Gun Control

This is another issue that tends leads to a polarization between the right and the left. An email is going around on the subject, which I will quote in part:

• In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
• China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
• Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Those are some dramatic statistics. Certainly, the confiscation of firearms by a dictatorship strengthens the dictatorship, and makes it easier to dispatch any opposition. But it is unlikely that something like that would or could happen in the United States.

The email proceeds to quote some ambiguous and misleading data about the recent 'buy back' gun control program in Australia. Snopes.com provides data that clarifies or refutes the statements in the email:

"It has now been more than 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:..."

Snopes states that the program was put in place in 1997. People who needed guns for professional or valid personal safety reasons were permitted to keep theirs, except for semi-automatic or pump action weapons.

"Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent."

According to Snopes, the Australia-wide percentage of homicides committed with firearms is now lower than it was before the gun buy-back program, and lower than it has been at any point during the past ten years. The absolute number of firearm homicides in Australia in 1998-99 was the lowest in the past ten years.

"Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!"

But, Snopes says, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the proportion of armed robberies involving firearms has actually declined over the last several years: 1995 -27.8%, 1996 - 25.3%, 1997 - 24.1%, 1998 - 17.6%, 1999 - 15.2%, 2000 - 14.0%

"In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)"

Snopes comments that Victoria, a state with a population of over four-and-a-half million people in 1997, experienced 7 firearm-related homicides in 1996 and 19 firearm-related homicides in 1997 (an increase of 171%, not 300%). An additional twelve homicides amongst a population of 4.5 million is not statistically significant, nor does this single-year statistic adequately reflect long-term trends.

Although I have never owned a gun, I have strongly opposed any law that would prohibit personal ownership of a firearm. I was even a member of the NRA for a few years. I believe that individuals should be allowed to own firearms for the purpose of hunting, target practice, or personal protection. It appears that the states that allow persons to carry concealed handguns have, in fact seen reductions in armed robbery.

But I see no need for private ownership of automatic or rapid fire assault weapons. These are the tools of war and police action. A private individual has no more need for them than he has for a Sherman tank or an atomic bomb. And I see nothing wrong with the use of background checks to deter people with mental problems or criminal records from purchasing guns. So I think there is a middle ground on the regulation of firearms ownership.

Let's face it, outlawing private ownership of guns will not solve the problem of gun-related crime. The bad guys are going to get their firearms anyway, by deception and theft. The good guys should be allowed to possess firearms too. A person who complies with reasonable laws related to the purchase of his firearm will likely comply with the laws regarding its use.