APPENDIX 18
Further supplementary note by the Gun
Control Network
FIREARMS OWNERSHIP AND FIREARMS CRIME: THE
EVIDENCE FOR THE REGULATORY POSITION
The debate over firearms control in the United
Kingdom has been beset by the absence of serious, systematic or
sophisticated studies conducted in this country as to the relationship
between firearms ownership and the prevalence of different forms
of firearms crime or of other violence (including, for example,
self-injury and suicide) resulting from the use of firearms. Our
knowledge as to the impacts of firearms ownership in Britain is
also bedevilled by the absence of any national register of firearms
or of firearms owners, and by the devolution of responsibility
for firearms certification to 47 different police forces in England
and Wales and a further six forces in Scotland, each of them making
use (as the enquiry by Lord Cullen in 1996 into the Dunblane massacre
revealed) of quite different practices in respect of firearms
registration (without access to any one computerised data bank
or agreed system of firearms identification). Given the absence
of sophisticated domestic research studies, supporters of the
recent moves towards tighter regulation of firearms, and, in particular,
the banning of handguns under the Firearms Amendment Act of 1997,
have been confronted by angry voices from the shooting fraternity
of Britain, claiming that such moves towards enhanced regulation
of firearms are "irrational", "emotional"
and without any basis in social scientific evidence (or in what
the shooting lobby likes to call "the facts"). We rehearse
here the evidence that has been presented in five different studies,
primarily conducted in North America, which clearly lend support
to the regulatory arguments of the Gun Control Network, and of
other bodies representing the majority opinion in the United Kingdom,
as to the dangers that are presented for civil society by the
widespread prevalence of guns in private hands.
1. FRANKLYN ZIMRING
AND GORDON
HAWKINS CRIME
IS NOT
THE PROBLEM:
LETHAL VIOLENCE
IN AMERICA
(1997)
In what has been described as "the most
important book about guns and violence in America in years",
Professors Zimring and Hawkins advance the argument that crime-rates
and homicide-rates are independent phenomena, and that the rates
of homicide and other violence (like robbery) are best understood
as an effect of the general availability of the instruments of
violence in private hands (ie not as a measure of levels of "criminality"
in the population). The comparison between the United States and
Britain is the most dramatic example of this argument. Analysis
of official rates of crime in New York City and London in 1990
shows that:
"London has more theft than New York City
and a rate of burglary 57 per cent higher. But the robbery rate
in London is less than one-fifth of the robbery rate in New York
City and the homicide rate in London is less than one-tenth the
New York City figure." (Zimring and Hawkins, 1997:6)
The prevalence of homicide in New York City
in 1990 was 8.9 per 100,000 citizens, compared with 2.7 per 100,000
in London. In the United States as a whole in 1993, the homicide
rate was about 9.9 per 100,000, with no other advanced industrial
society (according to the U.N.'s International Crime Survey of
1993) having a prevalence rate above 3 (Finland). In England and
Wales as a whole, the prevalence was 0.5 per 100,000 (van Dijk
and Mayhew 1993).
Zimring and Hawkins make the important observation
that 70 per cent of all homicides in the United States involve
the use of firearms, whether legally owned or illegally obtained.
They also argue that the levels of fear of crime that are encountered
in the United States, even in the context of continuing secular
decline in rates of property crime, are an expression of the "life-threatening"
character of the inter-personal crime that continues to be a significant
risk in many American cities, as a result of the widespread distribution
of firearms in the general population, and the ease of availability
of such firearms.
2. THE EMORY
UNIVERSITY CENTRE
FOR INJURY
PREVENTION STUDIES
Some of the most detailed work on firearms ownership
as a "risk factor" in other human experiences has been
conducted by Arthur Kellerman and his associates at the Centre
for Injury Prevention in the School of Public Health at Emory
University in Atlanta, Georgia. In one particularly important
study, Kellerman and his associates carried out a detailed analysis
(in respect of 1,860 homicides in Ohio) of whether the impact
of firearms ownership in the home increases or decreases the risk
of violent crime in those homes (Kellerman et al 1993). In this
respect, the study was seen as an investigation of claims made
for firearms-ownership as a defence against homicide and violence.
After controlling for other potentially influential factors (like
drug-abuse, histories of violence in the home, etc, etc), the
study concluded that "keeping of a gun in the home was strongly
and independently associated with an increased rate of homicide"
in those homes. Homes where guns are kept were in fact almost
three times more likely to be the scene of a homicide than comparable
homes without guns, in particular from use of firearms by a spouse,
other family member or acquaintance. In a further study on the
involvement of firearms in suicide, Kellerman shows that firearms
suicides in the United States increased by 36 per cent between
1968 and 1985, during a period in which the suicide rate by all
other means remains constant (Kellerman et al 1992).
3. THE UNITED
STATES/CANADA
COMPARISON
A distinctive body of research literature on
firearms has focussed on the comparison in firearms crime and
violence across the border between the United States and Canada,
a country with a significantly stronger regulatory regime in the
field of firearms than the US. The pioneering study in this tradition
was conducted by J H Sloan and his associates in Seattle, Washington
and Vancouver, British Columbia—two major cities 150 miles
apart on the Pacific North West in North America (Sloan et al
(1988)). Sloan's study was able to show that the two cities had
almost identical rates of burglary, assault and robbery, as well
as similar rates of homicide and assault without a gun. But in
Seattle the rates of assault with a firearm and of homicide with
a handgun were seven and 4.8 times higher respectively than the
rates in Vancouver. The authors of this study concluded that these
differences could only be explained in terms of the frequency
with which gun licences were issued in these two cities, in particular,
and also the ease with which handguns could be purchased.
At a symposium organised by the New York Law
School of International and Comparative Law in 1992, in the context
of rising concern about firearms violence in the United States,
a number of scholars and spokespeople from public interest organisations
came together to explore these differences between Canada and
the United States in more depth (New York Law School Journal of
International and Comparative Law 15 (nos 2-3)(1995)). The preoccupations
of the conference were powerfully signalled in the opening address
by Karen Burstain, candidate for the New York State Attorney General
position, indicating that in 1992 some 329 people were killed
by guns in Canada, when some 23,000 people were killed by guns
in the United States. Another presentation to this conference
by Wendy Cukier of the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control showed
that:
"Murders without guns in Canada and the
United States are roughly comparable. In Canada, there are 1.9
murders without guns per 100,000 people; in the United States,
it's 2.5 per 100,000. In the United States, the rate of murder
without guns is less than 50 per cent higher. Next, look at murders
with handguns. In Canada, it's .2 per 100,000; in the United States,
it's 3.8 per 100,000. You have roughly 20 times as many murders
with handguns on a per capita basis in the United States than
we have in Canada. And if you look at robberies with guns, I would
really reject any notion that arming is making you safer. You
have more than three times the rates of robberies with guns than
we have in Canada, again on a per capita basis." (Cukier,
1995: 254-255)
The importance of the comparative analysis of
the impact of firearms in Canada and the United States should
be clear. These two societies, cheek by jowl north and south of
the 49th parallel, share a similar land space. They are both societies
of immigration and cultural pluralism. They are inundated by similar
television channels and many other aspects of consumer culture
in the Americas. But as organised modern societies, they have
quite distinctive political traditions, and, in particular, very
different attitudes to the relationship of "the individual"
and the State. So firearms ownership in Canada is generally not
accompanied by powerful libertarian arguments with respect to
"the right to bear arms" (as articulated by the National
Rifle Association and other organisations), but is generally discussed
in terms of the utility of firearms for certain agricultural and
sporting pursuits.
4. THE KILLIAS
STUDY
One of the most controversial studies to have
been produced on the relationship between firearms ownership and
firearms violence is the study released by Professor Martin Killias
of the University of Lausanne in Switzerland in the early 1990s
(Killias, 1993). Killias' work arises out of the telephone interviews
conducted with 28,000 randomly selected individuals across 14
countries as a part of the International Crime Survey of 1989.
In the course of these interviews, individuals were asked whether
there were any guns (except air rifles) in their household and,
if they answered in the affirmative, they were asked to identify
the kind of weapon being retained. Interviewees living in Switzerland
were asked whether the firearm being retained in the household
was a private or military weapon. For each of the 14 countries
the rates of ownership were weighted for the respondents' sex,
age, household composition and region. Killias then proceeded
to collect data on homicide and suicide from these same 14 countries,
making use of World Health Organization data, for the period 1983-85.
The results of these investigations are presented below:
| Country | Homicide
(overall)
Per 1 million
| Homicide
(with a gun)
Per 1 million
| Suicide
(overall)
Per 1 million
| Suicide
(with a gun)
Per 1 million
| Per cent of
households
with guns
|
| Australia | 19.5
| 6.6 | 115.8
| 34.2 | 19.6
|
| Belgium | 18.5
| 8.7 | 231.5
| 24.5 | 16.6
|
| Canada | 26.0
| 8.4 | 139.4
| 44.4 | 29.1
|
| England and Wales | 6.7
| 0.8 | 86.1
| 3.8 | 4.7
|
| Finland | 29.6
| 7.4 | 253.5
| 54.3 | 23.2
|
| France | 12.5
| 5.5 | 223.0
| 49.3 | 22.6
|
| The Netherlands | 11.8
| 2.7 | 117.2
| 2.8 | 1.9
|
| Northern Ireland | 46.6
| 35.5 | 82.7
| 11.8 | 8.4
|
| Norway | 12.1
| 3.6 | 142.7
| 38.7 | 32.0
|
| Scotland | 16.3
| 1.1 | 105.1
| 6.9 | 4.7
|
| Spain | 13.7
| 3.8 | 64.5
| 4.5 | 13.1
|
| Switzerland | 11.7
| 4.6 | 244.5
| 57.4 | 27.2
|
| United States | 75.9
| 44.6 | 124.0
| 72.8 | 48.0
|
| West Germany | 12.1
| 2.0 | 203.7
| 13.8 | 8.9
|
(Killias, 1993, Table.)
Killias then undertook a correlational analysis of the relationships
between levels of gun ownership in these 14 different countries,
using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. All correlations
investigated were positive, other than the relationship between
gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide by means other
than a gun. Killias concludes from this analysis that there is
every reason for supposing that the presence of guns in the household,
independently of any other consideration, is a primary influence
on the likelihood of homicide and/or suicide occurring in that
household. There was no evidence in his data for what is called
the "compensation" process—that is, of residents
of countries with low rates of gun ownership using "means
other than a gun" more frequently to commit homicide and
suicide "making up for the absence of guns" (Killias,
1993: 1724). Killias's study is also important for the light which
is shed on the relationship between firearms in the household
and suicide: the correlation between the presence of firearms
of any kind in the home (rifles, shotguns, military and private
firearms, as well as handguns) increases to 0.900 on the Spearman
scale (a highly significant ranke correlation). Killias is aware
that his study is open to methodological critique (not least for
the fact that the homicide and suicide rates for these 14 countries
were collected several years before the gun ownership rates) and
he is also aware that levels of gun ownership ought to be separated
out as variables from issues of "culture" (it is possible
to identify societies with high rates of gun ownership, like Switzerland
itself, with a very different attitude towards guns in the general
culture than that which is to be found in the United States).
From the perspective of critics in the shooting lobby in the United
Kingdom, the shortcomings in Killias's study (which are admitted
by Killias himself) are grounds for dismissal of his study entirely
(Stevenson 1996: 92-94), although one is hard pressed to find
examples of his study being severely criticised on scholarly criminological
publications (as Stevenson proclaims). It is tempting to compare
the protestations that are made about the limits of the Killias
study to the protestations that have been made in recent years
about the absence of conclusive proof with respective to the casual
relationship between smoking and cancer, or between infected beef
and the spread of BSE in cows and the human population. The Killias
study remains an important marker of what he calls the "serious
consequences" (the demonstrable risks) that appear to be
related to the availability of guns in private hands.
5. THE CANADIAN
FIREARMS CONTROL
TASK GROUP
The Firearms Control Task Force of the Department of Justice
Canada was established in the early 1990s, in the aftermath of
growing concerns over the private ownership and use of firearms
in that country, resulting, in no small measure, from the massacre
of 14 women students at the University of Montreal in 1989 and
a national debate over the relationship between "masculinity"
and guns (the so-called "White Ribbon" campaign). Amongst
many other reports produced by this national task force was a
review of firearms statistics and regulations in eight selected
countries, based on information collected between January and
April 1995 (Department of Justice Canada 1995). The information
collected by the Firearms Control Task Force was presented in
a summary form, as below:
| Country | Suicide
Rate/
(per100,000 (N)
| Suicide
with
Firearm
Rate/
100,000 (N)
| Homicide
Rate/
100,000 (N)
| Homicide
with
Firearm
Rate/
100,000 (N)
| Accidents
with
Firearms (N)
| Firearms
Ownership
Rate/
100,000 (N)
|
| Canada | 12.8
(3,709)
| 3.6
(1,048) |
2.2
(630) | 0.67
(193)
| 63 | 24,138
(7 m)
|
| Australia | 11.6
(2,081)
| 2.5
(435) | 1.8
(326)
| 0.36
(64) | 18
| 19,444
(3.5 m) |
New
Zealand | 14.5
(493)
| 2.5
(86) | 2.6
(90)
| 0.49
(18) | 4
| 29,412
(1 m) |
| Japan | 19.3
(23,742)
| 0.14
(175) |
1.2
(1,500 | 0.06
(74)
| ?? | 414
(517,675)
|
| Switzerland | 20.4
(1,416)
| 5.8
(407) | 1.5
(105)
| 1.41
(96) | 842
| 42,857
(3 m) |
| Britain | 8.6
(4,284)
| 0.4
(191) | 1.3
(675)
| 0.14
(74) | 8
| 3,307
(1.7 m) |
| France | 20
(11,403)
| 4.9
(2,793) |
4.943 | 2.324
(1,324)
| Unavailable | 22.6 per cent
of households
|
United
States | 12
(30,810)
| 7.1
(18,526) |
9.3
(24,273) | 6.4
(16,704)
| 1,441 | 85,385
(222 m)
|
1 Includes attempted and completed murder.
2 Number of firearms injuries: data on accidents were not available.
3 Includes attempted and completed murder.
4 Includes attempted and completed murder.
|
(Department of Justice Canada (1995): Table 1.1)
The Firearms Control Task Group report is presented as "a
brief overview" of the firearms statistics and systems of
regulation investigated by the working group in a four month period—presumably,
as background for discussions takng place at the time within the
Canadian federal government around the continuing adequacy of
firearms legislation in Canada. The data presented are all "secondary
data"—taken on trust from a variety of sources—and
in no sense the result of systematic comparative primary research
in these eight countries, using trans-national definitions and
universalistic or ideal-typical criteria for comparing the eight
different examples. For this reason, and for others, the Firearms
Control Task Group's report, like the Killias study, has been
signalled out for a dismissive review by Mr Jan Stevenson, in
the evidence he presented to the Cullen Enquiry (Stevenson 1996),
Stevenson's concerns, like those of his collaborator in a subsequent
privately-published volume (Munday and Stevenson 1996) appears,
firstly, to be that some of the figures presented for levels of
gun ownership are not "credible" either to him or to
his collaborator, Richard Munday, and, secondly, that the relationships
which are outlined in the Canadian report are merely "suggestive"
and that the suggested relationships are less clear in some cases
(Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Switzerland) than in others.
Buried beneath the intemperate rhetoric that Munday and Stevenson
try to marshall against the Canadian study—and all other
studies which suggest the good sense involved in the proper societal
regulation of lethal weaponry—is a quite extraordinary,
early nineteenth century positivist belief in the idea a detailed
formal model that would be capable of explaining the detailed
relationships between very conceivable variable and outcomes.
CONCLUSION
It has not been the purpose of this particular paper to identify
or discuss the different methodological issues involved in the
assessment of these particular social scientific enquiries—or
the studies which are routinely cited in support of libertarian
arguments with respect to "the right to bear arms" or
the alleged benefits of firearms, for example, for self-defence
and/or burglary-deterrence. These debates continue apace, especially
in some more positivistic North American social scientific journals.
It is not our concern to argue, in this resume, that there could
be a straightforward causal relationship, for example, between
levels of gun ownership per se and the prevalence of firearms
violence in any individual society. There is unquestionably a
complexity of relationships between the systems of legal control
with respect to firearms in any individual society, the trends
within the broader culture (including, it must be said, the influence
of globalised popular culture as they impact within an individual
society) and the actual prevalence of firearms violence in those
societies. But the complexity of such relationships should not
lead us to believe that no influential links can be demonstrable—for
example, between the general availability of lethal weaponry—whether
legally owned or otherwise obtained—and the risk of serious
personal or interpersonal violence. This paper has been concerned
to rehearse the evidence presented in five significant studies
for the presence of such a level of risk, and the associated arguments
for continued attention by responsible governments, acting in
the public interest, to underwrite appropriate and effective systems
of regulation over such a risk.
Professor Ian Taylor
December 1999
Bibliography
Cukier, Wendy (1995) Untitled address to International Symposium
on "Guns at Home, Guns on the Street: an International Perspective"
New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative
Law 15 (Nos. 2-3): 253-258.
Department of Justice Canada (1995) A Review of Firearm Statistics
and Regulations in Selected Countries Ottawa: Department of Justice
(Firearms Control Task Group).
Kellerman Arthur L et al (1992) "Suicide in the
Home in Relation to Gun Ownership" New England Journal
of Medicine 327 (13 August : 467).
Kellerman, Arthur L et al (1993) "Gun Ownership
as a risk factor for homicide in the home" New England
Journal of Medicine 329 (7 October 1993): 1084-1091.
Killias, Martin (1993) "International Correlations between
Gun Ownership and Rates of Homicide and Suicide." Canadian
Medical Association Journal 148(10): 1721-1725.
Munday, R A I and Stevenson, J A (eds) (1996) Guns and Violence:
the debate before Lord Cullen Brightlingsea, Essex: Piedmont Publishing.
Sloan, J.H. et al (1988) "Handguns regulations, crime,
assaults and homicides" New England Journal of Medicine
319: 1259-1262.
Stevenson, J A (1996) "Evidence into Issues Concerning
the Control of Firearms arising from the Dunblane Tragedy"
in Munday and Stevenson, op cit: 77-179.
van Dijk, Jan and Mayhew, Pat "Criminal Victimization
in the Industrialized World" in A A del Frate, U Zvekic and
J Van Dijk (eds) Understanding Crime: Experiences of Crime and
Crime Control Rome: United Nations Regional Interregional Crime
and Justice Institute.
|
