Gun Control: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

[First Published in the April 2013 edition of The Basic Alternative Newspaper]

The tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School has renewed the debate over gun control in the United States. Predictably, both sides are up to their old tricks. The same people that have hijacked the discussion in the past are at it again. To make good decisions, we need to discern truth from the lies and disinformation that some gun control advocates use to obscure it. The intent here is not to argue for or against gun control, but rather to identify some of the falsehoods that are presented as fact. So—time to check the spin factor on the antigun crowd.

Journalists are suspicious by nature. We’re trained to be. In fact, the only thing I remember from journalism school is this useful aphorism: If your mother says she loves you—check it out. Check it out… that’s good advice. Let’s apply that to the antigun argument and see what happens.

The first thing you’re likely to hear from those opposed to firearms ownership is that the Second Amendment only applies to militias formed for national defense. That’s not their call to make. In District of Columbia v. Heller [554 US 570 (2008)], the court stated: “There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Don’t like the decision? That’s tough. I’m not too fond of Citizen’s United myself.

Undeterred, opponents will argue that the Second Amendment is antiquated and should be eliminated. A bold position to take, especially when the Supreme Court feels such action is above their pay grade. In the Heller decision, they make this clear: “It is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” Despite this, some activists would happily eliminate the amendment. Fortunately, our system of government makes this a difficult thing to do.

Those calling for the demise of the Second Amendment should pause and consider that they might be setting a dangerous precedent. If the Second Amendment can be eliminated so easily, what about the other amendments? In a country devolving into an oligarchy, free speech and right of assembly might prove a nuisance at best. Of course, it’s a lot safer to implement such changes on an unarmed population.

How many times have you heard someone say that, if you keep a gun at home, you’re far more likely to accidentally shoot yourself than you are to use it for self-defense? Those who own firearms have heard this one ad nauseam. It’s particularly grating coming from those whose personal expertise in firearms is derived solely from playing Call of Duty in their mother’s basement for twelve hours a day. When asked, these know-it-alls can’t even cite the study they are quoting. It’s just something they heard somewhere.

What they are referencing is a study that was conducted at the Center for Injury Control at Emory University in the late 1990s. The study’s conclusions were based on police, EMS and hospital records in just three U.S. cities over an 18-month interval. In all, the data consists of only 626 firearms-related incidents. To extrapolate findings for the entire country from such limited data strikes one as a major sampling error.

Equally disserving is the notion that you don’t need guns to protect yourself anyway because that’s what the police are for. Those who subscribe to this theory are just as uninformed as their statistically challenged colleagues. Since some opposed to firearms have a regrettable tendency to skip their homework, it’s not surprising this turns out to be incorrect too. In a landmark legal case, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services [109 S. Ct. 998 (1989)], the court found that: “Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause [14^th Amendment] itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors…even where such aid may be necessary….”

Translation: You’re on your own. Even the notoriously antigun International Association of Chief’s of Police [IACP] has acknowledged as much. In a May 2006 brief in their publication, The Police Chief, the readership is reminded that they are under no legal obligation to protect individuals in the community—none. This from the same organization that has consistently objected to efforts at federal standardization of concealed weapons licensing.

Speaking of police departments, several big city chiefs have been clear in their support for gun control of all types. If many had their way, all guns would be banned. These individuals always make a big deal out of the European approach to firearms. However, they’ve failed to consider the implications. In Great Britain, most police officers do not carry firearms, a fact they were brutally reminded of in Sept. 2012 when a criminal in Manchester killed two unarmed officers after luring them into a trap.

If we’d really all be better off without firearms, perhaps police in the U.S. should lead by example. Just imagine what shift change would look like at some tough precinct in Detroit or Philly when the officers were told to surrender their weapons in exchange for a nice, shiny new… whistle. If fewer guns equal less gun-related violence, then it doesn’t make sense to arm police officers either.

At it’s core, much of the impetus for gun control springs from elitists that presume to know what’s best for the unwashed masses—even if they don’t know themselves. Worse still [and here’s the elitist part] what’s good for the general population doesn’t necessarily go for everyone. Case in point: Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City fame. A billionaire with national aspirations, he’s not shy about sharing his worldview with us less-enlightened folks. Whether it’s banning guns or big gulps, Bloomberg is there. When problems are just too “complex”[his term] for us simpletons, he doesn’t hesitate to act unilaterally for the public good. I don’t know about you, but I’m relieved to know there really is an old, omniscient honky up there looking out for us!

Trouble is, Bloomberg’s distaste for guns does not extend to his personal security retinue. When approached by a journalist on this issue, his response was to ignore the man as his armed security team ran interference. So, that’s the way it’s going to be. One set of rules for the serfs, and another for the lord of the manor. And we wonder why those who oppose gun control are so suspicious.

Those who would eliminate firearms are fond of quoting statistics from other countries that have embraced the draconian measures so appealing to gun grabbers in the U.S. These armchair bean counters are especially fond of trotting out Australia as an example of the paradise that awaits us once good ultimately triumphs over evil and private ownership of firearms is outlawed. But just as in Great Britain, things in Australia aren’t as great as some would have us believe….

Mark Twain, that master fabricator, once observed, “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” A prescient observation—especially when applied to the gun control debate. Twain would certainly forgive us for appropriating his maxim, particularly had he read a recent New York Times op-ed by the former prime minister of Australia, John Howard.

In the January 16, 2013 piece titled “I Went After Guns, Obama Can Too,” Howard touts the actions taken by the Australian government in the wake of a 1996 shooting incident that left 35 people dead in Port Arthur, Tasmania. As a result, Australia greatly curtailed firearms ownership. This move was undoubtedly made easier by the fact that, as Howard smugly observes: “Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights.” That darn Bill of Rights can really be annoying sometimes. Howard goes on to cite the Australian Institute of Criminology, noting that, as a result of his actions, firearms-related homicides have been cut in half. While this sounds good, Mark Twain might have disagreed. Much like the aforementioned Emory University study, the numbers coming out of Australia just don’t add up.

The Australian Institute of Criminology has a great website, bursting with statistical data—Howard was smart to quote them. Unfortunately, his quantitative skills appear a bit rusty. While it’s true that homicide by gun in Australia has decreased dramatically, the overall homicide rate has scarcely changed at all. As the institute blandly observes: “There has been an upward trend in use of knives and sharp instruments which in 2006-2007 accounted for nearly half of all homicide victims.” So, if you kill someone in Australia, the government would really appreciate it if you used a butter knife, spoon, golf club or umbrella… anything but a gun. Not only is it bad for the stats, it’s downright uncivilized as well.

Since Australia disarmed its citizenry, crime rates have soared. Assaults in The Land Down Under have, on average, increased at four times the rate of annual population growth, up 55% between 1996 and 2007, the last year for which statistics are available. By contrast, the U.S. has experienced a -22% rate of change in assaults. Likewise, sexual assaults in Australia have climbed 51% since 1995. Meanwhile, back in the uncouth States, our rate of sexual victimization for females alone declined 58% during roughly the same period. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, since 1993 the rate of violent crime in the United States has declined by a whopping 72%.  These statistics are even more impressive when one considers that the population of the United States is approximately fifteen times larger than that of Australia. Given these facts it’s not surprising that, barbarians that we are, we are less than impressed by Prime Minister Howard’s argument. And so, we’re obliged to wish Mr. Howard a safe trip back to Australia—watch out for those salad forks!

In the end, what we decide to do about guns must be based on facts and reason, not on lies, distortion and fuzzy thinking. You can’t have an honest debate predicated on dishonesty. While it’s true some gun owners fall prey to jingoism and emotional appeals, their counterparts in the gun control camp consistently play loose with the facts. Neither do a service to their cause. If we are to have a rational debate, let’s begin by filtering out all the nonsense and see what’s left because ultimately, the future of our country is too important to entrust to the hands of elitists, propagandists, or—innumerate Australians.