What Gun Controllers Don't Want You to Know
by
Howard Nemerov
I used to support gun control, meaning
civilian disarmament. There was no reason, the rationale went, for a
private citizen to own a gun. The only ones who wanted guns had small
genitalia, were paranoid crazies, and criminals.
All this was
assumed, without any empirical or statistical research to base it
upon. Due to the influence of one of my clients who is a person of
great honor, I began to research the issue of gun control on my own.
Having been a college boy who loved library research, I knew how to
ferret out fact from fiction. It was interesting to find that the
claims of the NRA, John Lott, et al., were easy to verify from neutral
or even slightly pro-gun control sources.
More
ominously, I found that the gun control groups consistently lied or
twisted minor factoids taken out of context in their articles. This
begged the question: if they are lying to advance their agenda, can we
really trust the utopian outcome they promote as true?
The Utopian Thesis of Gun Control
The
philosophy behind gun control is that by limiting access to guns, the
public is made a safer place. (1,2) This is a noble undertaking, and
all persons of conscience should support this. If it were proven
beyond a reasonable doubt that disarming the law-abiding public would
enhance public safety, save children’s lives, and enhance or preserve
our civil rights, I would be in favor of gun control.
Of course,
there is a ''competing'' hypothesis: placing firearms into the hands
of law-abiding citizens accomplishes the same goals with fewer
unpleasant side-effects.
These
hypotheses were being tested during my research. A simple litmus test
could be set up; one can examine actual crime rates and trends in
countries similar to our culture that have recently disarmed the
public, and see what resulted.
The United
Kingdom is an English speaking democracy with a bicameral legislature,
similar enough for our litmus test. The UK instituted a massive gun
ban in 1997, finally banning all handguns. While a tool of choice for
criminals, because of its ease of concealment, this attribute also
makes it a valuable personal protection tool for a law-abiding
citizen.
If the gun
control thesis is the correct one, then it should follow that by
taking out an element that allegedly incites criminal behavior, in
this case guns, crime rates should drop. So let’s take a look at the
statistical record to find out.
Facts, Not Rhetoric
What always
made me reluctant to address the issue of gun control was all the
hyperbole surrounding it from both sides of the issue. Therefore, it
was imperative to be able to locate similar statistics from multiple
sources, to insure factual validity.
First, it is
important to establish a pre-ban baseline and then compare it to
similar research after the ban to determine crime trends. For that, we
will reference the International Crime Victimization Surveys of 1992
and 2000. (3)
In general,
the research shows that violent crime rates were lower in the UK than
the United States in 1992. (Rated in percent of those interviewed
responding ''yes'' to being victimized.)
-
Burglary with entry:
UK – 2.5% U.S. – 3.5%
-
Robbery: UK – .9% U.S. – 1.7%
-
Sexual assault of women: UK – .3% U.S. – 1.5%
-
Assault with force: UK – 1.1% U.S. – 2.2%
In
the 2000 survey the researchers combined the three violent crimes of
robbery, rape, and assault into one category entitled ''Selected
Contact Crime.'' Here is what they report (post-ban for UK.)
These
two reports were done with essentially the same criteria and methods,
and they clearly show that while selected violent crime rates rose
100% in the UK, they fell 65 % in the U.S. During this time, Britain
outlawed private ownership of firearms, while over 70 million
additional civilian firearms were sold in the U.S. (4) At the very
least, a reasonable person is forced to conclude that availability of
firearms to the general public is not a contributing factor to any
increase in crime.
These trends
are confirmed by Britain’s own Home Office. (5) In the period of 1997
through 2001, homicide rose 19% in the UK while it fell 12% in the
USA. (6) Violent crime incidents rose 26% in the UK while falling 12%
in the USA. (7) Robbery rates rose 92% in the UK and fell 15% in the
USA. (8)
Trust Us, We’re Your Government
''What country
can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to
time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?'' – Thomas
Jefferson
''Congress by
the power of taxation, by that of raising an army, and by their
control over the militia, have the sword in one hand and the purse in
the other. Shall we be safe without either? Let him candidly tell
me, where and when did freedom exist, when the sword and purse were
given up from the people?'' – Patrick Henry
This same
British Home Office report attempts to put a happy face on the UK
crime trend by proclaiming on page one that during the period of
2002-2003 crime has dropped, attempting to devalue the entire body of
the report to the reader. Such hyperbole is also expressed in another
British Home Office report entitled ''Crime in England and Wales
2002/2003,'' (9) which consists of two parts. The first section
relies on Britain’s new Crime Survey, a governmental attempt to show
crime reduction by selecting a small group of subjects to question.
The Crime Survey findings contrast sharply with the second section of
actual compiled police statistics that show sharp rises in nearly all
crime categories.
Here are some
crime trends collected from UK police crime data for the period of
1995 to 2003. (10)
For those who
believe that gun control benefits women and children, who are
generally smaller and less physically capable of protecting
themselves, it is interesting to note that during this time period
female rape increased 129%, child abduction rose 143%, and cruelty to
or neglect of children increased 79%.
In his book
''More Guns, Less Crime,'' John Lott discusses how when criminals know
more citizens are armed they switch from crimes where they come into
direct contact with their victims to crimes where there is no
contact. So instead of robbery, where they confront the intended
victim, they wait until people leave home and commit burglary. In an
email interview, Professor Lott said: ''They do this in order to avoid
victims who are now better able to defend themselves.''
''More Guns, Less Crime'' showed how such a crime trend is
indeed in effect in Right-to-Carry states, where violent
(confrontational) crime is dropping faster than property
(non-confrontational) crime. The reason I bring this up now is
because this substitution effect is borne out in the UK, where total
property crime dropped 1% from 1995 to 2003. (11) As victims are more
available due to the loss of self-defense capabilities, criminals see
no need to spend the extra effort to plan burglary in order to avoid
their victims; it is far easier to confront them and wave a gun in
their face, demanding loot and sex.
Some may still
want to deny the truth, saying ''but the population has increased, so
even if crime increases, there still is no increase in crime rates.''
On the surface, this is a valid argument, but the same report shows
that violent crime rates (per 100,000 population) increased 216% from
1995 to 2003, while property offenses dropped 2%. (12)
In her book
''Guns and Violence,'' Joyce Lee Malcolm discusses the same
substitution effect was active historically as well. In the first
part of the book, she does an overview of the earlier eras in Britain
and concludes:
''...this era
in which firearms first came into common use in everyday life as well
as for the citizen militia, the century in which an Englishman’s right
to have 'arms for his defence' was proclaimed, also witnessed a sharp
decline in violent homicide.'' (13)
In an e-mail
interview, I asked Professor Malcolm about the discrepancy between the
British Home Office Crime Survey results and the police statistics
included in the same report from 2003.
Question: In your book you mention in the introduction that
there are some irregularities in how the police report crime. Does
this in fact make the Crime Survey a more accurate indicator of crime
trends in the UK?
Professor Malcolm: ''The differences between the UK crime
victimization studies and police statistics are indeed confusing and
almost always at odds. Both come from government and are official.
For many years the English police seemed to record only about 1/3 of
the crimes reported to them, making the victimization studies more
accurate. They also purposely underestimated a crime like burglary,
for example, by counting several offences by the same individual as
one burglary. The police reporting was so unabashedly political that
the victimization studies were undertaken.''
Question: This brings up two concerns: first, it seems that
one of the governmental branches, either the Home Office or the
police, is in effect lying. Second, how can people trust the
government when they can’t even come out with a consistent answer on
crime rates or even what constitutes a crime?
Professor Malcolm: ''The government now seems to be insisting
that the police actually record a higher level of the crimes reported
to them, but don’t seem willing to explain what proportion or how it
is being done. As a result, as crime rates go up dramatically in
police statistics, especially for violent crime, the government keeps
saying they are not really going up, it is just that the police are
using a different method of recording crime. But for some crime, such
as murder, the police could not easily have been under-reporting in
the past, although they do track murders to pull them from the totals
if the final judgment is anything less than a court finding of
murder. At this point the government has used the ''new method of
calculating crime'' excuse so repeatedly and without explanation that
I am inclined not to trust their assurances that crime is going down
or remaining steady. Murder, for instance, is at the highest level
since statistics were kept.''
Question: Why is the British Crime Survey is at odds with
the International Crime Victimization Survey of 2002 and your own
article at Reason.com (14), which indicate that the UK is indeed
increasingly more crime-ridden in many categories than the U.S.?
Professor Malcolm: ''I think the international crime
victimization study released in 2002 is more reliable and offers a
comparison of how England and Wales are doing compared to other
industrial countries. Sadly, England has many times the violent crime
of most European countries. But their methods of fighting crime by
disarming and prosecuting victims is so counter-productive that the
results do not surprise me. Unfortunately it is in the government’s
interest to demonstrate that its crime-fighting initiative is
successful, which makes its assertions doubtful.''
The key point
to remember is that murder is a statistic that is hard to fudge, and
therefore a reliable indicator of crime trends. The police actually
under-report murder rates, because if the court reduces the sentence,
the police subtract that case from murder totals. Even so, murder has
risen dramatically since the gun ban went into effect.
Referring back
to the Founders’ quotes leading this section, pray tell me this: how
are the people of the United Kingdom are going to force a redressing
of grievances upon their government? They have surrendered their arms
and their purse, and therefore have no protection against a government
acting without restraint, nor do they have the means to show their
government any spirit of resistance to flawed and deadly policy. Once
again, the age-old lessons are being taught on yet another stage:
absolute power corrupts absolutely; and if you surrender your personal
responsibility to a government which promises to take care of you,
they will only take care of themselves.
Conclusion
The English
experience proves that guns and violence have no corresponding
relationship that justifies gun control. Do we want to go down the
same road as the UK when the evidence is so alarming? When the
consequences could be so deadly? How will we force our government to
return power to the people once it has taken it?
Perhaps gun
control will go away when we have the ''Million Armed Mom March in
Washington, D.C.'' Women will drive this issue when they ask the
politicians, ''Tell me exactly how you expect me to defend my children
against violent predators? If gun control is so wonderful, how come
more women are being raped and children being abused in England since
guns were banned? Do you plan to sacrifice our lives to pander to
your moneyed sponsor/constituents? Or do you just want power so much
that you don’t care who suffers?''
George
Santayana coined the phrase: ''Those who do not learn from history are
doomed to repeat it.'' To which I humbly wish to add: Those who have
tasted power and developed an addiction to it, studied of history,
intend to repeat it.
Footnotes
(1)
Gun Laws Work,
Loopholes Don’t, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=loop
Numerous references at this site relating gun control to reducing
violence.
(2)
Information Page on
Firearms Violence, Violence Policy Center.
http://www.vpc.org/fvtopic.htm
Numerous articles relating gun control to reducing violence.
(3)
Crime Victimisation
in the Industrialised World: Key Findings of the 1989 and 1992
International Crime Surveys, van Dijk and Mayhew, The Hague: Ministry
of Justice, Department of Crime Prevention, 1993.
Criminal Victimisation in Seventeen Industrialised Countries:
Key-findings from the 2000 international Crime Victims Survey, Van
Kesteren, Mayhew and Nieuwbeerta, The Hague: Ministry of Justice,
Department of Crime Prevention, 2000. Both available at
http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/index_pub.htm
(4)
Firearms Commerce in
the United States 2001/2002. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/firearmscommerce/firearmscommerce.pdf
(5)
International
Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics 2001. Britain Home Office
and Council of Europe, 10/23/2003.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb1203.pdf
(6)
Ibid, page 10.
(7)
Ibid, page 12.
(8)
Ibid, page 13.
(9)
Crime in England and
Wales 2002/2003. British Home Office, July 2003.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703.pdf
(10)
Ibid, page 53.
(11)
Ibid, page 56.
(12)
Ibid, page
58.
(13)
''Guns and Violence,
The English Experience,'' Joyce Lee Malcolm, Harvard University Press,
2002, pp 62-63.
(14)
''Gun Control’s
Twisted Outcome,'' Joyce Lee Malcolm, Reason Online, November 2002.
http://reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
Former gun control proponent Howard Nemerov does
his own research. He is now an ardent Second Amendment supporter,
who wonders why gun control groups consistently lie in order to
advance their agenda. He appears regularly on ChronWatch and NRA
Radio, and can be reached at
hnemerov@netvista.net.
June 11, 2004 |
