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.

[45Auto]

Whta a suprise - gun control has no positive effect on criminal activity.

[facedown]

No kidding, bump.

[Jeff Head]

A definitive statement of the obvious.

Jeff

[RetiredArmy]

Woops.

[Jotmo]

Bump

[glock rocks]

Gun Control isn't about GUNS

It's about CONTROL

[Strzelec]

Guy's got a great last name - very appropriate.

[wjcsux]

Bang.

[Grut]

The Fraser Institute seems to be a sort of Canadian Cato Institute; this may be a perfectly objective study but it isn't under the auspices of a perfectly objective organization and so will be discounted or ignored.

[Spok]

Where th' heck is this Simon Fraser University? And since when does reason and common sense have a place in a university newspaper? Certainly not in America.

[jocon307]

"The Fraser Institute seems to be a sort of Canadian Cato Institute; this may be a perfectly objective study but it isn't under the auspices of a perfectly objective organization and so will be discounted or ignored."

But not by everybody.

[Sofa King]

Doesn't matter.

Gun control advocates mean well, and that's all that really matters.

[45Auto]

The University, named after explorer Simon Fraser opened in September 1965. In less than 40 years SFU has gained an international reputation for its strengths in the liberal arts and sciences, as well as for its innovative interdisciplinary and professional programs. It has been rated as Canada's best comprehensive university five times (1993, '96, '97, '98, and '00) in the annual rankings of Maclean's magazine and has consistently placed at, or near, the top of the publication's national evaluations.

The University has three campuses: the main Burnaby campus, the Harbour Centre campus in downtown Vancouver, and Surrey campus in Surrey. SFU offers programs at the graduate and undergraduate level to approximately 25,000 students.

[elbucko]

“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.”

Exactly!

But, more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or better equipment won't be useful to use in a politicians ad for reelection. Can you imagine Don Perata and Jack Scott of CA, running for reelection in their state senatorial districts, using the above during election time when they would rather cite the gun control laws that bear their names as the bills passed through the state house. Gun control has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with the reelection of incumbent politicians.

[Cobra64]

I'm wearing my Ruger Blackhawk .357 as I type this note. Only doing so at this point is to break in my new leather holster-belt cowboy rig. Regardless, if I need to thwart an intruder, my Browning BDA .380 is in combat mode.

Looking at a Navy Arms 1893 lever action .357 carbine and a Norinco 12 ga. shotgun to round up my Cowboy collection for a tournament shoot.

[MosesKnows]

disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive

The agenda of the people who wish to disarm America seek people who will follow their convoluted logic. The logic offered suggest that the people cannot be trusted so write laws and the people will follow the laws because the people can be trusted. What is sad is that there are people among us who find merit in that logic.

[elbucko]

The University, named after explorer Simon Fraser...

..also has one of the finest bagpipe bands in the World. The Simon Fraser University Pipe Band has won the Pipe Band World Championships at Grade 1 level (the highest) a number of times in the last 10 years.

[elbucko]

What is sad is that there are people among us who find merit in that logic.

That "logic", as wrong as it is, is what causes women and girly-men to vote for the politicians that advocate such erroneous policies.

[logic101.net]

The one thing missing (other than intelegence) from the gun control fanatics is the ability to realize that criminals don't follow laws. If they did, they wouldn't be criminals, would they?

Mark A Sity

[Vinnie]

Does this mean that, that , gasp.. Guns don't kill people, people kill people?

For your enjoyment

Subject: What would you do??

How do you tell the difference between Liberals, Conservatives and Southerners?

Pose the following question:

You're walking with your wife and small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges.
You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Liberal Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Glock have an appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing!
I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.

Conservative Answer:

BANG!

Southerner's Answer :

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click...
sounds of reloading).

Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving, what do you kids think?"

Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it, too."

>BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.

Daughter: "Nice group, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?"

[coloradan]

this may be a perfectly objective study but it isn't under the auspices of a perfectly objective organization and so will be discounted or ignored.

Which, of course, does not prevent breathless press releases by VPC and HCI to be picked up by the NYT and WP and reported as gospel.

[savedbygrace]

Gary Mauser? I used to own a 98K Mauser. German military rifle that fires 7.92mm rounds. The first time I fired it, at 3am, flames shot out of the barrel a considerable distance. I'd never shot such a weapon at night, and it totally amazed me.

As you can tell, I'm not what you'd call a knowledgeable gun-owner.

[pjd]

Wow! check out the graphs in the full publication here. Amazing!

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/FailedExperiment.pdf

[Bob Mc]

"The logic offered suggest that the people cannot be trusted so write laws and the people will follow the laws because the people can be trusted."

I think they know laws won't be followed. They just need more laws so that anyone can be found guilty of something, at any time need be. A stealth version of tyranny.

[JSteff]

I can't believe you were the first to get this guys name. I wonder if it is any relation to the famous family of these great guns.

Too bad the Germans lost the war and Mauser by default lost most of his patent rights. Just amazing that the Mauser action has never really been bettered. What a genious that guy was.

[George from New England]

"so that anyone can be found guilty of something, at any time need be"

B-I-N-G-O

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Yes, but, but, but...

A person is 470,000 times more likely to be killed by his own gun than he is to defend himself from a criminal with it.

I know that's true. I just know it. It has to be.

And any statistics you show to the contrary are LIES.

Only my statistics are good. Everyone else LIES.

[RikaStrom]

Well Duh! Do they really expect the criminals to comply with the laws?!

[RikaStrom]

LOL... If you don't mind, I am going to borrow that.

[Joe Brower]

[AAABEST]

"Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence...."

Well DuuUUH.

Hey Joe, read #20. Funny.

[RogueIsland]

Whta a suprise - gun control has no positive effect on criminal activity.

Actually, it does. It makes criminal activity much safer!

[RogueIsland]

Gary Mauser

One must assume no relateion to Tom.

[LTCJ]

BumpMarkable

[unixfox]

In all cases, the effort meant setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse.

It's not about protecting citizens it's about giving more power to the government !!

[Gritty]

Liberals aren't going to let facts get in the way of a perfectly emotional argument.

[Joe Brower]

"Nice group, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?"

"No, those were 180 grain CCI Gold Dot."

[BMiles2112]

bump

[Squantos]

# 20.........Stay Safe !

[Blood of Tyrants]

As has been said before, it is about control, not guns.

[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