Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Numbers don't lie (gun grabbers' disingenuous use of 'statistics')
National Post - Canada ^ | Mon 23 Oct 2006 | Lorne Gunter

Posted on 10/23/2006 7:04:30 AM PDT by GMMAC

Numbers don't lie

National Post
Mon 23 Oct 2006
Page: A13
Section: Issues & Ideas
Byline: Lorne Gunter


Last Monday in this space, I wrote that Canada should not consider banning guns in light of last month's Dawson College shootings. Many commentators and politicians, particularly in urban centres, have been calling for a prohibition on the civilian ownership of guns. "Why does anyone other a soldier or police officer need a weapon?," has been a common refrain.

I asked why take the legal property of law-abiding citizens when there is every reason to believe such a confiscation will have no beneficial impact on gun crime?

Gun bans in Australia and the United Kingdom have failed to lower crime rates in those countries and there is no reason to believe a ban here would work any better. Upwards of 90% of gun crimes are committed with illegal guns, by criminals, not by the neighbour with a high-powered hunting rifle.

Criminals will not observe a gun ban any more than they have mandatory registration.

In response, Philip Alpers, a adjunct assistant professor at the University of Sydney's school of public health, wrote imploring Canadians not to be "misled by the gun lobby myth that firearm-related crime in Australia increased after sweeping gun controls were introduced."

Interestingly, all the Australian numbers I used came from the Australian Bureau of Statistics -- their StatsCan -- and the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, public agencies that are hardly propaganda central for the "gun lobby." To bolster his claim that "Australia's tightened gun laws were followed by notable reductions in gun death and gun crime," Mr. Alpers then engages in misdirection.

First, he points out that in the 10 years before the gun-law change in 1996, "Australia suffered 11 mass shootings (five or more victims)," but none in the 10 years since.

This is true, but largely irrelevant. Very few victims of gun crime are killed or wounded in mass shootings, which are thankfully rare and largely the product of disturbed minds rather than the legal availability of guns. Such incidents grab a lot of media attention, but the gun crimes most people are (rightly) worried about are acquaintance murders, armed robberies and home invasions.

My point, which Mr. Alpers did not even address, was that while gun crimes in Australia are now noticeably lower than in 1996, shooting incidents of the kind most people worry about actually rose by more than two-thirds in the five years following the gun ban, and only declined after 2001 because of increased police vigilance concerning street crimes, gun smuggling and drug dealing.

Again, those were not "gun lobby myths," but Australian government statistics. Mr. Alpers then pulled a switch common among gun control advocates. He began talking about "firearm fatalities" rather than firearms homicides. Fatalities include suicides by firearm and accidental shootings, not just murders.

Like Mr. Alpers, Canada's gun control lobby likes to cite declines in suicides involving guns as proof that strict new laws introduced in both countries in the 1990s are having beneficial effects. The trouble is, overall suicide rates in both countries have not fallen -- or have fallen only a little -- during the lifetime of these laws; meaning, while there may have been fewer firearms suicides, at best there have been only marginally fewer total suicides.

In Canada, for instance, since our latest gun laws were introduced in 1995, gun suicides have fallen by more than a quarter, but suicides by hanging have risen by more than 50%, fully offsetting the drop in gun suicides. People are still killing themselves at similar rates, they are just not using guns as often to do it.

In Australia, firearms suicide rates are now nearly as high again as they were before the gun ban of 1996. They are higher than they were in 1990, when Australian gun laws were relatively lax compared to today.

Gun laws haven't stopped gun crimes, nor have they even discouraged troubled individuals from taking their own lives. At best, they have simply forced those seeking an end to find other methods of doing so. And unless you believe a gun suicide is somehow worse than one using pills, car exhaust or rope, you could hardly consider this "substitutive effect" a great success for gun control.

Gun control is not crime control, no matter how fervently gun control advocates such as Mr. Alpers want to believe it is.



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; canada; firearms; gunregistry

1 posted on 10/23/2006 7:04:31 AM PDT by GMMAC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fanfan; Pikamax; Former Proud Canadian; Great Dane; Alberta's Child; headsonpikes; Ryle; ...

PING!
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

2 posted on 10/23/2006 7:05:50 AM PDT by GMMAC (Discover Canada governed by Conservatives: www.CanadianAlly.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC

I believe in gun control, as long as I am the one controlling the gun.


3 posted on 10/23/2006 7:14:35 AM PDT by Kimmers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC
[Article/rhetorical question] "Why does anyone other a soldier or police officer need a weapon?"

Because soldiers and police have weapons. That's who'll be looking down your throat and challenging your rights, if some mountebank decides to abolish your elections and take charge of Canada's government personally.

Also, because people like University of Texas clock-tower sniper Charles Whitman, Dunblane child-murderer Thomas Hamilton, Littleton mass-killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Fort Worth "Phineas priest" church gunman Larry Ashbrook, and Luby's Cafeteria mass-murderer George Hennard exist, and they appear suddenly in arms like Terminators, and they start killing people, and someone with a firearm needs to stand up to them and knock them down.

For the record, here is the list of mass-murderers since 1857 (not including famous serial murderers like "the Hillside Strangler" or "Jack the Ripper"):

There's a few good reasons why. Some of them were Canadians, too.

4 posted on 10/23/2006 7:39:23 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Keep these handy:

http://www.gunfacts.info/
Gun Facts is a free e-book that debunks common myths about gun control. It is intended as a reference guide for journalist, activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment.
Gun Facts has 84 pages of information. Divided into chapters based on gun control topics (assault weapons, ballistic finger printing, firearm availability, etc.), finding information is quick and easy.

The FIVE-MINUTE HANDBOOK (RKBA)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/937190/posts


5 posted on 10/23/2006 8:04:34 AM PDT by backhoe (Has that Clinton "legacy" made you feel safer... yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: backhoe

Thanks for posting those links. Looks like I've got a lot of interesting reading to do. :) I think everyone should own a gun.


6 posted on 10/23/2006 8:25:03 AM PDT by sokit2mebb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC

ping


7 posted on 10/23/2006 9:02:40 AM PDT by N2Gems
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kimmers

Gun control is proper breathing, sight picture, trigger squeeze - and putting the round on target.


8 posted on 10/23/2006 10:01:53 AM PDT by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PzLdr

AMEN !!!!!!!


9 posted on 10/23/2006 10:09:51 AM PDT by Kimmers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sokit2mebb

Thanks for looking- everybody ought to know how to operate firearms competently. It's like knowing how to drive- if you are ever in a situation where having those skills would be lifesaving, it's too late to learn.


10 posted on 10/23/2006 10:31:30 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
Thanks for looking- everybody ought to know how to operate firearms competently. It's like knowing how to drive- if you are ever in a situation where having those skills would be lifesaving, it's too late to learn.

Yes, you're right. I do need to take some lessons to learn how to use it properly. I think I'm going to have to buy a larger caliber gun because what I have is a 22 pistol, and I guess that's the wrong size to use for self defense. My ex probably knew that and that's why he gave it to me to use for 'self defense.' LOL

11 posted on 10/23/2006 12:39:51 PM PDT by sokit2mebb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sokit2mebb
I do need to take some lessons to learn how to use it properly. I think I'm going to have to buy a larger caliber gun because what I have is a 22 pistol, and I guess that's the wrong size to use for self defense. My ex probably knew that and that's why he gave it to me to use for 'self defense.' LOL

A .22 is excellent for learning, and the right place to start. A heavier calibre is more optimal for downing a human being, but that comes later- accuracy first, then speed, then power. Frankly, if you really need to do serious damage, it's hard to beat a shotgun at close ranges.

And a .22 is not to be despised- you really would not care to be hit in a vital area with one.

12 posted on 10/23/2006 1:59:24 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
A .22 is excellent for learning, and the right place to start. A heavier calibre is more optimal for downing a human being, but that comes later- accuracy first, then speed, then power. Frankly, if you really need to do serious damage, it's hard to beat a shotgun at close ranges.

And a .22 is not to be despised- you really would not care to be hit in a vital area with one.

Thank you for all the information. You guys have all been very helpful. That's a good idea to practice with the 22, but get a larger caliber gun for the bad guys. :)

13 posted on 10/23/2006 4:27:38 PM PDT by sokit2mebb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sokit2mebb
I do need to take some lessons to learn how to use it properly. I think I'm going to have to buy a larger caliber gun because what I have is a 22 pistol, and I guess that's the wrong size to use for self defense

Give a phone call to a local shop, or range, and they will gladly teach you proper handling techniques. The majority of cases (~2 million times/year) where firearms are used in self defense, simply having a pistol is enough to deter a crime and I wouldn't want to have a .22 pointed my way.
14 posted on 10/24/2006 12:06:00 AM PDT by proud_yank (Socialism - An Answer In Search Of A Question For Over 100 Years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GMMAC; Joe Brower

ping


15 posted on 10/24/2006 12:06:19 AM PDT by proud_yank (Socialism - An Answer In Search Of A Question For Over 100 Years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson