Post by Woody Williams on Oct 28, 2005 14:38:34 GMT -5
PUBLICATION: National Post
DATE: 2005.10.28
EDITION: National
SECTION: Issues & Ideas
PAGE: A22
BYLINE: John R. Lott
SOURCE: National PostCANADA; ROBBERIES; MURDERS; CRIME; ONTARIO
ILLUSTRATION: Black & White Photo: Beretta 21 Bobcat Inox
NOTE: John R. Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute, is the author of More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against
Guns. jlott@aei.org
WORD COUNT: 753
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't blame American guns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Canada's murder rate rising 12% last year and this year's
high-profile rash of gang murders (six shootings just this week in
Toronto), politicians are looking for someone to blame. The bogeyman, as
usual, is America: On Monday night, during his dinner with Condoleezza
Rice, Prime Minister Paul Martin claimed Canada's gun crime problem was
being caused by weapons smuggled in from the United States.
But Paul Martin doesn't have the facts to back up the claim. Despite the
$2-billion committed to the Liberals' gun registry, the government does
not even know the number of guns seized from criminals, let alone where
those guns came from. Nor does Martin's government have any evidence
that gun smuggling has recently gotten worse. (In Toronto, which keeps
some data on guns, Paul Culver, a senior Crown Attorney, claims U.S.
guns are a "small part" of his city's problem.)
Mr. Martin's larger mistake is that -- like most politicians in Canada
-- he puts his faith in gun control as a means to fight crime, and
clearly believes the United States should too. But as Canada's
experience with its registry -- which hasn't solved any crimes -- shows,
gun control isn't the answer. Getting law-abiding citizens to disarm or
register their weapons is easy. The hard part is taking guns away from
criminals. Toronto's gangs have no trouble getting the illegal drugs
they sell. Since they are already involved in a criminal trade, why
should we expect that the law would keep them from acquiring guns to
defend their turf?
The experiences of the U.K. and Australia, two island nations whose
borders are much easier to control and monitor, should also give
Canadian gun controllers pause. The British government banned handguns
in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly
doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.
Since 1996, serious violent crime has soared by 69%: Robbery is up by
45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by
50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the robbery
rate shot back up, almost back to 1993 levels. The crooks still had
guns, but not their victims.
The immediate effect of Australia's 1996 gun-control regulations was
similar. Crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law
was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than in 1995. The same comparisons for
armed robbery rates showed an increase of 74%.
Outside of Canada and Europe, skepticism of gun-control laws'
effectiveness is widespread. It was the major reason why Sunday's
referendum to ban guns in Brazil was defeated by an almost two-to-one
vote. Despite progressively stricter gun-control laws in that country,
murder rates rose every year from 1992 to 2002. As in the U.K., the
regulations simply tilted the balance of power in favour of criminals.
During the 1990s, just as Britain, Australia and Brazil were regulating
guns, the United States was going in the opposite direction.
Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have so-called "right-to-carry laws,"
which let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a
criminal background check and pay a fee. Only half the states require
any training, usually around three to five hours' worth. Yet murder has
fallen faster in these states than the national average. Overall, the
states in the United States with the fastest growth rates in gun
ownership during the 1990s have experienced the biggest drops in violent
crime.
It isn't guns that primarily drive violence crime, but drugs (and the
war fought against drugs). Few Canadians appreciate that over 70% of
American murders take place in just 3.5% of counties -- these being the
inner-city areas where drug dealers are concentrated. Drug gangs can't
simply call up the police when another gang encroaches on their turf, so
they end up essentially setting up their own armies. It's foolish to
blame the United States for the predictable actions of profit-seeking
gangsters: Just as U.S. gangs will always find some way to smuggle drugs
in from Latin America, Canadian gangs will find a way to smuggle in
weapons to defend their turf.
In other words, if you want to get rid of the murders, stop focusing on
the guns and get rid of the gangs.
DATE: 2005.10.28
EDITION: National
SECTION: Issues & Ideas
PAGE: A22
BYLINE: John R. Lott
SOURCE: National PostCANADA; ROBBERIES; MURDERS; CRIME; ONTARIO
ILLUSTRATION: Black & White Photo: Beretta 21 Bobcat Inox
NOTE: John R. Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute, is the author of More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against
Guns. jlott@aei.org
WORD COUNT: 753
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't blame American guns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Canada's murder rate rising 12% last year and this year's
high-profile rash of gang murders (six shootings just this week in
Toronto), politicians are looking for someone to blame. The bogeyman, as
usual, is America: On Monday night, during his dinner with Condoleezza
Rice, Prime Minister Paul Martin claimed Canada's gun crime problem was
being caused by weapons smuggled in from the United States.
But Paul Martin doesn't have the facts to back up the claim. Despite the
$2-billion committed to the Liberals' gun registry, the government does
not even know the number of guns seized from criminals, let alone where
those guns came from. Nor does Martin's government have any evidence
that gun smuggling has recently gotten worse. (In Toronto, which keeps
some data on guns, Paul Culver, a senior Crown Attorney, claims U.S.
guns are a "small part" of his city's problem.)
Mr. Martin's larger mistake is that -- like most politicians in Canada
-- he puts his faith in gun control as a means to fight crime, and
clearly believes the United States should too. But as Canada's
experience with its registry -- which hasn't solved any crimes -- shows,
gun control isn't the answer. Getting law-abiding citizens to disarm or
register their weapons is easy. The hard part is taking guns away from
criminals. Toronto's gangs have no trouble getting the illegal drugs
they sell. Since they are already involved in a criminal trade, why
should we expect that the law would keep them from acquiring guns to
defend their turf?
The experiences of the U.K. and Australia, two island nations whose
borders are much easier to control and monitor, should also give
Canadian gun controllers pause. The British government banned handguns
in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly
doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.
Since 1996, serious violent crime has soared by 69%: Robbery is up by
45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by
50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the robbery
rate shot back up, almost back to 1993 levels. The crooks still had
guns, but not their victims.
The immediate effect of Australia's 1996 gun-control regulations was
similar. Crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law
was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than in 1995. The same comparisons for
armed robbery rates showed an increase of 74%.
Outside of Canada and Europe, skepticism of gun-control laws'
effectiveness is widespread. It was the major reason why Sunday's
referendum to ban guns in Brazil was defeated by an almost two-to-one
vote. Despite progressively stricter gun-control laws in that country,
murder rates rose every year from 1992 to 2002. As in the U.K., the
regulations simply tilted the balance of power in favour of criminals.
During the 1990s, just as Britain, Australia and Brazil were regulating
guns, the United States was going in the opposite direction.
Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have so-called "right-to-carry laws,"
which let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a
criminal background check and pay a fee. Only half the states require
any training, usually around three to five hours' worth. Yet murder has
fallen faster in these states than the national average. Overall, the
states in the United States with the fastest growth rates in gun
ownership during the 1990s have experienced the biggest drops in violent
crime.
It isn't guns that primarily drive violence crime, but drugs (and the
war fought against drugs). Few Canadians appreciate that over 70% of
American murders take place in just 3.5% of counties -- these being the
inner-city areas where drug dealers are concentrated. Drug gangs can't
simply call up the police when another gang encroaches on their turf, so
they end up essentially setting up their own armies. It's foolish to
blame the United States for the predictable actions of profit-seeking
gangsters: Just as U.S. gangs will always find some way to smuggle drugs
in from Latin America, Canadian gangs will find a way to smuggle in
weapons to defend their turf.
In other words, if you want to get rid of the murders, stop focusing on
the guns and get rid of the gangs.
