Gun controllers like to point at other countries who have gun control and say ‘look how successful they’ve been’. Well, my dear friends, their fairy tale ‘gun free’ bubble has just been burst. Check out this list.
Gun Control in Other Countries:
People have a habit of making the false assumption that stricter gun control results in lower violent crime and/or lower gun violence. This assumption is simply not true.
Gun Related Deaths per 100,000
- United States – 10.64
Countries With Strict Gun Control:
- Mexico – 11.17
- Argentina – 10.5
- Brazil – 19.03
- Colombia – 28.14
- El Salvador – 46.85
- Guatemala – 36.38
- Honduras – 64.8
- Jamaica – 39.74
- South Africa – 21.51
- Swaziland – 37.16
- Venezuela – 50.90
But, Johnny! Those countries aren’t developed like America! You need to compare us to other developed countries like Australia and The UK! Gun control is clearly working for them!
Okay, let’s talk about those countries then.
[this segment brought to you by lee-enfeel]
People die Australia as a result of firearms violence at almost the same rate they did prior to the firearms act, and some sources state that more than a quarter million illicit firearms exist in Australia currently.
The total firearms death rate in 1995 – the year before the massacre and the laws introduced – was 2.6 per 100,000 people. The total firearms murder rate that year was 0.3/100,000. From 1980-1995, Australian firearms deaths dropped from 4.9/100,000-2.6/100,000 without the implementation of firearms laws. This is a rate of decline that has remained fairly constant; Looking at 1996-2014, in which the rate has dropped from 2.6-0.86, it shows that the decline has been slower in a longer period of time since the law’s passing. Likewise, homicides declined more quickly in the 15 years prior to the firearms laws (0.8-0.3) than in the 18 years since it (0.3-0.1). This just indicates that firearms deaths haven’t been noticeably affected by the legislation you’ve claimed has done so much to decrease gun crime.
It should also be noted that around the same time, New Zealand experienced a similar mass shooting, but did not change their existing firearms laws, which remain fairly lax; even more so than some American states like California, New York, or Connecticut. Despite this, their firearms crime rate has declined fairly steadily as well, and they haven’t experienced a mass shooting since.
[this segment brought to you by sparklesthedark]
Many people will claim that if you compare the level of gun crime in the US to that in countries like the UK where guns are mostly illegal, it’s pretty clear that guns need to be better regulated.
There’s a huge leap of logic there that presents a flaw: just because two events occur simultaneously does not mean that they have a relationship. Because you state no source whatsoever, I am going to assume that you have taken your argument from the widely circulated, false-leading Small Arms Survey. A lot of news outlets cite this when quoting opinions like your own, and while it is a survey with documented information, it is somewhat misleading.
The Small Arms Survey (SAS) compares gun ownership data for 109 countries per 100 people to homicide rates. However, the survey excludes weapons that government-owned. At the time of the survey, all able-bodied Swiss males between the ages of 18 and 42 had to keep their weapons in their homes. After they turn 42, they can apply for permission to keep these guns in their possession. Israel was documented similarly. This gives a falsely low number for gun ownership rates, as these countries look significantly different in this category than United States.
The survey in general uses the “number of guns per 100 citizens” rule to inflate numbers. It might have been better to survey based on population of gun ownership (so total percentage of the population) than per 100 people. (I’m assuming your issue is the access to guns and not the number of guns greater than one that an individual has access to). As it stands, the SAS shows a tendency for more guns to equal fewer homicides:
These comparisons were questioned by some people at theCRPC ,so they used the OECD’s definitions of “civilized countries” to compare gun ownership and homicide rates the same way the SAS did, and the results were a bit different:
This shows the bias of the SAS. Gun ownership would still correspond to fewer homicides, but the relationship is not statistically significant. That means you cannot claim that gun ownership has ANY EFFECT of the number of homicides in your country. So yes, even in countries like the UK where guns are mostly illegal, there seems to be no correlation between how many guns there are and how many people end up dead.
These surveys prove to be basically bogus, but there are other indicators of gun crime that can be used to make a case for or against gun control. Gun control advocates prefer to look at only firearm homicides, not total murders. AmongOECD countries, Mexico has the highest firearms homicide rate, with a rate about 3 times higher than the US rate. Brazil’s and Russia’s are much higher, though Russia does not report total firearm homicides so it’s a literal shot in the dark for them. They aren’t the only ones, with only 116 countries reporting firearm homicides out of a total of 192.
The CPRC mentions, “By the way, despite Israel and Switzerland having very high gun possession rates, their firearm homicide rates are extremely low. In the data shown below, Switzerland had a firearms homicide rate of 0.77 per 100,000 people and Israel has a rate of just 0.09 per 100,000.” If you have trouble reading this graph, click here.
As for the UK specifically, the banning of handguns has hurt more than it has helped. For example, take the case of the handgun ban in England and Wales in January 1997 (sourcehere see Table 1.01 and the column marked “Offences currently recorded as homicide per million population”). After the ban there is only one year (2010) where the homicide rate is lower than it was in 1996. The immediate effect was about a 50 percent increase in homicide rates. The homicide rate only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004. Despite the huge increasein the number of police, the murder rate still remained slightly higher than the immediate pre-ban rate.
This would lead any rational person to think, “well, gee, maybe guns aren’t the most common way people are killed.” In fact, the UK is actually considering banning knives because SO MANY PEOPLE ARE STABBED.
In fact, can you guess what items saw huge surges in sales in The UK after their strict gun regulations went into place? Baseball bats, knives, and Cricket bats. Hmm.. I guess once guns were taken away, everyone just became super interested in sports and the culinary arts?