Gun Control? What Gun Control?
FACT:
Interestingly, national crime has risen since Kmart stopped selling ammo.
Here's the Yahoo Groups Gun Control Debate Page. A bunch of gun control related news stories. A LOT of buried media bias here. Watch your buttocks. Or go to and read the Alphecca.com blog for close analysis of these stories.
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44816-2004Mar9.html we read:
"In 2003, 1,982 guns were confiscated in the District -- where a ban on handgun ownership has been in place since 1979 -- and turned over to the ATF for tracing. Moreover, 77 percent of the city's 243 homicides in 2003 were gun-related."
Alphecca says: "Washington D.C. has the second highest murder rate in the country. And if handguns have been banned for 25 years then I guess those 1,982 guns came from --wait for it-- criminals! You know, those folks who don't obey laws, much less gun laws. Which again, makes you ask if maybe the law abiding ought to be able to defend themselves"? - Well I don't need a gun here. Course I don't live in D.C. either!
Some interesting documented facts in a couple of studies:
America: The Most Violent Nation?
David C. Stolinsky, MD
Is America the most violent nation on earth? Those who blame
this country for most of the ills of the world would have us believe so. They
frequently refer to high rates of homicide and suicide, though they rarely
cite actual data. But before fear impels us to shred the Bill of Rights, we
should determine whether our fear has a factual basis.
The accompanying table (Table 1) gives suicide and homicide rates for all
86 nations for which data are available. Rates are per 100,000 population
and come from the United Nations 1996 Demographic Yearbook published in 1998.
Note that the latest U.S. suicide rate (for 1997) is 11.4, slightly below
the 11.9 listed, while the 1997 U.S. homicide rate is 7.3, far below the 9.4
listed here. Figures exceeding published U.S. figures are starred, while those
exceeding only the most recent (1997) U.S. figures are doubly starred. For
a more contemporaneous comparison, the singly starred figures should be stressed.
Accuracy
of the figures varies. Suicide may not be reported to spare the family. Thus
Egypt claims a suicide rate of zero. On the other hand, Japan lists murder-suicides
as suicides; if a man kills his family and himself, all are listed as suicides.
The thousands of patients "euthanized" by doctors each year in the
Netherlands are listed as dying from disease. There are 185 UN members, so
over half of all nations, including the former Soviet Union and many African
and Asian nations, reported no data at all.
Regarding suicide, the U.S. is in the middle of the pack, with 35 of the 86
nations having higher rates (38 using the most recent U.S. figure). Compared
to the U.S. rate of 11.9, Russia has a rate of 41.2, Hungary 32.9, Denmark
22.3, Switzerland 21.4, France 20.8, and Japan 16.7. In general, Northern
and Eastern European and Asian nations tend to have high suicide rates, while
countries in Southern Europe and Latin America tend to have low rates.
Is there a relation between suicide and strictness of gun-control laws? Northern
European and Asian nations tend to have high rates and strict laws, while
Latin American nations tend to have low rates and more lax laws. Hence one
could make a spurious claim that strict gun laws "cause" suicides.
Such a claim would ignore many relevant facts. For example, Latin countries
are mainly Catholic, with severe social pressures against suicide. Still,
it makes as much (or as little) sense to say that gun laws "cause"
suicides as that they "prevent" homicides.
The U.S. suicide rate has fluctuated between 10 and 17 for a century, with
peaks in 1908 and 1932, and shows no relation to gun laws or gun availability.
The current rate is below the midpoint and falling slightly. Recently suicides
in the young increased. Advocates of gun laws blame the availability of guns.
But suicides in older Americans decreased. The advocates ignore this fact.
If something bad happens, they blame guns; if something good happens, they
ignore it. And this is called "research."
Is there a correlation between suicide and homicide rates? Statistical analysis
shows none (r = 0.08). Nations with low suicide rates may have low (Greece)
or high (Mexico) homicide rates. Nations with high suicide rates may have
low (Switzerland) or high (Russia) homicide rates. Since suicide and homicide
rates are not correlated, it is difficult to see how a single factor, such
as gun laws, could cause major reductions in both of them.
Moving to the homicide data, we recall that America is often said to have
the highest homicide rate of any "civilized," "Western,"
"industrialized," or "advanced" nation. Do those who make
such claims believe that Mexico is uncivilized, Brazil is not in the Western
Hemisphere, Russia is not industrialized, or Ukraine is retarded?
Looking at the homicide figures, we again wonder about accuracy. Are "political"
killings (by the government or rebels) in Northern Ireland, Egypt, Israel,
Guatemala, Peru, China, and elsewhere listed as homicides, listed separately,
or concealed? We must admit that the U.S. has a higher homicide rate than
any Western European nation. Still, 23 nations admit to higher rates: Armenia,
Bahamas, Belarus, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Paraguay, Philippines, Puerto
Rico, Russia, Sao Tome, Tajikistan, Trinidad, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Using
the 1997 U.S. homicide rate of 7.3, Azerbaijan and Cuba also have higher rates.
Nine nations (ten using the 1997 figures) including Russia have both higher
suicide and higher homicide rates.
There may be a lesson here. Perhaps the more we resemble Colombia with its
drug wars, and Eastern Europe with its ethnic strife; the more our homicide
rate will rise. In fact, homicide rates in some central cities, including
Washington, D.C. with its "crack" wars, are already as high as that
of Colombia. This is not an encouraging thought.
The
changes in the U.S. homicide rate over time are interesting. In 1900 there
were few gun laws. New York had no handgun law and California no waiting period.
Guns of all types could be ordered by mail or bought anonymously. And the
homicide rate was 1.2; about one-sixth of what it is today. The homicide rate
peaked in 1933, during the Depression, and then fell. It was low during and
after World War II, but began to rise in the 1960s and 1970s, and reached
its high for this century, 10.7, in 1980. It then fell to 8.3 in 1985, a fall
of 22 percent. This welcome news was virtually ignored by the media, which
emphasize rises in violence but downplay decreases. Homicide rose again in
the late 1980s, but not to its 1980 high. The homicide rate continued to rise
following the Gun Control Act of 1968, while the fall in the early 1980s occurred
when anti-crime laws but no new anti-gun laws were passed.
From 1991 to 1997 the U.S. homicide rate fell 30 percent. Liberals credit
a strong economy and low unemployment; conservatives point to three-strikes
laws and increasing use of the death penalty. We are uncertain which factors
to credit. The portion of the population made up by males aged 15 to 24, the
most crime-prone group, fell by 5 percent, so this can account for only a
fraction of the 30 percent fall in homicide. In any case, the fall began in
1992, while the Brady Act (waiting period for handgun buyers) and the assault-weapons
ban went into effect in 1994. Clearly, these laws cannot be credited for a
fall in homicide that had begun two years earlier. Violence is often like
an Rorschach test --- what we read into it depends more on us than on it.
This subjectivity must be avoided.
Will extremely harsh anti-gun and anti-crime laws be more effective than conventional
laws? Figures for East and West Germany, the last before the Wall came down,
reveal a unique "experiment." In 1945 a uniform population was split
in two. After four decades of dictatorial rule, the homicide rate in the Communist
East was 0.7, hardly lower than that in the free West, 1.0. But the suicide
rate in the East was 25.8, much higher than 15.8 in the West. That is, even
the harshest regime prevented few homicides, but at the cost of many suicides
--- hardly a fair exchange. Overly severe laws may be counterproductive as
well as oppressive.
Israel and Switzerland, where most adult males keep military-type guns at
home, have low homicide rates, so easy access to guns cannot be the key factor
in homicide. Some nations with strict anti-gun laws also have low homicide
rates, but is this cause and effect? The low homicide rate in the United Kingdom
holds for both gun and non-gun homicides; strict gun laws cannot account for
a low rate of fatal beatings. Japan has harsh anti-gun and anti-crime laws
and a low homicide rate, but Japanese-Americans, who live under our laws and
have access to guns, also have a low homicide rate. Japanese immigrants bring
something with them that inhibits homicide and is transmitted to their children
and grandchildren. It may be self-control or love of education, but it has
nothing to do with laws. Cultural factors are clearly important. To study
the effect of gun laws, statisticians would first have to correct for all
the cultural differences between various nations. Not enough is known to do
this. The best we can do is observing what happens when new gun laws are passed
in the U.S. and Germany, or when Japanese live in the U.S. In these cases,
little effect of gun laws is seen.
In
telling Americans, especially young ones, that they live in the most violent
nation on earth, we are slandering our country. In addition, we may be inadvertently
increasing the violence. Studies reveal that children whose teachers believe
they will do well actually do better in school. Children may sense their teachers'
expectations and live up to them. It seems likely that children raised to
believe that they come from the most violent people on earth will act accordingly.
The violence-prone minority will be more violent, believing that they must
strike before others attack them, while the nonviolent majority will lapse
into hopeless passivity. This is not helpful to a free country.
It really comes down to what we prefer as a basis for our opinions --- facts
or myths. Myths may be comforting, but they rarely lead to effective action.
Myths tell us that nations with strict anti-gun laws have low rates of suicide
and homicide, so the answer is easy --- pass more laws. And if the laws don't
work, pass still more. Facts, on the other hand, may be disturbing. They rarely
provide easy answers for complex problems.
Without the deceptive comfort of myths, we are forced to confront reality.
Liberals must face the fact that despite billions spent on social programs,
changes to make the justice system more "fair," and new gun-control
laws, the homicide rate doubled since the 1960s. Conservatives must face the
fact that despite continuing family breakup, fatherless boys, decaying schools,
and loss of respect for human life, the homicide rate fell by one-third in
the 1990s. Advocates of drug legalization must face the fact that this fall
in homicide occurred as the "war" on drugs continued. Opponents
of violent films and video games must face the fact that as these increased,
homicide as well as school violence fell, despite highly publicized shootings.
Conversely, liberals must admit that the recent fall in homicide was associated
with three-strikes laws and increasing use of the death penalty, while conservatives
must admit that the fall in homicide was associated with low unemployment
and a strong economy.
In short, we all must admit that we have much to learn about the causes of
violence. This requires more effort and intellectual honesty than looking
to the government to pass yet another law. America is hardly the most violent
nation, and our homicide rate has fallen recently, but we are more violent
than we used to be --- and than we should be.
References
1. 1996 Demographic Yearbook. New York, United Nations, 1998.
2. Stolinsky SA, Stolinsky DC. Suicide and homicide rates do not covary. J
Trauma 2000; 48:1168-1169.
Dr. Stolinsky is a retired medical oncologist and co-author of Firearms: A
Handbook for Health Professionals, published by The Claremont Institute. His
e-mail is stolinsky@prodigy.net.
Originally published in the Medical Sentinel 2000;5(6):199-201. Copyright
©2000 Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.