I wanted to look in to things on this score because people in the media always put the spin on that they feel furthers their views. This is one of the things that the BBC has tried to hold true to (and sometimes failed) in so much as they claim to maintain an unbiased view point, unlike any of their American counterparts. Which statistics am I looking at? Crime. Specifically violent crime, and firearms. Why? Well, gun laws to be truthfull. You see, while America has currently one of the highest firearms ownership rates in the world, all the stats we see coming out of the American Media compare firearms crime with firearms crime rates in countries with much tighter gun laws, like the UK, who have probably the most draconian and restrictive firearms ownership laws in the world, and Australia who in the space of about 3 months following a mass shooting enforced a buy-back on firearms. Sounds fair really doesn't it? Well, I'm not sure, you see, to my mind if someone is going to commit a violent crime, they will pick the most efficient weapon available to them; in America that is undeniable a firearm, but elsewhere the MO may be a little different, so I'm planning to look at 'Violent Crime' rather than 'Firearms Offences' as seen in Australia, mainand UK (that's Scotland England and Wales for anyone who's unclear on the difference between UK, England, and Great Britain), and Australia. First, some back story for each country. So, in the UK there's been a number of 'famed' mass shootings; Hungerfood in 1987, Monkseaton in 1989, Dunblane in 1996, Cumbria in 2010. Following Hungerfood and Dunblane the UK restricted ownership of firearms so much that no pistols could be owned (except for some sporting pistols that due to their length classify as 'long arms') and restricted ownership of rifles such that farmer and shooting clubs were largely the only people to have access to them. So outside of sporting situations (incidentally the UK Government had to make exceptions for foreign shooters to be able to practice and compete in the Olympics - UK shooters still had to practice overseas) the only weapons available in the UK are basically .22 rifles and shotguns - which are used for pet control. Despite all of these restrictons, a licenced owner went on a spree killing in Cumbria in 2010. Over to Australia now. A recent 'report' (I put it in quotation marks because while it's intention was to make a point to the US gun lobby, it was so over the top as to be easily dismissed as nothing more than a skit) by John Oliver of the Daily Show (youtube link to part one : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE) indicated that a complete firearms ban had been brought about in Australia following the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. The fact is that as of 2007 around 5% of the population still own (legally I hasten to add) firearms for the purposes of hunting, pest control, and target shooting. That same report goes on to emphasise that since the buy-back following Port Arthur in 1996 there have been no mass shootings in Australia. In 2002 at Monash University two people were killed by gunman Huan Yun Xian. It is also worth noting that neither the UK, not Australia has any constitutional (or otherwise given) right to own a firearm, or any other weapon, for means of defence. These countries have no parallel to the much vaunted Second Amendment. I promised statistics, but to be honest I dislike statistics - as the title and the old addage says "there are lies, damned lines, and statistics." What this means is that a good statistician can use numbers to say anything, and that's what's been happening in terms of the gun control debate in the US, especially whether other nations crme figures are brought in. Populations: Australia - 22.32 Million UK - 63.2 Million USA - 313.9 Milion Reported Violent Crimes Australia - 200,880 (approx number calculated by figures per 100000 people) UK - 2,074,000 (number as provided by uk govt) USA - 4,856,510 (from stats published by the US Govt) In Australia, the number of cases of violent crime have risen since the firearms buy-back, but still it has the lowest numbers both in absolute and percentage of population than either the US or the UK. The US has, unsurprisingly the highest absolute number, but then check their population. they may have double the violent crime numbers, but they have well over double the population. % of Population Australia - 0.9% UK - 3.2% USA - 1.5% Now, that's general across the populations, but as with all statistics, there's so much more it doesn't take in to account, population demographics, geographical factors, a whole slew of other things that could impact the numbers. What is does show is that the rates of violent crime would seem to be removed from the rates of gunownership and the legality of carrying firearms in everyday situations. the UK, the nation with possibly the tightest firearms ownership laws, has the highest rate of violent crime, more than double that of the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment