Comments

Posts

Misleading Data About Gun Control on Japanese TV

A FTV news/entertainment program asks a few foreigners in Japan what they think about gun control laws and the latest mass shooting in America:

One American says there is practically no restrictions on firearm ownership in the United States. In contrast to America, FTV presents the example of Australia, where the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre led to tighter gun control laws in that country. The graph of “deaths from firearms crimes” seems to show that there has been a huge drop since new restrictions were put in place.

However, a look at the real statistics shows that FTV’s graph is terribly misleading:

real statistics about australian gun crime

As you can see, the FTV report did not report that the vast majority of these “crime” deaths were actually suicides, and the large drop in gun deaths also has a lot to do with a drop in suicides by firearms. The drop in firearms suicides seems to be part of a general trend that began several years before 1996.

While there is a case to be made that Australian gun control laws have caused the reduction of deaths, the correlation has not been conclusively proven. It should also be noted that there has not been much of a significant drop in the rate of assault, armed robbery, or homicide.

It’s a definite possibility that new gun control laws probably did have an effect on reducing gun crime in Australia, but when reporting on such an issue, it is very important not to draw conclusions without proper evidence to back them up.

—

Akihabara News – Gadgetry from Japan (Subscribe)
Dannychoo.com – Your portal to Japan (Subscribe)

15 comments - What do you think? Posted by James - January 18, 2011 at 8:55 am

Categories: Politics Tags:

Level3

Without data on factors such as the economy, unemployment, crime in general, etc. it’s almost impossible to make a judgment. But that never stops gun control activists.

A bit of a shot in the dark but the only category that might NOT be affected by various other factors such as general crime rates, economics etc. would be the “unintentional” category. The gun accident rate probably is not related to anything but the number of people with guns (unless some sort of gun safety training requirement has been put in place, or police investigation techniques have become better at proving that some “accidents” aren’t really accidents)

and that number has basically not changed significantly since 1982.

Anyway, it’s a tricky debate. A running theory in the USA is that a lot of these mass shootings are done in “gun free zones” such as schools, (and ironically, military bases)
Some stats seem to show that gun crime rates go down in areas where people have the freedom to actually carry firearms, as opposed to places with strict laws, such that the only people carrying guns are criminals. These areas of strict gun control include the most famous centers of crime such as Los Angeles, Washington DC, Chicago, and New York City, so maybe they have a point.

The theory being that criminals with guns looking for prey gravitate to places where they can be sure average citizens won’t have guns, where they can be sure that the law has made the citizens defenseless.
Since there are 250,000,000 guns in the USA, the genie is out of the bottle. (though still amazing that there are so few gun deaths compared to automobile deaths or such) Gun control laws only control the flow of guns to the law-abiding, by definition.

http://tepido.org/ LB

Gun control laws only control the flow of guns to the law-abiding, by definition.

True enough. Still, I have always thought that one of the big problems with gun laws in the States (at least the States I lived in long enough to learn the laws) was that access to guns is controlled by age or some other requirement, access to bullets often was not.

Example: in North Carolina (if I am recalling the law of the late-80s period correctly) a 14 year-old could get a black-powder muzzle-loader for hunting, a 16-year-old could have a shotgun, an 18-year-old could have a rifle (including semi-auto) and a 21-year-old could get a pistol.

But anyone could walk into a K-mart and pick up a “Bucket O’ Bullets” (that was the actual brand name on the lid of the 5 lb. plastic tub) and pay for it at the checkout. They didn’t even have the bullets behind the counter – they were just sitting on an open shelf next to slings and scopes on one side and compound bows on the other. No one checked your age or anything else.

Now exactly how stupid is that? Control access to guns, but the little shiny things that make the guns work? Buy all you want!

Fat Tony

“Gun control laws only control the flow of guns to the law-abiding, by definition.”

Well no, not those that act to decrease the overall supply. Even if you are a criminal you can’t get your hands on a gun if they simply aren’t there.

“Some stats seem to show that gun crime rates go down in areas where people have the freedom to actually carry firearms, as opposed to places with strict laws, such that the only people carrying guns are criminals.”

That evidence is extraordinarily inconclusive.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html

DonM

Guns are 14th century technology. Unless you return to pre-14th century technology, you can not prevent people from having guns.

DonM

Pretty smart, considering that you need both weapon and ammunition to make the loud noise. You obviously don’t grasp the difference between “AND” and “OR”. A little boolean algebra would do you good.

You can stop bad people from having a functioning weapon by denying them weapons, OR by restricting cartridges. If you manage one, doing both buys you nothing.

Since weapons are bulky and expensive compared to a cartridge, it may be reasonable to think it easier to attempt to restrict them. Since cartridges are small, inexpensive, and much easier to smuggle, restricting them is much more difficult, and restricting them buys you nothing if your weapon restriction program works. If your weapon restriction program doesn’t work, a cartridge restriction program would work even less.
Tom

Ammunition is federally regulated. 18 for rifle ammunition and 21 for handgun ammunition.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-r-0217.htm
http://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/psn/documents/guncard.pdf

ryuugakusei

I’d like to see statistics reported as deaths/gun rather than the usual deaths/100,000 persons or total gun related deaths. Especially when broken down by gun type (handguns, rifles, assault weapons,) I think it would be a much better comparison especially across countries. I’d expect Canada to have a very low death/gun ratio but some of the European powers would have higher ones. Sadly the US’s ratio would probably be worst still, but anyways.

vonskippy

Well we have 4 handguns, 2 rifles, and 2 shotguns in our house, and the gun/human death ratio is 8-to-0, so I’d have to say guns really aren’t that dangerous.

And I’m not even a born here citizen, I married my way into the States.

As it’s been said time and time again – guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

Remove the guns and angry/crazy people will find another type of weapon.

RMilner

I don’t see how it is possible to reduce gun crime by reducing the availability of guns without having the unfortunate side effect of reducing gun suicides.
Ryan

The six year period following 1996 in homicides shows a 1/3 to a 1/2 drop compared to any other 5 year period previous. I guess statistics as well as your article can be misleading.
Tony D

As someone getting involved in the shooting community in Australia, this is all sorts of infuriating. Suicide rates with firearms went down but WENT UP with hangings, the times firearms were used in suicides were mostly in the bush which was suffering from drought etc. Of course nobody wants to talk about the real causes behind these things, it’s much easier just to bash guns as evil.

Not to mention farmers (a high-risk category for suicides) still have access to firearms easily anyway (“primary producer” is a genuine reason for owning a firearm), and they have access to ones that are restricted and unavailable sports shooters and hunters (eg semi-automatic rifles). So if they want to commit suicide, tough gun laws aren’t going to do a damn thing, because every farmer and his dog has a firearm anyway.

Illegal firearms, that is, unregistered firearms used by criminals in crimes (<2% of firearms used in crimes are/were legally registered), continue to be brought into the country by criminal groups via container ships and the like. If you know the right people and have cash in hand you can buy them far more easily than a legally registered firearm.

So, in summary, in Australia, criminals can still buy guns, farmers can still buy guns (and commit suicide with them) if they want to, and regular joes get treated like lepers for being involved with such an evil and monstrous thing as firearms. AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE etc.

Tony D

I’d just like to add that I’m not one of those “you’ll take my guns over my dead body!” people, I think proper regulation and licensing of firearms owners is absolutely essential. The best thing the 1996 firearms laws did was enforce safe storage of firearms (inside a safe with the action stored separately if possible, as well as ammunition). Safe storage and handling of firearms is definitely important.

But some of the firearms laws, like restricting certain types of weapons based on such absurd concepts as “it looks military” (no, really, some weapons are banned because they look too scary!!!) is just insane. But expecting sensible, rational decisions from politicians is a bit too much to ask for I suppose…

DonM

I am for proper regulation of firearms too. Every adult voter should be required to have at least one proper rifle and pistol, and to display it when they vote. Anyone unable to display their firearm would be denied the vote.

Proper rifles would be .30 Krag, .30/06, 7.62NATO or 5.56NATO. Ok, we can permit .303 British too, just because we are nice.

Proper pistols would be .45ACP, 9mmParabellum, .38Special, .357Magnum, 10mm, .41 Magnum, .44 Special, .44Magnum, or .45 Colt

No felons or madmen permitted to vote, though they can run for office.

All voting locations must be adjacent to a range, and at least one round out of 2 attempts must hit the X ring before permitted to vote.

http://tepido.org/ LB

5.56NATO

Ah yes, the .223 long. Very accurate, even at 500 yards.

Also very small and light and traveling very fast. All that BS about the round tumbling internally after impact is just that – BS. You create a 5.56mm entrance wound, and a 5.57mm exit wound on the other side, unless you get lucky and hit bone. Completely useless, IMHO. Nothing smaller than a 7.62/.30 cal is worth having unless you only shoot at paper targets and small rodents.

For home defense the single best weapon one can have is a 12 gauge pump. The mere sound of it being racked stops most folks cold, it will clear a room quickly, can be fired at a wall or door with devastating results for the person directly on the other side and yet will not send a round three rooms down to kill some innocent small child (possibly yours) sleeping in their bed.

For criminals and other vermin further away, and where collateral damage is not a primary concern, I would strongly recommend the Mk. 19.

richard green

Speaking as an Australian, I can say the good thing about the gun laws is that they have led to a huge improvement in gun safety. There is a compulsory safety exam when applying for a license, better mental health and criminal record checks, compulsory storage in metal safes (before you could legally store a gun anywhere in your house). Membership of a recognised shooting club is enforced, and you must attend competition a set number of times a year. Club members with poor safety habits are forced to improve them or expelled.

Thefts of firearms by criminals from homes have been reduced, although illegal importation of guns and targeting of wholesalers and security companies in organised robberies has anecdotally increased. Generally there is a more serious attitude, as is reflected in the accidental shooting figures (the spike in 2000 is a bit of a mystery but may have to do with shooters who had surrendered semi-autos re-equipping with unfamiliar new firearms) there is a lot of resentment of the manner in which reform was implemented, and the amount of money wasted, but overall most gun owners have few problems with the law.

Misleading Data About Gun Control on Japanese TV

Recent Comments

Further Reading

Bikini Atoll: Lessons For Fukushima?

Complaints From Loony Parents Cancel Event: Okinawan Children Not Allowed to Play With “Radioactive” Aomori Snow

Remembering the International Media’s Post-Fukushima Hysteria: Radiation Scare Stories Ignored Real Victims of 3/11

A Look Inside Osaka Prison

Dead Shark Found in Yoyogi Park

Japanese Fart Battle Scroll

Dinosaurs Wear Traditional Japanese Clothing

Canada Rejects Refugee Application From Japanese Who Feared Radiation

Ishinomaki: Then & Now

Radioactive Seafood? Miyagi Fishing Industry Works to Prove Safety of Their Fish

Categories

Archives

Subscribe

Japan Blogs

Korea Blogs

Linkroll

Other Asia Blogs