plinking .22's with my friends in the mountains, we had a visit from the Los Angeles Sherrif's Dept. where they made us aware that we could not shoot in the National forest in California. I had checked the hunting restrictions at the beginning of dove season to make sure I could hunt in the mountains above the San Fernando Valley, and found that I could hunt birds with a shotgun, but no rifle hunting was allowed in the area. There are no signs posted to restrict hunting or shooting, so we are just supposed to know the restrictions. So I can hunt, I just can't shoot?

Anyway, the deputies were very pleasant, didn't cite us or even take our names, just wanted us to stop shooting. One of them went on to state that most LEOs are pro 2A and to keep writing our representatives, though it might not do any good. They reluctantly enforced the law. KUDOS to the LASD.

[blackie]

Be Well ~ Be Armed ~ Be Safe ~ Molon Labe!

[stevio]

Keep on repeating it, the truth must get out.

[Dead Corpse]

Be Well ~ Be Armed ~ Be Safe ~ Molon Labe!

Don't forget.... BLOAT.

[blackie]

Or ~ FMCDH!

[chuknospam]

Doh!</Homer Simpson>

[hattend]

Well, Duh. Finally, some sanity is bubbling to the surface.

[William Tell]

Blue Collar Christian said: "Yesterday, while shooting clays and plinking .22's with my friends in the mountains, we had a visit from the Los Angeles Sherrif's Dept. where they made us aware that we could not shoot in the National forest in California. "

I specifically asked at a Forest Service location in Lake Tahoe and was told that there are no shooting restrictions in the El Dorado National Forest. Where did they claim that the restriction comes from? These lands are under federal control and are outside the National Park system.

[B4Ranch]

"Today, over 68% of public land -- land belonging to the people of the United States -- the land in our National Parks, Preserves and Monuments, is designated as a United Nations World Heritage Site, Biosphere Reserve or both. Worse yet, United Nations' land designations, such as UNESCO Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites, currently take place without the approval of Congress and with no Congressional oversight. Nor are State and local officials, or even private landowners, usually consulted."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/834003/posts

[Travis McGee]

Outstanding summary of the difference between liberals and conservatives when it comes to defense!

[k2blader]

Bump.

[Vinnie]

Guess I should have added that I received this in an E-mail.

It is right on.

[PhilDragoo]

Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce gun
violence in Australia, Canada, or Great Britain.

GUN CONTROL KILLS

[Badray]

bttt

[Travis McGee]

It didn't do much to stop "gun violence" in Nazi Germany either.

[Lancey Howard]

LOL! Gun laws don't stop criminals - - my gun stops criminals.

[SevenDaysInMay]

The 9th Fiefdom rule will demonstrate that no individual right to keep and bear arms will make government officials safer.

When guns are outlawed, only their government will have guns.

It will no longer be your government because they will have effectively nullified your only ratified Constitution from which they claim their power.

Serfs up.

[SevenDaysInMay]

This image and the women and girls standing in line should be printed as handbills, distributed by the thousands in hundreds of cities and towns, every election.

This is all about control of us by the people in government.

Today I reread some of the shadow, uebergovernment's Executive Orders signed by XXX-42 to clean up ambiguities of the many other emergency powers since Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

The federal goveral government can "lawfully" CLAIM everything and everyone for its purposes upon such declaration. Hitler also had such laws, and used them. My copy of our ratified Constitution grants no such powers to any branch of our lawful government.

SCOTUS will let the 9th's abolition interpretation sit for long enough, but the first nuke/pox hit we take will bring Gen. Tommy Frank's opinion of martial law to reality.

The Harvy Milks of our federal, state, and local governments will stand for nothing less. We scare them.

You have no right to keep and bear arms because a few agenda driven men in blackrobes say so while their and your superiors sit by and do nothing to protect and defend our ratified Constitution.

Our Chancellor shall declare his or her emergency powers, ending even lip service to constitutional self-government.

[Travis McGee]

Five black robes versus five million scoped deer rifles. I wonder how that equation would work out in an acid test.