Research archive

The United Nations Worldwide Firearms Survey

by SSAA Research Team
Australian Shooters Journal
October 1997

In the September Special Edition of the ASJ we revealed the true nature of what is happening within the United Nations (UN) concerning worldwide firearms legislation. (Extra copies of the Special Edition Insert are available from SSAA National Office.)

There are currently a number of critical activities under way that will affect legitimate firearm owners around the globe.

They include the progression of the "United Nations International Study on Firearm Regulation", meetings of the "Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms" and the "UN Expert Group" currently being held, and the proposed "Universal Declaration on Principles of Firearms" to be presented to the UN General Assembly in late 1998.

This report relates to the UN International Study on Firearm Regulation, hereafter referred to as the study.

The study is "designed to gather information on a number of topics within the general framework of 'civilian firearms'" (1) and "focuses on firearm regulation as it applies to civilians". (2) Its four main objectives are to:
1) Describe the status of firearms and firearm regulation in individual countries;

2) Describe the nature and extent of firearms smuggling and trafficking in countries, and measures taken to combat the problem;

3) Present basic firearm statistics, including those related to homicide and other crimes, suicide, and accidents; and,

4) Determine the feasibility of collecting and disseminating such information on a regular basis. (3)

In February, 1997, the UN "Expert Group" met to consider the Draft Executive Summary of the study. Mr Daryl Smeaton, Director of the Attorney-General's Department's Commonwealth Law Enforcement Board (see September ASJ Special Edition Insert, pp7-9) is Australia's representative on the UN Expert Group.

Once again, Australia has played a role in the proposed international regulation of firearms by supplying the UN Expert Group with background documentation for the study in the form of the Institute of Criminology's "Violent Deaths & Firearms in Australia: Data & Trends".

It is difficult to see this publication as anything but anti-firearm and it even quotes prominent gun-prohibitionists John Crook and Andrew Harding amongst its sources. (4) The document includes such oblique statements as "The greatest risk of firearm death for males is mostly due to their greater risk of committing suicide using firearms." (5)

Behind Closed Doors?
As a part of the Background to the Draft Executive Summary, it is noted that a "national consultant" was to be identified "who would assume responsibility for the completion of the survey questionnaire." (6) The SSAA would like to know the identity of Australia's national consultant and on what criteria he or she came to be appointed.

Many of the questions in the survey have a disturbing Australian flavour to them. The SSAA would like to know how much Australian information and input was used to formulate the questions. Furthermore, is a copy of Australia's response to the study available for inspection by the general public? If not, why not?

Questions in the Study
The study is very wide ranging in the nature of the questions asked and is made up of eight "Specific Parts". (7) They are:
Part 1) Firearm Regulation - General: prohibitions on the civilian ownership of long guns and handguns; the import, export and movement of firearms; legislative action and bi-lateral agreements; licensing and registration requirements of both long guns and handguns;

Part 2) Firearm Regulation - Ownership: legally permitted reasons for owning or using a firearm; prohibitions against private ownership as related to citizenship, age, criminal record, mental illness and domestic violence; identification of firearm owners; the number of civilian firearm owners in the nation; the number of households with a firearm;

Part 3) Firearm Regulation - General Possession and Use: permission for others to use; firearm and ammunition safe storage regulations; internal transport regulations; regulations as related to self-defence and personal carriage of firearms; systems for identifying firearms owned by civilians; the numbers and types of civilian owned firearms; record keeping;

Part 4) Firearm Manufacturing and Trade: the manufacture of firearms and ammunition;

Part 5) Firearm Smuggling and Other Illegal Dealings: legal and illegal dealings in firearms; theft, loss and recovery of firearms;

Part 6) Demographic, Vital and Accident Statistics: homicide, suicide and accidental deaths, both overall and by firearm;

Part 7) Crime Statistics: how many deaths were by handgun; how many deaths were police officers; the domestic or family relationships of those killed; thefts and robberies by firearm; wounds by firearm in a criminal act; the number of sexual assaults where a firearm was used;

Part 8) Policy and Public Education Initiatives: recent significant changes to legislation regarding civilian ownership, possession or use of firearms; the coordination of firearm regulations within the nation; the promotion of public awareness campaigns regarding firearms; recent incidents of firearm abuse which have raised public concern; etc.

This summary is by no means exhaustive, but covers most areas of the questionnaire. It is difficult to see how many of the questions relate to civil strife in third world African countries or to South American drug cartels. However, the questions do clearly relate to private firearm ownership in urban Sydney and Melbourne.

Some specific examples are worthy of further consideration. The request "Please provide what you consider to be the most accurate estimate of the number of civilian firearm owners in your country" has an additional "Guideline: A count of persons, not firearms is being sought". (8) This is one sample of a number of similar questions. Each country responding to the survey is being asked to provide figures on how many firearm-owning persons and households they have, how many firearms there are and how they can be most easily located. In the wrong hands or in the wrong political climate, such information could have disastrous consequences.

Another request reads: "Please describe any recent incidents which have served to raise public concern and to focus (attention) on the issue of firearm regulation". (9) An example of course is Australia's Port Arthur murders. This questioning seems to bear a direct relationship to strategies outlined in a 1996 BASIC document. It states that "The UN is attempting to counter such (pro-gun) groups, through efforts such as a...study of the...damage caused by civilian-owner firearms" (10) and "When such control measures are well defined and linked directly to specific problems, they tend to generate more support than sweeping measures. Later on, when the principle of controlling particular weapons or ammunition has been accepted, broader measures may be more easily implemented." (11)

Furthermore, BASIC says that "Focusing on particularly harmful or indiscriminate weapons can also help mobilise public outcry" (12) and "After getting the light weapons issue onto the international agenda, the next step is to create an environment that is supportive of control." (13) For 'control', read 'legislation'. The two are not the same, though they are spoken of by a few "experts" as though they are.

In countries such as Australia, a part of the disarmament strategy is to focus on the smaller areas of firearms misuse by a minority rather than the wider issues promoting genuine crime reduction. This survey is a case in point. Through such practice, and in concert with violent videos which only ever portray firearms as evil, firearms and their owners are promoted as being wholly bad for the community. This is an appalling injustice to the vast majority of firearm owners and does nothing to improve public safety.

Why the Wrong Figures?
In the "Summary of the International Study on Firearm Regulation" (14) are listed the overall and by-firearm statistics for homicide, suicide and firearm accident, by country. Some questions need to be raised in relation to these figures for Australia.

Annual figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics reveal the following:
1) The figure given in the study for Australia for the "Number of firearm homicides" is 96. This figure is for 1992 and is the highest since 1988. The figure for 1995, which the Attorney-General's Department would have easy access to, is 67, or 29 fewer firearms homicides than listed.

2) The figure given for the "Number of firearm suicides" is 420, the number for 1994. The figure for 1995, which the Federal Attorney-General's Department would have easy access to, is 388, or 32 fewer firearms suicides than listed.

3) The figure given for the "Number of accidents involving firearms" is 20. This is 1994's. The Federal Attorney-General's Department would have easy access to the 1995 total, which was 15, five fewer firearms accidents than listed.

4) The "Aggregate firearm death rate per 100,000" (15) as based upon the total firearm deaths of 536 is listed as 3.05. The rate based upon the 1995 total firearm deaths of 470 would be 2.60. Clearly this is a significant difference. Overall, it is 66 fewer firearms deaths than listed by the Australian Government figures as supplied for the study.

5) Perhaps the most serious flaw of all is the fact that on page 91 of the Summary the figure for the total number of homicides for 1992 is given as 416. There has never been a year in Australian history when there have been 416 homicides. The actual Australian Bureau of Statistics figure for total homicides for 1992 is 319. This is 97 fewer than claimed.

When accurately calculated, this makes a rate per 100,000 of 1.8, not 2.4 as calculated in the study. Is this just a misprint, a careless mistake, or is it something else? How can the Australian Government make such an incredible error in its information supplied to a UN international study?

It must be asked why the figures as quoted in the report have been used at all, especially in relation to the 1992 homicide figure. As noted, at the time of completing the study, the Australian bureaucrats would have had access to the 1995 figures, if only preliminary and unconfirmed, as the annual statistics for the previous year are usually released in October.

Are these figures designed to make things look worse than they really are? If not, what are the plans of the Australian Government to update and correct its figures to the UN study to provide a more accurate picture?

Conclusions of the Study
The study's conclusions at this stage are reported by one commentator as being incomplete, inconclusive and "not an objective investigation, but a shallow attempt to justify the whole effort and support UN gun control proposals." (16)

One specific conclusion from the Executive Summary is worthy of note: "It is generally accepted by the countries surveyed that illegal firearms, whether stolen, illegally imported, or manufactured, are utilised by criminals or organised criminal groups." (17) It appears that those conducting the study have officially concluded what ordinary people with common sense have known for years, that criminals neither buy nor register legal guns. This is precisely why gun registration is a futile crime prevention measure; criminals simply operate outside it.

Interestingly, the words "utilised by" in the above quotation have been changed to "sold to" in a later draft version of the study. (18) Why was this done? Is it a simple error or a deliberate attempt to alter the meaning of the original conclusion? The end result is still the same. Criminals are unlicensed and use illegal unregistered firearms.

Back to Australia
An injustice is being perpetrated against the people of Australia, now assisted by the UN. Many lives could have been saved if the same half a billion dollars' worth of resources applied to the destruction mostly of old rabbit rifles and shotguns had instead been properly directed towards some of the causes of violence and crime, not to lawfully owned firearms.

More Confiscations for the Future?
The new gun legislation includes the ability to further prohibit firearms by Regulation, without recourse to parliament. In the ACT, for example, under the new Firearms Act, the Attorney-General can determine by Regulation which other firearms are now to be prohibited (Part 1, Section 5). A directive can simply be issued to firearm owners to surrender the newly banned firearms (without compensation) or the police instructed to visit the owners and simply collect them - now, of course, using the register of firearms.

In continuing with the disarmament of the civilian population, the Federal Government is now going to fund the buying out of all stocks from gunshops and dealers prepared to sell up. This includes all non-prohibited firearms, spare parts and accessories - everything. If this is not a blatant effort to close down an industry, then what is?

What mandate has this government to buy out and close down legal businesses and what sort of ramifications are there for other non-politically correct activities in the future?

A recent report to the UN Secretary-General included as one of its recommendations: "All States should determine in their national laws and regulations which arms are permitted for civilian possession and under which conditions they can be used." (19)

The proposed UN Convention On Principles Of Firearms will be yet another convention to undermine the rights of average Australians and will further erode and sacrifice to a world governing body this country's sovereignty.

Gun prohibitionists and various governments and their departments have used inaccurate or outdated figures related to the firearms issue. It appears that now the UN has joined in as well. The SSAA, however, has embarked upon a genuine search for the truth regarding firearms abuse and genuinely seeks reforms and solutions that address the real issues and are fair, just and workable for all Australians.

Real criminals misusing guns ought to feel the full impact of the law. Meanwhile, legitimate firearm owners who respect the law and Australia's sovereignty should not be interfered with. They ought, however, to resist politically all efforts unjustly directed against them.

 

1. Report of the United Nations Expert Group Meeting On "Information Gathering and Analysis of Firearm Regulation", Vienna International Centre, Vienna, 10-14 February, 1997, p6.
2. Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Division - United Nations Office at Vienna, Austria, "United Nations Survey on Firearms Regulation - Guidelines and Questionnaire", 1996, p6.
3. Ibid, p1. Additional objectives of the study are listed in the September ASJ Special Edition insert, p4.
4. Mukherjee, S., Carcach, C., "Violent Deaths & Firearms in Australia: Data & Trends" Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, 1996, p10.
5. Ibid, p27.
6. Report of the United Nations Expert Group Meeting On "Information Gathering and Analysis of Firearm Regulation", 1997, Annex VI, Draft Executive Summary, para 6, p21.
7. Ibid, p2.
8. "United Nations Survey on Firearms Regulation - Guidelines and Questionnaire", 1996, p17.
9. Ibid, p35.
10. British American Security Information Council (BASIC) "Project On Light Weapons - Controlling Light Weapons Transfers: Working Towards Policy Options", San Diego, CA, 16 April, 1996, p8.
11. Ibid, p8.
12. Ibid, p8.
13. Ibid, pp14-15.
14. Economic and Social Council, Commission On Crime Prevention And Criminal Justice, "Criminal Justice Reform And Strengthening Of Legal Institutions - Measures To Regulate Firearms" Report To The Secretary-General, Vienna, March, 1997, E/CN.15/1997/4, Annex II, 'Summary of the International Study on Firearm Regulation', pp 23,79,91,94.
15. Note that the "Aggregate firearm death rate" is composed of homicides, suicides and accidents only. It does not include 'unknowns' or 'legal interventions' (police shootings).
16. Restricted document unavailable for publication at this time, p14.
17. Report of the United Nations Expert Group Meeting On "Information Gathering and Analysis of Firearm Regulation", 1997, Annex V, "Conclusions drawn from the Survey, as included in the Executive Summary", p18.
18. Economic and Social Council, Commission On Crime Prevention And Criminal Justice "Draft United Nations International Study On Firearm Regulation" Vienna, 25 April, 1997, E/CN.15/1997/CRP.6, p119.
19. Report of the Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms, New York, July, 1997, paragraph 80 (2), p26.

Home > Research archive > 1997 > The United Nations Worldwide Firearms Survey