SSAA member response to Elizabeth King of the Coalition for Gun Control
27 March 1998
Coalition for Gun Control (SA) conducted
a display in the Rundle Mall, Adelaide
Dear Elizabeth
My visit to your booth in the mall on the 27th of March has left me disappointed.
Although I do believe your coalition is genuinely interested in the welfare of our society, your “fact sheet” and news letter asks more questions than answers.
The handouts clearly suggest that stricter gun laws introduced in 1989 reduced the number of “gun deaths”, in following years.
What it does not mention is that homicides and suicides have fluctuated through the years, similarly to how road deaths vary from year to year.
Accurate recording of deaths commenced around 1910 at which time Australia’s murder rate was 2 per 100,000 citizens, WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT IT IS TODAY. (CHECK AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS). During this period, there have been notable highs and lows which coincide with social economic factors, it: the Great Depression had an impact on both the by-firearm homicides and suicides.
The 1989 drop which you attribute to tougher gun laws was in fact just a return to the 1987 rate. And what happened to the effectiveness of the tough gun laws in 91/92 when rates once again soared.
In fact A.B.S. figures show that over the last 18 years, firearm related deaths have decreased from 37% of all deaths to 20%. The overall homicide deaths, however, have increased. This trend commenced in 1979, well before tough gun laws were introduced. At the weapon substitution is occurring by perpetrators. As 85% of all homicides (check A.B.S) are not committed with a firearm, it is clear that homicide is the problem, not firearms.
The above FACTS remind us that to monitor a TREND and to have credibility, we cannot selectively observe short term fluctuations. Numbers must be viewed in light of overall trends.
The international scene also raised some interesting questions. If “more guns cause more deaths”, as is touted in your handout, why is it that East Germany, Egypt, Jamaica and Northern Ireland ( which have few or no legally owned firearms) have amongst the highest homicide rates in the world? Why, too, does Japan have the same homicide rate (2 per account, Switzerland and Israel and Australia, taking into account, Switzerland and Israel have a very high proliferation of legally owned firearms? Why has Japan (which totally prohibits handguns) not managed to reverse the great increase in felonies committed with handguns? (as per a Japanese government document produced in December 1994).
Why, too, has Papau New Guinea reversed a decision (by a vote of 80 to 2) to ban pistols and high powered firearms? The opposition leader, Bernard Narokobi was quoted as saying, “Unless there is a guarantee that the criminals will not bear arms, we have to be very, very careful. A blanket or general ban is a foolish law”.
One also has to ask why various forms of gun prohibition has not worked in America. In fact research shows, it only disarms potential victims, making them more vulnerable to attack, while doing nothing to disarm those with criminal intent. The response to this revelation has led to “Right to carry” self-defence firearm legislation in 32 American states. Crime rates have dropped in these states and there has been not one incident of an accidental shooting or an enrages shooting by a licensed firearm owner.
Your newsletter also goes to great lengths in detailing mass murders by firearm, nothing about the many mass murders committed by other methods, such as sharp instruments, poison, explosives, etc, etc.
Why?
Your literature suggests easy access to firearms is also a cause of more deaths by suicide”.
This an also be demonstrated as inaccurate. You only need to look at countries such as Israel (high proliferation of legal firearms), which has a suicide rate less than half that of Japan and one fifth that of East Germany (very few legally owned firearms). (THE ABOVE STATISTICS ARE SOURCED FROM THE “WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION”AND INTERPOL”).
As Professor Harding pointed out in his study “Firearms and Violence in Australian Life”, people who suicide using a firearm are serious in their intentions. If no firearm is available, they will find other means.
Obviously, firearms is one method of suiciding, How do we control other methods? Do we place nausea inducing additives into medication? Do we modify vehicle exhaust systems to make it harder for people to suicide through carbon monoxide poisoning? Do we ban razor blades in favour of electric shavers and are belts and ropes to be made of their own life or would we be better served if we put our energy and resources into the root cause, such as unemployment, breakdown of the family unit, unsuccessful relationships, not having a future to work towards or lack of funding for the mentally and physically ill?
In November 97, the Australian Institute of Criminology released a report, “Homicide in Australia 1989 96”, dealing with a range of aspects related to homicide. The report lists the concerns above as key factors to the cause of homicides and states: “the typical offender is not listed as being a firearm owner”.
Also in November 97, Dr Lucy Sullivan’s report “Rising Crime in Australia” was released. She lists as the key causes for the increase:
-
a failure of internal and external constraints to socially harmful behaviour.
-
the family is a prime source of socialisation in the values that provide internal constraints against crime.
-
nowhere in the key points is reference made to the presence of firearms being responsible for rising crime rates.
Dr Sullivan also notes that the 1980’s marked the saturation of cinema and television screens with images and role models of violence and with a constant diet of depersonalisation of its victims. She concludes that the last 30 years has shown as extreme decline in respect for the personal wellbeing and property concerns of others.
The suggestion that banning legal firearms will make people stop hurting other people or themselves is nonsense and will do nothing to stop homicides.
Even our Prime Minister publicly stated that these now, tougher laws and the “buy back scheme” will not achieve the objective of reducing crime rates. Mr Daryl Smeaton of the Attorney General’s Department now tells us that tighter so-called uniform gun laws will have no bearing on illegal activity. (“This proposal will never prevent criminals from possessing firearms and we never said it would”).
The Attorney General, Daryl Williams, advised the Australian public that there are 3.5 million prohibited firearms in Australia. Of these, 640,000 were surrendered or about 18%. By your own figures, the buy-back cost Australian tax payers over $400 million. This is hardly the success that the Government keeps claiming, when by their own admission, it will not diminish any kind of death rate.
You must then ask yourself, if the laws were not meant to prevent firearm related deaths, then what were they meant to do and could this money have been put to better use?
The Prime Minister was certainly determined to have his way and be seen as a strong leader riding on the crest of frenzied community support. This perceived support was whipped up by a media who’s very existence depends on social conflict.
However, the squandering of hundreds of millions of dollars on largely irrelevant legislation will slowly become apparent to the Australian public. Legitimate firearm owners innocent of any wring doing, have been made scape goats for a government with no answers. I implore you to remain impartial and objective in your quest for a sager community. Do not be misled by ideological beliefs that have been discredited time and time again.
Yours faithfully
(signed)
SSAA member
Hectorville S.A.
5073
Copy held SSAA National
Home > Research archive > 1998 > SSAA member response to Elizabeth King of the Coalition for Gun Control