The Fraser Institute 3 The Failed Experiment
Executive Summary
Widely televised firearm murders in many countries dur-
ing the 20 th Century have spurred politicians to intro-
duce restrictive gun laws.The politicians then promise
that the new restrictions will reduce criminal violence
and “create a safer society.”It is time to pause and ask if
gun laws actually do reduce criminal violence.
Gun laws must be demonstrated to cut violent crime
or gun control is no more than a hollow promise.What
makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief
that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns
and,more importantly,that criminal violence in general
may be reduced by limiting access to firearms.
In this study,I examine crime trends in Common-
wealth countries that have recently introduced firearm
regulations:i.e.,Great Britain,Australia,and Canada.
The widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations
is to examine trends in total violent crime,not just fire-
arms crime.Since firearms are only a small fraction of
criminal violence,the public would not be safer if the
new law could reduce firearm violence but had no effect
on total criminal violence.
The United States provides a valuable point of com-
parison for assessing crime rates because the criminal
justice system there differs so drastically from those in
Europe and the Commonwealth.Not only are criminal
penalties typically more severe in the United States,often
much more severe,but also conviction and incarceration
rates are usually much higher.Perhaps the most striking
difference is that qualified citizens in the United States
can carry concealed handguns for self-defence.During
the past few decades,more than 25 states in the United
States passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry
concealed handguns.In 2003,there are 35 states where
citizens can get such a permit.
The upshot is that violent crime rates,and homicide
rates in particular,have been falling in the United States.
The drop in the American crime rate is even more im-
pressive when compared with the rest of the world.In 18
of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office,
violent crime increased during the 1990s.This contrast
should provoke thinking people to wonder what hap-
pened in those countries where they introduced increas-
ingly restrictive firearm laws.
Britain
In the past 20 years,both Conservative and Labour gov-
ernments have introduced restrictive firearm laws;even
banning all handguns in 1997.Unfortunately,these
Draconian firearm regulations have totally failed.The
public is not any safer and may be less safe.Police sta-
tistics show that England and Wales are enduring a seri-
ous crime wave.In contrast to handgun-dense United
States,where the homicide rate has been falling for over
20 years,the homicide rate in handgun-banning England
and Wales has been growing.In the 1990s alone,the
homicide rate jumped 50%,going from 10 per million in
1990 to 15 per million in 2000.
Police statistics show that violent crime in general
has increased since the late 1980s and,in fact,since
1996 has been more serious than in the United States.
The firearm laws may even have increased criminal vio-
lence by disarming the general public.Despite Britain ’s
banning and confiscating all handguns,violent crime,
and firearm crime,continue to grow.
Australia
Following shocking killings in 1996,the Australian gov-
ernment made sweeping changes to the firearm legisla-
tion in 1997.Unfortunately,the recent firearm regula-
tions have not made the streets of Australia any safer.
The total homicide rate,after having remained basically
f lat from 1995 to 2001,has now begun climbing again.
The decline in homicide rate in the gun-permissive Unit-
ed States stands out against the trend in Australia.
The divergence between Australia and the United
States is even more apparent with violent crime.While
PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES,NUMBER 71
The Failed Experiment 4 The Fraser Institute
violent crime is decreasing in the United States,it is in-
creasing in Australia.Over the past six years,the over-
all rate of violent crime in Australia has continued to
increase.Robbery and armed robbery rates continue to
rise.Armed robbery has increased 166%nationwide.
The confiscation and destruction of legally owned fire-
arms cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million.
The costs of the police services bureaucracy,including
the hugely costly infrastructure of the gun registration
system,has increased by $200 million since 1997.And
for what?There has been no visible impact on violent
crime.It is impossible to justif y such a massive amount of
the taxpayers ’money for no decrease in crime.For that
kind of tax money,the police could have had more pa-
trol cars,shorter shifts,or maybe even better equipment.
Think of how many lives might have been saved.
Canada
In the 1990s,sweeping changes were made to the fire-
arms laws,first in 1991 and then again in 1995.Licensing
and registration are still being phased in.The contrast
between the criminal violence rates in the United States
and in Canada is dramatic.Over the past decade,the
rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in
the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted.
The Canadian experiment with firearm regulation is
moving to farce.The effort to register all firearms,which
was originally claimed to cost only $2 million,has now
been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 bil-
lion.The final costs are unknown but,if the costs of
enforcement are included,the total could easily reach $3
billion.Taxpayers would do well to ask for independent
cost-benefit studies on registration to see how much the
gun registry is already costing.
Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce vi-
olent crime in Australia,Canada,or Great Britain.The
policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure.
Criminal violence has not decreased.Instead,it contin-
ues to increase.Unfortunately,policy dictates that the
current directions will continue and,more importantly,
it will not be examined critically.
Only the United States has witnessed such a dramatic
drop in criminal violence over the past decade.Perhaps it
is time politicians in the Commonwealth reviewed their
traditional antipathy to lawfully owned firearms.
It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public.
No law,no matter how restrictive,can protect us from
people who decide to commit violent crimes.Maybe we
should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and
target shooters?
great website at....
http://www.sfu.ca./~mauserlazs
