Philip Alpers, an adjunct associate professor at the Sydney School of Public Health, argues that the data shows that the impact of the gun legislation on deaths has been significant. That is the case true even if you take into account other possible explanations and pre-existing declines in suicide and homicide rates. “The result of that was the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia statistically reduced by more than 50%, and in the past 22 years has shown no sign of creeping up again,” he says.
Suicide was a big part of that drop: up to 80% of gun suicides no longer happened. “Suicide went down and surprised the hell out of us,” Alpers says. “Even more so, we were delighted to discover that the displacement of lethal methods did not occur. In other words, there is no evidence that those intending to commit suicide or homicide simply moved on to another weapon.”
It wasn’t just suicides. The rate of gun homicides in Australia was also slashed by more than half following the ban. And furthermore, while critics in the US often argue that murderers would just find another way to kill their victims, that didn’t happen in Australia. Instead, non-gun homicides remained roughly the same – meaning a drop in murders overall. “Murderers simply do not choose another weapon,” Alpers says.
“Think of two immature, angry, impulsive and intoxicated young men in the UK who come out of a pub and get into an argument,” Swanson says. “Someone’s going to get a black eye or bloody nose. But in our country [the US],” he says, “it’s statistically more likely one of those men will have a hand gun, and you’re going to get a dead body.”
That difference boils down to what experts refer to as the ‘weapons instrumentality effect’: the fact that the weapon used has an effect on the outcome, says Robert Spitzer, a political science professor at the State University of New York College at Cortland. “There’s no weapon more efficient at killing people than a gun.”
That and the fact the promoting violence as a legitimate means to solve problems - threatening to shoot burglars, FFS - is to the rest of the word and obvious and objectively stupid idea with precisely zero redeeming features.
Whether guns actually help people stay safe and defend themselves is a controversial subject. But the limited research available on this topic tends to indicate that guns have the opposite effect. A 1993 study of 1,860 homicides found that the presence of guns in a home significantly increases the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance, for example. A 2014 meta-study likewise found that access to firearms is associated with homicide and completed suicide attempts.
So while some gun owners may lose a sense of security if guns disappeared, “the data show that’s a false sense of security,” Miller says.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180417-what-would-happen-if-all-guns-disappeared
If all guns magically disappeared overnight, the US would still have one of the highest homicide rates in the developed world (our non firearm related homicide rate is equal to, or higher than most other nation's homicide rates )
ReplyDeleteI've recently watched a video arguing that our media tend to romanticize violence, which is shown as action-packed thrill where the ones with the better cause always win. Not all pieces of media, of course, but for an Apocalypse Now or a Spec Ops: The Line, how many Rambo 2+ or Call of Duty? He wasn't arguing against the Call of Duty (I would, given what the franchise has become in the last, what, 10 instalments?) but that maybe we should collectively put more effort into making and/or putting forward the former.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I love good action flicks, he may be on to something there.
Also, it's interesting to see the point about gun suicide and impulsive violence being backed by an actual example.
Ray Bernache true, but it would still drop massively.
ReplyDeleteElie Thorne what's more, there's a consistent narrative that police are useless and that justice requires you to go fill the nra coffers buying an arsenal.
ReplyDeleteAs I go on about in my Magnesia posts, I have my doubt as to how much of a role fiction plays in morality. Still, it can't be zero - and rebels against the system seem to be lionised more often than government agents doing their job (the Bond franchise being an especially notable but not unique exception).
ReplyDeleteMore damaging though, I think, is how it's been put about that violence is acceptable not only for obviously fictitious superheroes and larger-than-life action figures (these things are fun precisely because they're not real; no-one really wants that amount of collateral property damage even if they think that violence is acceptable), but in real life - as though it's acceptable and even commendable to defend your TV set with an incredibly violent response. I watched a documentary the other day about two sets of incredibly stupid families who had an argument, with tiresomely predictable consequences given that both of them were armed. The idea that ordinary people are responsible enough to deal with efficient killing machines in their own homes is mad as clams.
Dogmatic Pyrrhonist by that mentality
ReplyDeletegiving a transfusion without stopping the bleeding is all medics need to do to someone with massive hemorrhaging.
The US has a low regard for human life problem (especially minorities, and the less affluent) !
Ignoring the problem while focusing on just one (of the more violent, but less deadly) symptoms (never mind that even then, most are ignored because the victims are minorities, and/or poor) is almost useless in the long run!
More people die every year from lack of mental/medical care access, from poverty, than from firearms.
Firearm deaths are more sudden violence, but in the end, account for a small fraction of the preventable deaths.
We need to talk about gun violence, but in the end, until we address the lack of regard for human life, making all guns disappear (impossible) will have an almost negligible impact on preventable deaths.
Ray Bernache where did I say it's the only problem? Yes, they need to fix access to health care, and disregard for human life, and systemic racism. That doesn't preclude them from also doing something about firearms.
ReplyDeleteWell I suppose guns could be a cause, symptom, or enabler of violence in general. They are likely all three to some extent.
ReplyDeleteIf they are largely the cause of violence, then removing them should (eventually) reduce all violent crimes and bestow an increased value in human life. This view is founded on the idea that giving someone a gun is implicitly teaching them that violence is acceptable and life has little value. This is my intuitive view, but it doesn't seem to be well-supported by the above article given that violence in countries with different gun ownership is apparently not all that different. There is some evidence for it, but it's rather weak.
If guns are largely a symptom of violence, then removing them will not really help by itself, since people will still become violent but just use other methods. This view posits, not unreasonably, that people's mindsets must be changed - at which point they might relinquish their guns anyway, or at least be a lot safer than under their current mindsets if they chose to keep them. Given the extreme gun culture and ownership in the US, this is an understandable viewpoint but not (at least according to the above article) very well supported by the evidence : actually removing guns generally doesn't cause new forms of violence.
What I read from the article is that there's much stronger evidence that guns are only an enabler of violence, rather than a symptom or a cause. People are violent anyway, either due to their nature, cultural upbringing, or a combination of both. This means guns just let them commit violence more easily and do greater damage with less effort. In this case, removing guns is extremely sensible. It won't help with the other social issues, but that is not the topic of discussion : it will, in this view, greatly reduce the amount of gun violence without causing any more, so it makes no sense not to remove them. The major caveat to this is that the US has, in some quarters, an outright obsessive love of guns, and removing them without first tackling this would be potentially dangerous.
Rhys Taylor I mostly agree with your last comment.
ReplyDeleteI'm still convinced focusing on taking away firearms from the vast majority who never have, nor will commit crimes to stop one symptom is at best misguided!