jar writes:
The problem is that the situation is not a simple one.
Certainly. But that doesn't mean that we simply throw up our hands and surrender. Some useful information may be obtained if enough variables are controlled for.
If you look at the long term trends, what you find is that while the trend for all homicides in Australia has been steadily going up since 1979, the trend for homicide by firearms has been going down steadily since 1979.
How long is "long term"?
See Figure 1 which is a graph of total homicides and firearm homicides in Australia 1915-1995. Because firearm homicides and total homicides are rare events, the statistics tend to bounce around a bit. There was a general downward trend in firearm homicide rates 1920-1950; a general upward trend in rates 1950-1980; and a general downward trend 1980-1995. However there are still peaks evident from sporadic multiple firearm homicide events in some years. SSAA provide a graph of this last phase which you linked to in your message #157. I wonder why they don't extend it beyond 1996 when the data has been readily available? Hmmmmm.
Since the trend extends way before the Gun confiscation, it is unreasonable to try to assign the differences between pre and post confiscation to the act itself.
Let's include some data from
Trends in Violent Death and Firearms, 1915-94 from an Australian Institute of Criminology paper.
Firearm homicide no. for 1980 = 112
Firearm homicide no. for 1995 = 67
rate of decline in deaths per annum =
3 deaths pa.
Firearm homicide no. for 1997 = 79
Firearm homicide no. for 2001 = 47
rate of decline in deaths per annum =
8 deaths pa.
So, why would you say that the trend after 1996 is simply a continuation of a general trend before 1996? Care to do some regression analysis to test the statistical significance of the 2 different rates? Maybe that's why SSAA don't show the graph beyond 1996!
The second big issue is that the confiscation is most unlikely to have any positive effects anyway. The vast majority of gun owners, either here or in Australia, ever commit a murder, homicide, or any other violent or anti-social act. In fact, folk with a carry permit tend to be among the most law abiding folk around.
This has been a difficult assertion to test for the Australian situation without knowing the number of registered firearm users. However
this paper refers to about 10% of firearm homicides in Australia in 1997-1999 being committed by registered firearm users. That appears to be a disporportionately high rate for "the most law abiding folk around".
By confiscating all of the guns, all that was accomplished was that the vast majority of law abiding folk were punished for absolutely no reason, and all of Australia was declared to be a target rich area for any bad guys out there.
The guns owners were paid compensation. The vast majority of Australians are not and were not gun owners and therefore were not punished. Presumably you think that carrying concealed weapons is a deterrent factor against crime but the data is very ambiguous.
There is no simple answer.
But a number of partial answers may solve the problem.
Maybe we should look at Kennesaw, GA as a guide to how to reduce crime and violence in the US?
Why? Has there been a market decline in the firearm homicide rate there? Is it now comparable to the Australian rate?
™ Version 4.2
