The recent shootings of a television reporter and her cameraman in Roanoke, Virginia has rekindled the seemingly endless gun debate. As has been the case of late, the various demands for “common sense reforms” have been met with push-back responses from pro-gun-rights quarters. One theme in these responses has been the refutation of assertions that countries like Great Britain and Australia, which drastically curtailed civilian gun ownership and engaged in confiscation, saw marked decreases in crime as a result. Here’s a rebuttal to the UK example, and here’s a takedown of the Australian example.
The typical anti-gun message includes statistics that show significant gun crime decreases after the bans. Some of the rebuttals I’ve witnessed can be classified into one of two categories: correlation vs causation, and that gun crime isn’t the only type of crime.
The former ignores existing crime trends i.e. gun crime was already trending downward, and looks to credit bans for those pre-existing trends. However, it is the latter that caught my attention. There’s an interesting game that some anti-gun people play. They’ll cite gun crime statistics to defend their gun-grabbing predilections, and make no mention of overall crime. The intent therein, conscious or subconscious, is to imply that reported decreases in gun crime before and after a ban actually refer to all violent crime. They look (again, consciously or subconsciously) to lead others away from considering a substitution effect i.e. that those who would commit violence would not do so but for the easy accessibility of guns. What’s more likely, that someone intent on committing violence will simply stay home if he can’t find (more specifically, legally acquire) his preferred tool, or that he’ll find some other tool to use?
Government statistics show us that only about 8% of violent crimes are committed with a gun, and nearly one murder in three is committed with some non-gun weapon. These numbers tell us that banning civilian gun ownership and rounding up all the 300 million guns in the country won’t suddenly turn this nation into a crime-free utopia. And, if we are to consider some of the analyses of the UK’s experience, the removal of guns from society won’t reduce violent crime rate.
So, be aware of those who cite “gun crime” stats while ignoring all other crime and changes in the rates thereof. They’re leaving out a critical part of the story.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters