Gun Control and Crime Worldwide
On December 14, 2012, the community of Newtown Connecticut lost 20 children and 6 adults to a man who went on a shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The massacre shocked the nation. Both politicians and citizens began to look at how to keep a massacre like Sandy Hook from ever happening again. One of these ideas is to ban certain types of guns from the public. It seemed logical to assume that restricting access to guns would cause crime to decrease. A tragedy often causes people to react and try to implement what seems like a quick solution. Often these ideas fail, because quick solutions often fail to be thought out.
It is easy to make decisions based upon emotion especially when a tragedy has happened. Emotions were running high in the wake of the Sandy Hook mass shooting, but now is not the time to do something based upon emotion. Many have looked to gun control as a means of stopping violent crime, but many oppose this idea. People on both sides of the aisle are looking at statistics to promote their view of gun control. Gun Control Advocates use the homicide rate of Australia, United Kingdom, and Canada in comparison to the United States. The gun rights supporters uses the assault rate of these countries as well as the rate of crime in gun rights countries such as New Zealand and Switzerland. It is easy to pick statistics that make your position look the best. Therefore lets us carefully look at all the statistics to determine if gun control really lowers the rate of crime. We will begin by looking at the rate of homicide in countries.
Homicide and Gun Control[i]
First we will examine homicide statistics from several countries. Because the most current statistics for the United Kingdom is 2009 on the U.N. database I will use these statistics. The United Kingdom saw a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. In the same year the United States saw a rate of 5 homicides per 100,000. Therefore the United States saw about 4 times the homicide rate of United Kingdom.
The homicide rate of Australia is 1.2 per 100,000 people so the United States had a homicide rate 5 times higher than Australia. Canada’s homicide is 1.8 so the United States is also about 3 times higher than Canada. Japan’s homicide rate is .5 per 100,000 people.
Time to rejoice gun control activists? Not so fast. Let us quickly look at the statistics from two countries that are less restrictive on guns.
New Zealand’s homicide rate was 1.5 per 100,000 people so basically equivalent to both the United Kingdom’s and Australia’s rate; and lower than Canada’s. Interestingly the 1.5 rate seemed to be an anomaly because the rate in 2008 was 1.2 and in 2010 it was 1.1. New Zealand allows “Assault Weapons” as long as the person wishing to purchase the gun receives a license.
Switzerland has a homicide rate of .7 per 100,000 people so lower than the rate of Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. The homicide rate is also only .2 higher then Japan. In Switzerland almost every citizen has an “assault weapon.”
Homicide rates for countries do not appear to be dependent upon gun control. From the statistical data it appears that many other things may be affecting homicide rather than gun laws.
Assault and Gun Control
Now we will turn to look at Assault and gun control. The most recent data available is from 2010. The UN counts assault per 100,000. We will look at the data from 2003 to 2010 for each country.
The United States has an assault rate of 250.9 per 100,000 in 2010 -- a decrease from 294.9 per 100,000 in 2003.
The United Nations has the United Kingdom divided into three states, England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Scotland has an assault rate of 1449.7 per 100,000 in 2010. This is up from 1,232 per 100,000 in 2003. England and Wales had a rate of 644.4 in 2010 which was down from 862.8 per 100,000. Northern Ireland had a rate of 80.6 which is up from 65.5 in 2003. Only Northern Ireland has a lower rate than the United States. So while the murder rate of England and Scotland is higher than the United States they have an assault rate 3 to 6 times higher than the rate of the United States.
Canada has an assault rate of 161 per 100,000 in 2010 an increase from 152.3 in 2003. Canada’s rate is less than half the rate of the United States.
Australia has an assault rate of 323 per 100,000 a decrease from 799.5 per 100,000 in 2003. Although Australia’s rate has declined drastically they still have a rate higher than the United States.
Japan has an assault rate of 44.4 per 100,000 a decrease of 2,400 assaults from 2003 when the rate was of 46.4 per 100,000. Japan had an assault rate 1/5 of the rate of the United States.
New Zealand’s Data is incomplete. From the data given it appears they had an assault rate of 257.8 per 100,000 in 2003.
Because of change in the data collection systems the United Nations warns that caution should be taken in interpreting data from Switzerland, however, according to the data Switzerland has seen a decrease from 92.1 per 100,000 in 2003 to 6.4 per 100,000 in 2010.
Once again the Assault rate per country seems to have more factors than just guns. Gun restrictive countries had extreme fluctuation in their rates from 1449.7 per 100,000 in Scotland to 44.4 in Japan. On the other hand the rate did not see as much fluctuation between gun rights countries. The United States has an assault rate that falls in the middle. Gun restrictive Scotland’s assault rate is almost 6 times higher than the rate in the United States of America, however, the assault rate of the United States is five times higher than gun restrictive Japan. Using the assault rate alone is also inconclusive.
Sexual Violence and Gun Control
The next set of statistics we will examine is harder to make correlations because rape is not always reported. A societies view of women, a woman’s view of rape, and laws regarding rape greatly influence the rate of reporting. Even in the United States the report of rape is known to be less than the actual instances. In a culture that has a lesser view of women than the United States, the rate of reporting is most likely even lower in comparison to the actual number per year.
In the United States the rate of rape per 100,000 has decreased from 32.2 in 2003 to 27.3 to 2010.
Once again the United Nations has United Kingdom divided into three states. In England and Wales the rate of rape per 100,000 was 28.8 in 2010 up from 21.5 in 2003. Scotland’s data was incomplete. Northern Ireland rate was 27.7 in 2010 up from 21.4 in 2003. Both England and Northern Ireland’s data is slightly higher than the United States.
Canada’s rate remained constant at 1.7 per 100,000.
Australia and New Zealand’s data was incomplete. New Zealand had a rate of 25.8 in 2012 up from 24 in 2005. New Zealand is just less than the United States.
Japan’s rate was cut in half from 2 per 100,000 in 2003 to 1 per 100,000 in 2010.
Switzerland’s rate decreased from 7.5 per 100,000 in 2003 to 7.1 in 2010. Switzerland with their gun rights laws has a lower rate of rape, 1/3 of that of the United States.
Once again it appears that the rate of rape per country is influenced by more factors than guns. Since the rate in gun restrictive countries fluctuate everywhere from England’s rate of 28.8 to Japan’s rate of 1. The countries with loose regulations on guns also fluctuate from the United States 27.3 to Switzerland’s 7.5. Once again some restrictive countries have higher rates or sexual assault than the United States. England used to have a lower rate of rape than the United States, but now it is higher and increasing. If gun control worked should not the rate of the United States remained higher than the rate of England?
From the three categories that were examined it appears that there are more factors working than the availability of guns. Gun laws appear to have no affect across the board. Gun restrictive countries have crime rates in some cases above the United States and other gun right’s nation, and in other instances have crime rates lower than the United States and other gun right nations.
Each country has unique factors influencing it. Each country has a set of different challenges and influences. Many of these factors make it difficult to compare countries to others. For example there are many differences between the United States and these other nations from culture to type of boarder. Unlike the other nations listed (with the exception of Canada and Switzerland) the United States is not an island. The United States has a major problem with her southern border. Many other factors most likely lie at the bottom of the difference in the homicide data, from culture to population. The United States has many large cities that have a high percentage of murders. Over half of murders are committed in large cities. Therefore it is inconclusive to compare the United States to other countries. So rather than comparing countries to each other, nations should be compared by what happened before and after their gun laws were enacted.
Countries Before and After Gun Control
If we look at crime rates in each country throughout history we notice that many of the gun restrictive countries had a low crime rate before they passed their gun control laws. In 1997 when the United Kingdom passed their gun control laws they only had a 1.5 homicide rate per 100,000 people. That rate was lower than the United States rate at that time by about 5 points. Since that time the homicide rate has fluctuated but remained basically the same. Over the same period the United State’s homicide rate has decreased by over 3 points. Statistical Data also indicates that the United State’s homicide rate has always been above that of these other countries even before they enacted their respective gun laws.
The United Kingdom enacted their law in 1997 with a homicide rate of 1.5. per 100,000 Australia enacted their law around 1996[ii] with a homicide rate of 1.7. Japan (1958) and Canada (1977) enacted their laws before the data that is available from the United Nations. It seems from the data that each of the countries with highly restrictive gun laws already had lower homicide rates than the United States. In fact in 1997 the UK and Australia on average was 5.1 points lower than the United States. Therefore these countries should not be used in comparison to the United States.
In order to really see how gun restrictions change the crime statistics, we should look at each country’s crime rate before and after their gun control laws. If gun control laws are really effective we should see the effect before and after the gun laws were put into effect. We will first look at the United Kingdom.
United Kingdom Statistics
In 1987 the United Kingdom banned possession of all semi-automatic firearms. In 1997 the United Kingdom outlawed almost all private possession of handguns. It is difficult to find statistics for crime before 1990. Statistically most homicides are committed with handguns inside the United States. The United Kingdom passed their gun control laws in 1997 and 1986. If the gun control affects violence we should see the evidence throughout the crime statistics. After 1997 or 1986 we should see a noticeable drop in violent crimes if gun control works.
England and Wales
(All data for England and Wales is taken from the British Government[iii] )
The total violent crime (including homicide) rate of England and Wales in 1997 was approximately 479 per 100,000 people versus the violent crime rate in 2011 of 1,465 per 100,000,[iv] an tripling of the crime rate.
Also sexual offenses increased in England and Wales from approximately 63.1 per 100,000 in 1997 to 98 crimes per 100,000 in 2011. The rate of rape per 100,000 increased from approximately 12.6 in 1997 to 28.4 in 2011 an increase of 2 times.
In England and Wales the homicide rate with firearms decreased from 8% of homicides in 1997 to 6.6% of homicides in 2009. However, according to the UN statistics the total homicide rate of the UK remained basically the same. So those committing homicides only changed their weapon. Also according to data from the British government the homicide rate was 1.1 in 1986 and was also 1.2 in 2009, although the rate had fluctuated some it remained basically the same.[v]
Rather than helping England’s crime rate it seems that gun control laws have made the crime rate greater than before. From the time the gun control measures were implemented England’s crime rate has increased. During the same period of time the United States crime rate has decreased.
Northern Ireland
Available Statistics on Northern Ireland do not date back to 1997 so I will work from UN data, which dates back to 2003.
Northern Ireland had an assault rate per 100,000 of 80.6 in 2010 which is up from 65.5 in 2003. Northern Ireland rate or rape per 100,000 was 27.7 in 2010 up from 21.4 in 2003.
Data therefore indicates that England is not the only British province that has an increasing crime rate. Both the assault rate in Northern Ireland and the sexual crime rates have increased despite the gun control measures. Once again if gun control decreases crime then Northern Ireland’s crime rate should have lowered, but once again it appears to have increased.
Scotland
Available Statistics on Scotland do not date back to 1997 so I will work from UN data, which is in some instances incomplete.
Scotland has an assault rate of 1449.7 per 100,000 in 2010. This is up from 1,232 per 100,000 in 2003. Data on sexual crime in Scotland is incomplete. The available Scotish data shows an increase of rate of rape per 100,000 from 15.7 in 2003 to 17 in 2009.
Scotland’s assault rate is the highest among developed countries and the rate has been increasing despite gun regulations. The rate of other crimes have not increased or decreased as dramatically over the last several years. Scotland’s crime rate also increased. The United Kingdom passed their gun control laws in 1997, why is their crime rate increasing? Scotland has the third highest recorded assault rate in the world, behind Guyana and Grenada. If restrictive gun laws cause crime to decrease why is 1 out of every 100 people in Scotland assaulted each year?
Australia
In 1996 Australia banned assault weapons and bought back many firearms. Australia banned all automatic and semi-automatic firearms, and place strict licensing requirements and waiting periods on buying firearms.
Australia’s homicide rate has decreased from 1.8 in 1995 to 1 in 2010.
Australia has an assault rate of 323 per 100,000 a decrease from 799.5 per 100,000 in 2003. Although Australia’s rate is declining they still have a rate higher than the United States.
Interestingly Australia did have an increasing burglary and theft rate when the gun control measures were implemented. The introduction of gun control laws did not stop the increase of burglary and theft with in two years the theft rate had increased by 353 per 100,000. [vi] The rate has decreased since 2003.
Australia has seen a decrease in crime after they put more stringent gun laws on the books. The United Kingdom, however, has seen an increase in almost every crime. Gun control proponents hope that all countries will follow Australia’s pattern, but because Australia and the United Kingdom have seen different results, gun laws must not directly affect crime.
The United States
In 1994 the United States passed an assault weapons ban. The ban expired in 2004. How did this ban effect the crime rate in the United States? If banning assault weapons had a positive impact on our nation we should see a dramatic reduction in crime the year after the ban was implemented and an uptick in crime the year that the ban expired.
In 1992 the homicide rate was 9.3 per 100,000 three years later the homicide rate had decreased to 8.2 in the next ten years the homicide rate decreased to 5.7 (the last year of the assault weapons ban.) After the ban expired the rate has continued to decrease. In 2010 the rate was 4.8 homicides per 100,000 people.
The United States had an assault rate of 250.9 per 100,000 in 2010 a decrease from 294.9 per 100,000 in 2003. The rate decreased to 288 in 2004 when the assault weapons ban expired. The assault rate did increase to 290 the next year, but overall the assault rate decreased in the past 20 years. The assault rate in the United States in 2010 was 250.
The rate of rape per 100,000 has decreased from 32.2 in 2003 to 27.3 to 2010 in the United States. The rate of rape continued to decrease despite the expiration of the assault weapons ban.
Overall the assault weapons ban seems to have had no affect on the crime rates in the United States. The crime rate continued to decrease with and without the ban. Also the crime rate with “assault weapons” really did not change with and without the ban. The FBI does not track crimes with assault weapons but it is safe to assume most if not all “assault weapons” fall within the rifle category. Only 392 homicides were committed with rifles in the United States in 2003[vii] versus 323 in 2011.[viii] Crime rate continued to decrease when the “assault weapons ban” was enacted, and after the ban expired the crime continued to decrease, with no visible uptick.
Conclusion
It appears many factors influence crime rates and from the statistics it appears gun laws have little if any influence. In fact it appears that stricter gun laws may have a reverse effect of causing crime rates to increase as in the United Kingdom. Gun Control measures within the United State have in the past really failed to do anything in relation to crime within our country.
In England we see that the rate of homicides per 100,000 only decreased by .3 from the time the gun laws past until the most recent data (2009). People did not stop committing crimes, on the contrary violent crime tripled in England between 1997, when the gun laws were introduced, and to 2011 when the most recent British data is available.
The idea that stricter gun laws may increase crime seems counter intuitive. Would not taking away the weapon most used in crime cause crime to decrease? It seems that when taking away guns from civilians the criminals realize that the law-abiding populace is no longer armed. Unarmed civilians will no longer be able to defend themselves from criminals. People have the capacity to do evil and they seem to do it regardless of what tools they have available. England’s rates seem to indicate that taking away the tools for violence does not take away the capacity for violence. Guns do not cause the criminal to commit the crime. The criminal has the ability to commit the crime with or without the gun. A criminal may use the gun as a tool, but the gun is not the perpetrator of the crime, the human is. Taking away the gun only takes away a tool to be used and the defense mechanism for the citizens. Taking away guns takes away the criminal’s fear that they will attack a civilian who is armed with lethal force.
Since Australia’s gun laws seem to have caused crime to decrease, the gun control proponents argue that gun laws can lower crime. It is true that Australia’s gun crime has lowered, but the fact that British crime has increased indicates that guns are not the only factor. When the United Kingdom past their gun laws the crime rate, on all but homicides, began to climb. If gun laws were really effective in reducing crime both England and Australia’s crime should show a decrease. Since they do not gun control must not necessarily cause a decrease in crime, some other factors must be operating than the availability of firearms.
Several of factors that affect crime may include culture, population density, education, or many other underlying factors. Population density appears to be a major factor within the United States. Over half of the homicides inside the United States occur in cities larger than 100,000. Interestingly population density is not the only factor. The United Kingdom has a higher population density than the United States, but has a lower homicide rate. Whatever the other factors, firearms do not affect crime rates as much as many people believe.
Before going and restricting access to gun we should carefully consider the statistics. Failing to carefully examine the facts can lead to doing something based solely upon emotion. Ban “assault” weapons now, ban handguns next. Gun control may reduce gun violence it but it does not seem to reduce overall violence. If we really wish to decrease violence we should dig deeper.
[i] All stats unless otherwise noted come from http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime.html
[ii] http://www.npr.org/2012/12/21/167814684/australians-urge-u-s-to-look-at-their-gun-laws
[iii] Population of England and Wales was 56.1 million in 2011 and 52.4 million in 2001.http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/mro/news-release/census-shows-population-of-england-and-wales-is-over-56-million/censusengwalnr0712.html
[iv] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary
[v] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0111/hosb0111?view=Binary
[vi] To see more Australia’s crime rate see http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/previous%20series/other/41-60/centenary%20article%20-%20crime%20in%20twentieth%20century%20australia.html (Do not compare to UN statistics because the United Nation’s and Australia may count different crimes in their statistics.)
[vii] http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html
[viii] http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
This Report and Research was done by Amber D. used by permission.
It is easy to make decisions based upon emotion especially when a tragedy has happened. Emotions were running high in the wake of the Sandy Hook mass shooting, but now is not the time to do something based upon emotion. Many have looked to gun control as a means of stopping violent crime, but many oppose this idea. People on both sides of the aisle are looking at statistics to promote their view of gun control. Gun Control Advocates use the homicide rate of Australia, United Kingdom, and Canada in comparison to the United States. The gun rights supporters uses the assault rate of these countries as well as the rate of crime in gun rights countries such as New Zealand and Switzerland. It is easy to pick statistics that make your position look the best. Therefore lets us carefully look at all the statistics to determine if gun control really lowers the rate of crime. We will begin by looking at the rate of homicide in countries.
Homicide and Gun Control[i]
First we will examine homicide statistics from several countries. Because the most current statistics for the United Kingdom is 2009 on the U.N. database I will use these statistics. The United Kingdom saw a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. In the same year the United States saw a rate of 5 homicides per 100,000. Therefore the United States saw about 4 times the homicide rate of United Kingdom.
The homicide rate of Australia is 1.2 per 100,000 people so the United States had a homicide rate 5 times higher than Australia. Canada’s homicide is 1.8 so the United States is also about 3 times higher than Canada. Japan’s homicide rate is .5 per 100,000 people.
Time to rejoice gun control activists? Not so fast. Let us quickly look at the statistics from two countries that are less restrictive on guns.
New Zealand’s homicide rate was 1.5 per 100,000 people so basically equivalent to both the United Kingdom’s and Australia’s rate; and lower than Canada’s. Interestingly the 1.5 rate seemed to be an anomaly because the rate in 2008 was 1.2 and in 2010 it was 1.1. New Zealand allows “Assault Weapons” as long as the person wishing to purchase the gun receives a license.
Switzerland has a homicide rate of .7 per 100,000 people so lower than the rate of Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. The homicide rate is also only .2 higher then Japan. In Switzerland almost every citizen has an “assault weapon.”
Homicide rates for countries do not appear to be dependent upon gun control. From the statistical data it appears that many other things may be affecting homicide rather than gun laws.
Assault and Gun Control
Now we will turn to look at Assault and gun control. The most recent data available is from 2010. The UN counts assault per 100,000. We will look at the data from 2003 to 2010 for each country.
The United States has an assault rate of 250.9 per 100,000 in 2010 -- a decrease from 294.9 per 100,000 in 2003.
The United Nations has the United Kingdom divided into three states, England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Scotland has an assault rate of 1449.7 per 100,000 in 2010. This is up from 1,232 per 100,000 in 2003. England and Wales had a rate of 644.4 in 2010 which was down from 862.8 per 100,000. Northern Ireland had a rate of 80.6 which is up from 65.5 in 2003. Only Northern Ireland has a lower rate than the United States. So while the murder rate of England and Scotland is higher than the United States they have an assault rate 3 to 6 times higher than the rate of the United States.
Canada has an assault rate of 161 per 100,000 in 2010 an increase from 152.3 in 2003. Canada’s rate is less than half the rate of the United States.
Australia has an assault rate of 323 per 100,000 a decrease from 799.5 per 100,000 in 2003. Although Australia’s rate has declined drastically they still have a rate higher than the United States.
Japan has an assault rate of 44.4 per 100,000 a decrease of 2,400 assaults from 2003 when the rate was of 46.4 per 100,000. Japan had an assault rate 1/5 of the rate of the United States.
New Zealand’s Data is incomplete. From the data given it appears they had an assault rate of 257.8 per 100,000 in 2003.
Because of change in the data collection systems the United Nations warns that caution should be taken in interpreting data from Switzerland, however, according to the data Switzerland has seen a decrease from 92.1 per 100,000 in 2003 to 6.4 per 100,000 in 2010.
Once again the Assault rate per country seems to have more factors than just guns. Gun restrictive countries had extreme fluctuation in their rates from 1449.7 per 100,000 in Scotland to 44.4 in Japan. On the other hand the rate did not see as much fluctuation between gun rights countries. The United States has an assault rate that falls in the middle. Gun restrictive Scotland’s assault rate is almost 6 times higher than the rate in the United States of America, however, the assault rate of the United States is five times higher than gun restrictive Japan. Using the assault rate alone is also inconclusive.
Sexual Violence and Gun Control
The next set of statistics we will examine is harder to make correlations because rape is not always reported. A societies view of women, a woman’s view of rape, and laws regarding rape greatly influence the rate of reporting. Even in the United States the report of rape is known to be less than the actual instances. In a culture that has a lesser view of women than the United States, the rate of reporting is most likely even lower in comparison to the actual number per year.
In the United States the rate of rape per 100,000 has decreased from 32.2 in 2003 to 27.3 to 2010.
Once again the United Nations has United Kingdom divided into three states. In England and Wales the rate of rape per 100,000 was 28.8 in 2010 up from 21.5 in 2003. Scotland’s data was incomplete. Northern Ireland rate was 27.7 in 2010 up from 21.4 in 2003. Both England and Northern Ireland’s data is slightly higher than the United States.
Canada’s rate remained constant at 1.7 per 100,000.
Australia and New Zealand’s data was incomplete. New Zealand had a rate of 25.8 in 2012 up from 24 in 2005. New Zealand is just less than the United States.
Japan’s rate was cut in half from 2 per 100,000 in 2003 to 1 per 100,000 in 2010.
Switzerland’s rate decreased from 7.5 per 100,000 in 2003 to 7.1 in 2010. Switzerland with their gun rights laws has a lower rate of rape, 1/3 of that of the United States.
Once again it appears that the rate of rape per country is influenced by more factors than guns. Since the rate in gun restrictive countries fluctuate everywhere from England’s rate of 28.8 to Japan’s rate of 1. The countries with loose regulations on guns also fluctuate from the United States 27.3 to Switzerland’s 7.5. Once again some restrictive countries have higher rates or sexual assault than the United States. England used to have a lower rate of rape than the United States, but now it is higher and increasing. If gun control worked should not the rate of the United States remained higher than the rate of England?
From the three categories that were examined it appears that there are more factors working than the availability of guns. Gun laws appear to have no affect across the board. Gun restrictive countries have crime rates in some cases above the United States and other gun right’s nation, and in other instances have crime rates lower than the United States and other gun right nations.
Each country has unique factors influencing it. Each country has a set of different challenges and influences. Many of these factors make it difficult to compare countries to others. For example there are many differences between the United States and these other nations from culture to type of boarder. Unlike the other nations listed (with the exception of Canada and Switzerland) the United States is not an island. The United States has a major problem with her southern border. Many other factors most likely lie at the bottom of the difference in the homicide data, from culture to population. The United States has many large cities that have a high percentage of murders. Over half of murders are committed in large cities. Therefore it is inconclusive to compare the United States to other countries. So rather than comparing countries to each other, nations should be compared by what happened before and after their gun laws were enacted.
Countries Before and After Gun Control
If we look at crime rates in each country throughout history we notice that many of the gun restrictive countries had a low crime rate before they passed their gun control laws. In 1997 when the United Kingdom passed their gun control laws they only had a 1.5 homicide rate per 100,000 people. That rate was lower than the United States rate at that time by about 5 points. Since that time the homicide rate has fluctuated but remained basically the same. Over the same period the United State’s homicide rate has decreased by over 3 points. Statistical Data also indicates that the United State’s homicide rate has always been above that of these other countries even before they enacted their respective gun laws.
The United Kingdom enacted their law in 1997 with a homicide rate of 1.5. per 100,000 Australia enacted their law around 1996[ii] with a homicide rate of 1.7. Japan (1958) and Canada (1977) enacted their laws before the data that is available from the United Nations. It seems from the data that each of the countries with highly restrictive gun laws already had lower homicide rates than the United States. In fact in 1997 the UK and Australia on average was 5.1 points lower than the United States. Therefore these countries should not be used in comparison to the United States.
In order to really see how gun restrictions change the crime statistics, we should look at each country’s crime rate before and after their gun control laws. If gun control laws are really effective we should see the effect before and after the gun laws were put into effect. We will first look at the United Kingdom.
United Kingdom Statistics
In 1987 the United Kingdom banned possession of all semi-automatic firearms. In 1997 the United Kingdom outlawed almost all private possession of handguns. It is difficult to find statistics for crime before 1990. Statistically most homicides are committed with handguns inside the United States. The United Kingdom passed their gun control laws in 1997 and 1986. If the gun control affects violence we should see the evidence throughout the crime statistics. After 1997 or 1986 we should see a noticeable drop in violent crimes if gun control works.
England and Wales
(All data for England and Wales is taken from the British Government[iii] )
The total violent crime (including homicide) rate of England and Wales in 1997 was approximately 479 per 100,000 people versus the violent crime rate in 2011 of 1,465 per 100,000,[iv] an tripling of the crime rate.
Also sexual offenses increased in England and Wales from approximately 63.1 per 100,000 in 1997 to 98 crimes per 100,000 in 2011. The rate of rape per 100,000 increased from approximately 12.6 in 1997 to 28.4 in 2011 an increase of 2 times.
In England and Wales the homicide rate with firearms decreased from 8% of homicides in 1997 to 6.6% of homicides in 2009. However, according to the UN statistics the total homicide rate of the UK remained basically the same. So those committing homicides only changed their weapon. Also according to data from the British government the homicide rate was 1.1 in 1986 and was also 1.2 in 2009, although the rate had fluctuated some it remained basically the same.[v]
Rather than helping England’s crime rate it seems that gun control laws have made the crime rate greater than before. From the time the gun control measures were implemented England’s crime rate has increased. During the same period of time the United States crime rate has decreased.
Northern Ireland
Available Statistics on Northern Ireland do not date back to 1997 so I will work from UN data, which dates back to 2003.
Northern Ireland had an assault rate per 100,000 of 80.6 in 2010 which is up from 65.5 in 2003. Northern Ireland rate or rape per 100,000 was 27.7 in 2010 up from 21.4 in 2003.
Data therefore indicates that England is not the only British province that has an increasing crime rate. Both the assault rate in Northern Ireland and the sexual crime rates have increased despite the gun control measures. Once again if gun control decreases crime then Northern Ireland’s crime rate should have lowered, but once again it appears to have increased.
Scotland
Available Statistics on Scotland do not date back to 1997 so I will work from UN data, which is in some instances incomplete.
Scotland has an assault rate of 1449.7 per 100,000 in 2010. This is up from 1,232 per 100,000 in 2003. Data on sexual crime in Scotland is incomplete. The available Scotish data shows an increase of rate of rape per 100,000 from 15.7 in 2003 to 17 in 2009.
Scotland’s assault rate is the highest among developed countries and the rate has been increasing despite gun regulations. The rate of other crimes have not increased or decreased as dramatically over the last several years. Scotland’s crime rate also increased. The United Kingdom passed their gun control laws in 1997, why is their crime rate increasing? Scotland has the third highest recorded assault rate in the world, behind Guyana and Grenada. If restrictive gun laws cause crime to decrease why is 1 out of every 100 people in Scotland assaulted each year?
Australia
In 1996 Australia banned assault weapons and bought back many firearms. Australia banned all automatic and semi-automatic firearms, and place strict licensing requirements and waiting periods on buying firearms.
Australia’s homicide rate has decreased from 1.8 in 1995 to 1 in 2010.
Australia has an assault rate of 323 per 100,000 a decrease from 799.5 per 100,000 in 2003. Although Australia’s rate is declining they still have a rate higher than the United States.
Interestingly Australia did have an increasing burglary and theft rate when the gun control measures were implemented. The introduction of gun control laws did not stop the increase of burglary and theft with in two years the theft rate had increased by 353 per 100,000. [vi] The rate has decreased since 2003.
Australia has seen a decrease in crime after they put more stringent gun laws on the books. The United Kingdom, however, has seen an increase in almost every crime. Gun control proponents hope that all countries will follow Australia’s pattern, but because Australia and the United Kingdom have seen different results, gun laws must not directly affect crime.
The United States
In 1994 the United States passed an assault weapons ban. The ban expired in 2004. How did this ban effect the crime rate in the United States? If banning assault weapons had a positive impact on our nation we should see a dramatic reduction in crime the year after the ban was implemented and an uptick in crime the year that the ban expired.
In 1992 the homicide rate was 9.3 per 100,000 three years later the homicide rate had decreased to 8.2 in the next ten years the homicide rate decreased to 5.7 (the last year of the assault weapons ban.) After the ban expired the rate has continued to decrease. In 2010 the rate was 4.8 homicides per 100,000 people.
The United States had an assault rate of 250.9 per 100,000 in 2010 a decrease from 294.9 per 100,000 in 2003. The rate decreased to 288 in 2004 when the assault weapons ban expired. The assault rate did increase to 290 the next year, but overall the assault rate decreased in the past 20 years. The assault rate in the United States in 2010 was 250.
The rate of rape per 100,000 has decreased from 32.2 in 2003 to 27.3 to 2010 in the United States. The rate of rape continued to decrease despite the expiration of the assault weapons ban.
Overall the assault weapons ban seems to have had no affect on the crime rates in the United States. The crime rate continued to decrease with and without the ban. Also the crime rate with “assault weapons” really did not change with and without the ban. The FBI does not track crimes with assault weapons but it is safe to assume most if not all “assault weapons” fall within the rifle category. Only 392 homicides were committed with rifles in the United States in 2003[vii] versus 323 in 2011.[viii] Crime rate continued to decrease when the “assault weapons ban” was enacted, and after the ban expired the crime continued to decrease, with no visible uptick.
Conclusion
It appears many factors influence crime rates and from the statistics it appears gun laws have little if any influence. In fact it appears that stricter gun laws may have a reverse effect of causing crime rates to increase as in the United Kingdom. Gun Control measures within the United State have in the past really failed to do anything in relation to crime within our country.
In England we see that the rate of homicides per 100,000 only decreased by .3 from the time the gun laws past until the most recent data (2009). People did not stop committing crimes, on the contrary violent crime tripled in England between 1997, when the gun laws were introduced, and to 2011 when the most recent British data is available.
The idea that stricter gun laws may increase crime seems counter intuitive. Would not taking away the weapon most used in crime cause crime to decrease? It seems that when taking away guns from civilians the criminals realize that the law-abiding populace is no longer armed. Unarmed civilians will no longer be able to defend themselves from criminals. People have the capacity to do evil and they seem to do it regardless of what tools they have available. England’s rates seem to indicate that taking away the tools for violence does not take away the capacity for violence. Guns do not cause the criminal to commit the crime. The criminal has the ability to commit the crime with or without the gun. A criminal may use the gun as a tool, but the gun is not the perpetrator of the crime, the human is. Taking away the gun only takes away a tool to be used and the defense mechanism for the citizens. Taking away guns takes away the criminal’s fear that they will attack a civilian who is armed with lethal force.
Since Australia’s gun laws seem to have caused crime to decrease, the gun control proponents argue that gun laws can lower crime. It is true that Australia’s gun crime has lowered, but the fact that British crime has increased indicates that guns are not the only factor. When the United Kingdom past their gun laws the crime rate, on all but homicides, began to climb. If gun laws were really effective in reducing crime both England and Australia’s crime should show a decrease. Since they do not gun control must not necessarily cause a decrease in crime, some other factors must be operating than the availability of firearms.
Several of factors that affect crime may include culture, population density, education, or many other underlying factors. Population density appears to be a major factor within the United States. Over half of the homicides inside the United States occur in cities larger than 100,000. Interestingly population density is not the only factor. The United Kingdom has a higher population density than the United States, but has a lower homicide rate. Whatever the other factors, firearms do not affect crime rates as much as many people believe.
Before going and restricting access to gun we should carefully consider the statistics. Failing to carefully examine the facts can lead to doing something based solely upon emotion. Ban “assault” weapons now, ban handguns next. Gun control may reduce gun violence it but it does not seem to reduce overall violence. If we really wish to decrease violence we should dig deeper.
[i] All stats unless otherwise noted come from http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime.html
[ii] http://www.npr.org/2012/12/21/167814684/australians-urge-u-s-to-look-at-their-gun-laws
[iii] Population of England and Wales was 56.1 million in 2011 and 52.4 million in 2001.http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/mro/news-release/census-shows-population-of-england-and-wales-is-over-56-million/censusengwalnr0712.html
[iv] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary
[v] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0111/hosb0111?view=Binary
[vi] To see more Australia’s crime rate see http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/previous%20series/other/41-60/centenary%20article%20-%20crime%20in%20twentieth%20century%20australia.html (Do not compare to UN statistics because the United Nation’s and Australia may count different crimes in their statistics.)
[vii] http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html
[viii] http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
This Report and Research was done by Amber D. used by permission.