Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Hard evidence: does gun control work?

This week brought news of yet another gun massacre in the United States at Washington Navy Yard. It is the latest in a string of 146 mass shootings, with more than 900 victims since 2006. The tragedy gives…

Another day, another massacre in the US. EPA/Shawn Thew

This week brought news of yet another gun massacre in the United States at Washington Navy Yard. It is the latest in a string of 146 mass shootings, with more than 900 victims since 2006. The tragedy gives us pause to reflect on the “common sense” gun controls proposed by president Barack Obama but blocked by gun lobby senators only a few months ago.

Among other measures, Obama’s proposals sought to reform the national firearm purchase check system, so that offenders and the mentally ill could not buy guns legally, and close down the unregulated secondary gun market which is such a handy supply line for the criminally inclined. No one is claiming such measures would have prevented Aaron Alexis from carrying out this particular rampage, but they are important features of any effective regime of public safety promotion that takes preventing gun violence seriously.

But does gun control actually work?

Evidence from the US itself shows a strong relationship between individual states with lax gun laws and higher than average rates of gun violence but despite apparent public support for sensible gun control, progress at the US Federal level currently seems unlikely. In this regard it is worth looking at what other countries, faced by gun violence, have made of gun control.

Guns and values

A cautionary note is needed; gun control in many respects is a branch of crime prevention. A need for effective crime prevention is not invalidated by the argument that criminals break laws. If we had figured that one out, we criminologists could all go home.

The objective is to secure the most effective series of gun violence prevention measures; reducing risks consistent with our other social values. All things being equal, the more guns in a society, the greater the frequency of gun violence. But those “other values” and other social changes are important too. The more cohesive, trusting, tolerant and responsible a society is, the less risk that gun ownership itself represents.

Societies undergoing rapid social changes, or riven with conflicts and divisions are likely to become increasingly dangerous when firearms are added to the mix. Unfortunately these societies are often the very places where private citizens seek firearms for “self-defence” purposes.

Firearm Homicide rates in selected societies: firearm homicide per 100,000 population. Data from Alpers and Wilson (GunPolicy.org), 2013

The societies above are selected to demonstrate the European range of gun homicide rates as compared with three other societies (Australia, Canada and India) and the USA. Norway, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland all have relatively high rates of gun ownership, likewise Canada and Australia, but nowhere near the US rates of gun violence. None of the European societies has been immune from the experience of “mass shooting” incidents and most have strengthened their guns laws as a consequence.

United Kingdom

Although a relatively low firearm ownership society, the UK has introduced significant changes over the past few decades, most notably banning semi-automatic rifles in 1988 and, subsequently, all handguns in 1998. Mass shootings at Hungerford and Dunblane respectively, rather than common gun crime prompted both reforms, but the changes occurred at a time of growing concern with street gang activity, rising criminal use of handguns and significant influxes of replica and realistic imitation air weapons.

For four years after 1998 these other trends overwhelmed the impact of the handgun ban but a series of other legislative changes and a steep learning curve by the police in proactive firearms control now reveal significant year on year reductions in gun crime in England and Wales. Handgun crime is now only half what it was a decade ago.

Recorded gun crime in England and Wales: 1996-2011.

Canada

Canada also introduced tougher gun control measures, following the École Polytechnique Massacre in 1989. Tougher screening processes were introduced for all gun purchases including risk assessments, background checks and firearms registration. Later, further classes of firearms “not reasonably used in hunting” (prohibiting semi-automatic assault weapons) became restricted.

Gun crime rate (by weapon type) in Canada. Perrault, 2012: Homicide in Canada, Statistics Canada

The new measures appeared to accelerate a downward trend in gun violence involving long weapons (rifles and shotguns) but also revealed a shift to handguns as criminal weapons of choice, as Canada also experienced an upsurge in street-gang problems. Tighter controls on handguns have also followed, having some positive impact over the past five years although, in this regard, Canada’s efforts are rather undermined by the lax gun laws of its neighbour to the south. An overwhelming number of criminal handguns intercepted by the police in Canada are illegally sourced from the US.

Australia

Australia introduced much tighter gun controls in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre of 1996, although some Australian states had already begun to tighten their firearms controls following earlier episodes of gun violence.

Total gun homicide has tracked generally downwards since 1995, accelerating following the gun control and firearm buyback measures after 1996. Unfortunately a rise in criminal use of handguns (linked to serious and organised crime and criminal gang activity), fortunately dropping away after 2005-6, initially dwarfed the positive results of the 1996 reforms.

Firearm Use in Australian Homicides: 1989-2010. Chan, A. and Payne, J. 2013 Homicide in Australia: 2008–09 to 2009–10. National Homicide Monitoring Program annual report. AIC Monitoring Report No. 21.

These brief case studies demonstrate conclusively that gun control can work, but it needs to be intelligently designed, effectively implemented and responsive to ongoing changes in criminal activity.

In each case, trafficking in handguns, developing gang cultures and changes at the level of global organised crime and criminal trafficking have threatened to undermine domestic successes. Gun control is not a one-size-fits-all project; nor are there simple off the shelf solutions. Rather, policies have to be fitted to the problems and cultural contexts of particular societies. But first of all, societies have to acknowledge they have a problem.

Hard Evidence is a series of articles that looks at some of the trickiest public policy questions we face. Academic experts delve into available research evidence to provide informed analysis.

Join the conversation

11 Comments sorted by

  1. valerie yule

    psychologist

    It is a pity we cannot have hospital admissions as well as homicides in looking at the effects of guns, traffic accidents etcl

    report
  2. Keith Thomas

    Retired

    To ask if gun control "works", you have to bear in mind that freedom to own (and openly carry) handguns and a variety of rifles, to practise with them regularly, to clean, maintain and proudly display them and so to feel part of their nation's historical tradition (which includes empowering the little guy against excesses of the state) and an upholder of the US Constitution and to enjoy the individualistic comradeship that goes with all those is what "works" for millions of Americans.

    It is easy…

    Read more
  3. David Rennie

    IT Contractor

    In 'Bowling for Columbine' Mike Moore investigated the issue of whether 'Guns kill people' or 'People kill people' as claimed by the NRA.
    What he discovered is that both statements are simplifications, Canadians have as many guns per head as Americans but as can be seen from the graph above a small fraction of the number of gun homicides per head.
    Its also worth noting that the NRA used its influence in Congress to suppress research showing that most guns used in homicides were owned and used by a family member of the victim.
    The use of guns as a method of venting personal anger is uniquely American in civilized countries. Gun violence is the inevitable corollary of the American Dream.

    report
  4. David Rennie

    IT Contractor

    The best gun control is to not have one in the house and we can all do that without legislation.
    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

    From the state's perspective the same logic works, the less houses with guns the less gun violence.
    This is not to deny that there are some people with a legitimate need for firearms, if you remove this group from the statistics then I suspect the figures for deaths caused by other gun owners would be worse.

    If you want to go out and kill animals, have the guts to do it "animal to animal' and do it without a gun.

    report
    1. Russell T

      IT Consultant

      In reply to David Rennie

      the problem is David the rabbits aren't interested in fighting 'animal to animal', I guess there is always the 'holy hand grenade' - Monty Python fans will understand.

      I agree with your comment though. As much as I am tempted to get a shotgun for the rabbits the odds are the only casualty would be a family member. So it is best to avoid that possibility for the moment.

      report
    2. Hugh Jarse

      logged in via email @gmail.com

      In reply to David Rennie

      This is simplistic nonsense. Australia has an enormous problem with feral introduced pest species. Hunting is discriminate, effective and cheap. Often it brings vital financial aid to small country towns.
      David if you eat meat on a regular basis and have never once in your life been responsible for putting that meat on your table. Who are you to accuse hunters of anything.

      report
    3. David Rennie

      IT Contractor

      In reply to Hugh Jarse

      Hugh,
      As I said there are a few people with a legitimate need for a firearm, mainly to control feral animals. However with this exception, it is hard to think of any group that has a legitimate need for a gun.
      Even for those with a legitimate need, they and their families, need to be aware of the inherent dangers involved with having firearms in the house and ensure they are kept under lock and key when not in use. Preferably two locks controlled by different people.

      report
  5. Hugh Jarse

    logged in via email @gmail.com

    This article is so poorly referenced and so light on for detail that it proves little.
    It doesn't enumerate any of the many studies that were critical of firearm reforms. Which is standard in any lit review. It doesn't investigate the rise of criminal firearm use in Australia of recent years, much of which is illegal firearms in the hands of unlicensed shooters. It doesn't investigate the instances of data breach at the firearm registries that have likely already put law abiding firearm owners…

    Read more
  6. Joe Blogs

    IT Consultant

    Statements such as "A need for effective crime prevention is not invalidated by the argument that criminals break laws." are ridiculous when you imply that restricting firearms from law abiding people is going to have any impact on criminals.

    Detroit, Chicago, Mexico, the UK etc have gun bans and also the some of the highest rates of violent crime.

    Killing spree's in countries not actively engaged in hostilities seem to always occur in gun-free zones like schools, movie theatres, navy yards…

    Read more