The rise and fall of crime

The rise and fall of crime 

Crumbling crime rates in the face of media sensationalism

By Ranting Panda, 14 July 2024

Every day we are saturated with media reports of violent crime, youth crime waves, car-jackings, home invasions, murders, and on the list goes as journos breathlessly sensationalise the gory details in an effort to instill fear in the viewer. 

Much of this reporting is politically motivated. Certain right-wing media outlets are constantly reporting on any crime they can sensationalise while charging Labor politicians with neglect and responsibility. Of course, they don't hold Liberal party governments to the same level of accountability.

In 2013, when Campbell Newman romped to power in Queensland, he took the 'pooper scooper' (in his words) to the public service. One of the first groups to go were child safety workers. He also decimated police inspectors and shut youth mental support facilities. Each of these actions directly removed the very support that young people needed that would help them avoid a life of crime. Did the media hold him to account? Of course not. Instead, they blamed the incoming Labor government for the youth crime 'crisis', as did the LNP from the opposition benches. 

Be that as it may, is it true that there is a crime crisis? Is it true that crime is worse now than ever before? 

These are important questions because if the answer to this is 'no', then we risk politicians implementing laws that are merely knee-jerk reactions to media sensationalism, which may exacerbate crime rather than reduce it. If the answer to these questions is 'no', then we need to consider what has been happening to reduce crime over the years and ensure that those factors are either encouraged or at least not hampered. 

Similarly, it's important to understand the demographic of the people responsible for crime. If we blame the wrong demographic for the rise in crime, then the real perpetrators may not be adequately addressed. For example, is there really a youth crime wave, or are there other demographics responsible for a larger volume of violent crimes?

The answer to these questions depends on the time period that crime is measured over. Crime, like other things in the world, tends to fluctuate. Given that there are also different types of crimes, there may be a spike in one type while others fall. 

Let's look first at whether there is a youth crime 'crisis'. Youth crime is actually at an all-time low. This is based on the number of unique offenders. What we're seeing is that there are fewer young people committing crimes than at any other time in the last 20 years. 

Sato (2024)

The demographic responsible for much of the crime is aged between 30 and 39. Out of 19,977 assaults in Queensland, the 30-39 age group committed 4,761 of the crimes, while those aged between 10 and 17 committed 4,041.

Sato (2024)

Although there are fewer younger people are responsible for the assaults, that demographic has a higher rate of recidivism than adult criminals. This is also reflected in data across Australia, which shows that the average age of offenders is increasing, while there are fewer young people offending (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 102). The higher recidivism rate gives the appearance that youth crime is out of control, when in fact, there is less likelihood of a young person being involved in crime and an increasing likelihood of someone older being involved in a crime. 

Recidivism rates (Sato, 2024)

Everywhere we look, there are reports of youth crime being out of control. To reiterate the above, youth crime is trending downwards. The following table breaks youth crime down by Australian states. Despite the occasional fluctuation, youth crime has described dramatically over the last 10 years. 

Goldsworthy, Brotto & Cawthray (2023)

It's important to understand these figures because it determines how governments should be responding to crime. If they were to only address juvenile crime at the expense of adult crime, it is clear that crime will continue to rise. If they simply target juveniles, then that would also be a mistake, because juveniles are less likely to be engaged in violent crime. However, there should be programs in place to address the recidivism rates in young people. 

Let's look at other crimes. 

The last person to be executed in Australia was Ronald Ryan at Pentridge Prison, Victoria, in 1967. He was hanged for murdering a prison guard. In the 20 years or so after capital punishment was finally abolished in all states of Australia, murder rates dropped. The following charts were produced by the Australian Institute of Criminology in 1987, showing that numbers of homicides increased since 1965, but as a rate per 100,000 of population, homicides had actually decreased. 

Potas & Walker (1987)

Further to this, murder rates in Australia have continued decreasing since 1986, when there were 2.19 murders per 100,000 of population. By 2021, murders had reduced to 0.74 per 100,000 people (Macrotrends n.d). In 1993, there were 697 murders in Australia. In 2023, there were 409. In the 20 years between 1998 and 2018, the homicide rate declined by 67% (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2017, p. 245).

Data sources from Australian Bureau of Statistics (2020, 2024)

One of the explanations for the decline in murder rates is improvements in emergency medical treatment. However, attempted murder also declined significantly. Between 2001 and 2017, murder rates in Australia dropped by 50%, while attempted murder dropped by 70% (Weatherburn & Rahmann 2021, p. 24). 

Since 2008 in Australia, assaults have declined by 45%, from 3.1% of persons aged over 15, to 1.7% in 2023. Threatened assault has declined by 43%, from a high of 4.2% to 2.4% in 2023. 

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2023)

During the same period, robberies decreased by 67%, from 0.6% to 0.2%.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2023)

Sexual assaults, however, saw an increase of 67% since 2008. 

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2023)

 

There have been significant declines in almost all other crimes in Australia, which is also reflected across other western nations. In the United States, between 1993 and 2017, violent crime rates fell by 74%, while there was a 69% reduction in property crime rates. During that period, crime rates significantly dropped in other western countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom. (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 5).

Timings of the crime rate drops differ from country to country. In Canada and the US, it began in the early 1990s. In the UK, it began in the mid-1990s, while significant declines in homicide in Australia began in the late 1980s. Property crime rates began declining in Australia from 2001 and declines in assault began in 2008. (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 5).

There are a variety of factors that have contributed to this. Some theories postulate that the crime drop was a result of the decline in the crack cocaine market. That might explain the United States, but doesn't explain jurisdictions such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada. There have also been improvements in home security and in tracking stolen goods which may have contributed to a reduction in property crimes. Since 2002, pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers in Australia are legally required to be presented with proof of identity and ownership (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 168). A possible contributor to the reduction in property crime is the rapidity with which products are bought to market and the use of perceived obsolescence. In other words, people want the latest 'things', so the time within which to steal and turn around the sale of stolen goods is dramatically shorter than it used to be (Ibid, p. 194). Generally, people don't want to buy, or at least not pay much for the last model of iPhone or other devices.

Theft of motor vehicles has also declined, which may be attributed to engine immobilisers, labelling of parts with micro-dots and stricter regulation of the used car market, such as through the Written-Off Vehicles Register (WOVR), which records if a vehicle has been stolen (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 174). One interesting theory is that the reduction in stolen vehicles has a knock-on effect in reducing other crimes that are reliant on a stolen vehicle to transport criminals or stolen goods. However, criminals are general inventive and would usually find other ways to conduct their crimes (Ibid, p. 176).

Some have even postulated that crime reduction is linked to legalised abortion, so there were fewer unwanted and neglected children going on to become criminals. The evidence on this is inconclusive.

Declines in assaults in Australia appears to be directly related to the lower consumption of alcohol, which is at its lowest since the early 1960s, with noticeable declines commencing in the mid-2000s. This has been primarily driven by significant reductions in alcohol consumption among young Australians (Livingstone & Pennay, 2015), along with the success of lock-out laws in night-club precincts (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 135).

In Australia, some commentators argued that the decline in crime was because of an unwillingness to report it. However, there has been no evidence that there is an unwillingness by victims to report crime (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p 24). The exception to this is the reporting of sexual assault, which is a crime that traditionally has had low levels of reporting. Unlike other crimes, sexual assaults are increasing, which could be an indicator that people are more willing to report it than in previous years. The 'Me too' movement may have provided encouragement for victims to come forward. 

Other crimes that have increased, are those associated with technology. Crimes such as identity theft and credit card fraud, either through cloning of cards or internet fraud have increased. The increased use of credit cards, however, has resulted in fewer robberies of people based on cash, which was a desirable target as it negated the need to sell goods (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2017, p. 159, 238).

Politicians and the public often respond to sensationalist media reporting by calling for harsher penalties. However, punishment is not a significant deterrent. Yes, people should face justice for their crimes, but crime will not decrease through stricter punishments. Firstly, many criminals don't expect to get caught, so the threat of punishment means little to them. Jail is like a university for criminals. All that it teaches criminals is how to be better criminals. It provides networking opportunities, while also stigmatising prisoners so that they are often unable to gain meaningful employment afterwards. Without meaningful employment, they will return to a life of crime ... often just so that they can put food on the table. 

In 1997, mandatory sentencing was introduced to the Northern Territory in response to incessant media reporting of epidemic levels of home break-ins. The year after mandatory sentencing, the break-in rates were even higher (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 15). Even with the guarantee of harsh prison sentences, as opposed to bail or discretionary sentencing, crimes actually increased under the mandatory sentencing regime. Clearly, sentencing is not the deterrent that people think it is. 

Despite the media claiming that the courts are soft on crime, imprisonment rates have risen by 42% in Australia from 2001 to 2017. Almost 30% of this was between 2012 and 2017 (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2017, p. 223). It is likely that this has contributed to some of the decline, however, it's also important to note that crime rates were already declining prior to this increase in sentencing (Ibid, p. 232).  

Even punishment as harsh as capital punishment provides little deterrent. In fact, there is some evidence to indicate that it may create a 'brutalising effect' and encourage acts of extreme violence, rather than act as a deterrent (Potas & Walker, 1987, p. 4). It will certainly prevent recidivism, but murderers have a very low rate of recidivism anyway (Potas & Walker, 1987, p. 4). Studies indicate that globally, jurisdictions that have abolished the death penalty have not experienced any increase in murder rates (Potas & Walker, 1987, p. 3). As we saw above, murder rates in Australia have declined significantly since capital punishment was abolished.

Advocates for firearms argue that the right to carry guns reduces crime. This doesn't apply in Australia since the 1996 gun buyback scheme and subsequent ban on certain types of firearms, although there are those here who believe that we should have the right to carry guns. In a study of data over a 14-year period, it was found that violent crimes in the United States were 13-15% higher in states that allowed citizens the right to carry firearms than in those that didn't. (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 83).

Media sensationalism of crime has been going on for decades. The following is a list of headlines going back to the 1950s in Australia. They reflect the common trope, 'if it bleeds it leads'. Take away the dates and one would think they were headlines of today.

Brown & Hogg (1996, p. 176)

Politicians, such as Donald Trump and his feckless ilk, have blamed increased migration for increased crime. But as we can clearly see, crime is declining ... perhaps Trump et al should be focusing on maintaining or increasing migration if they think it's directly linked to crime rates. In Australia, the vast majority of our migration program is focused on skilled migration, so there is little need for migrants to commit crimes. Migrants, particularly those from non-English speaking countries, tend to have very strong extended family and community ties and therefore support from a wide network which is a crucial factor in minimising the likelihood of committing crime (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 59). Additionally, any migrant who is sentenced to a period or periods of 12 months or more detention will be removed from the country. It's imperative to note that they don't need to serve the sentence in full; they only need to receive the sentence to face visa cancellation and removal from the country. They could receive four sentences of three months each, all wholly suspended, and still be removed because the total cumulative head sentence is 12 months. While some migrants do commit crimes, it isn't as widespread as anti-migrant commentators would have us believe. 

In summary, factors that could explain the fall in crime, include (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, Chapters 2 and 3):

• Structural ageing of the population. As we saw above, the largest groups committing crime are aged up to 39. Australia and other western nations have more higher proportions of their population aged over 40 than they ever had. This could partly explain the drop in crime.
• Reduction in use of addictive drugs, such as heroin. Numerous studies have found a causal link between drug use and crime. This is partly due to the cost of drugs. The type of drug can also contribute to crime, e.g., methamphetamine which stimulates the user towards more aggressive behaviour. Heroin use has declined significantly, which could be a contributor to declining crime rates. Clearly, this isn't the only factor because crime has continued to decline after heroin use stabilised. Crime also declined in areas where heroin use was rare. 
• Reduction in alcohol use appears to have been a significant factor in the reduction of assaults (Ibid, p. 239).
• Improvements in home and vehicle security, as noted above, which has helped to reduce opportunities presented to criminals. There have also been security improvements in commercial buildings and street monitoring with CCTVs. By 2017, bank robberies declined by 97% since their peak in 1997, while street robberies declined by 86% at their peak in 2001. (Ibid p. 153). 
• Improved economic conditions, such as higher salaries and lower unemployment rates. A study in the UK found that property offending was three times higher when young people were unemployed than when they were employed (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 188). Another study found that where wages fell by 10% there was a corresponding '4.3% increase in property crime and 3% increase in violent crimes' (Ibid, p. 189). Economic factors could be something to watch as economic conditions start contracting. In Australia, housing affordability is declining, rents are increasing, and we are seeing an increase in homelessness attributed to these factors. If this continues, there could be an increase in crime based on this lack of affordability and availability of necessities, such as housing. 
• Increased policing. There is evidence to indicate that better deployment of police in targeting crime hot spots can reduce crime. However, simple numbers of police have marginal impact, whereas there is more efficacy through improvements in policing. Police are held more accountable now than ever following the various anti-corruption enquiries. Police have access to number plate recognition, drones, CCTV, biometric devices, DNA databases, and other technology that contribute to rapid identification of perpetrators (ibid, p. 207).
• Increases in imprisonment rates. As mentioned earlier, imprisonment tends to have only a small deterrence impact. The amount of money spent on incarceration could be better spent on policing or other measures and would likely result in a greater deterrence or reduction in crime. 
• Decline in the demand for stolen goods, because of lower prices for products and the rapid introduction of new products on the market, as well as greater regulation of the second-hand goods market.

Another contributing factor to declining crime rates is the change in social attitudes. Some commentators may label the current generation as 'woke' or 'politically correct' because of their desire to accept people for who they are (essentially 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'). The current push for so-called political correctness should not be disparaged, because it has resulted in greater respect for other people and a lower tolerance for anti-social and violent behaviour (Weatherburn & Rahmann, 2021, p. 149). The attitude of many now is to 'live and let live', to allow people to live their best lives without interference or criticism from others. It has resulted in people going out and enjoying themselves without tolerating harassment by others. There is less tolerance for violence, for anti-social behaviour and for domestic violence than in generations gone by. This coupled with a decline in alcohol consumption among people under 40, appears to be a significant contributor to the reduction in assaults (Ibid, p. 239).

It's clear that in Australia factors such as capital punishment and the right to carry firearms are irrelevant in explaining the decline in crime, so are not necessary responses to addressing crime in this country.

To truly reduce crime, there needs to be a multi-pronged approach. If we simply put on more cops, they are only going to be pursuing fewer criminals, regardless of what the media may claim. Responses to crime should include programs that proactively address the drivers that lead people into crime in the first place, which we can learn from the drivers of the current long-term crime reduction trends. It should also provide support programs for people once they're released from prison, to assist in reducing recidivism. 

The media should be telling the whole story and not sensationalising or fearmongering. Certainly, they should report on crimes being committed, but this should be balanced with contextualised and responsible reporting that explains why rates of most crimes have declined significantly. 

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020, 27 years of Recorded Crime – Victims data, 16 September, https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/27-years-recorded-crime-victims-data#homicide-and-related-offences, viewed 13 July 2024. 

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2023, Crime Victimisation Australia - 2022/23, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/crime-victimisation-australia/2022-23#physical-assault, viewed 14 July 2024. 

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2024, Recorded Crime - Victims, 27 June, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/recorded-crime-victims/latest-release, viewed 13 July 2024. 

Brown, D, & Hogg, R, 1996, Contemporary comment - Law and Order commonsense, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, Volume 8 Number 2, https://www8.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CICrimJust/1996/31.pdf, viewed 14 July 2024. 

Crime Statistics Agency, 2024, Alleged Offender Incidents, https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/crime-statistics/latest-victorian-crime-data/alleged-offender-incidents-2, viewed 13 July 2024. 

Goldsworthy, T, Brotto, G, & Cawthray, T, 2023, Is Australia in the grips of a youth crime crisis? This is what the data says, The Conversation, 30 October, https://theconversation.com/is-australia-in-the-grips-of-a-youth-crime-crisis-this-is-what-the-data-says-213655, viewed 13 July 2024.

Livingston, M, & Pennay, A, 2015, Don’t believe the hype, teens are drinking less than they used to, University of New South Wales, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, 21 May, https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/blog/dont-believe-hype-teens-are-drinking-less-they-used, viewed 13 July 2024. 

Macrotrends, n.d., Australia Murder/Homicide Rate 1960-2024, https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/AUS/australia/murder-homicide-rate, viewed 13 July 2024.

Potas, I, & Walker, J, 1987, Capital Punishment, Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No 3, https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/tandi003.pdf, viewed 13 July 2024. 

Queensland Treasury, 2023, Crime Report, Queensland 2021-22, Recorded crime statistics, https://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/issues/7856/crime-report-qld-2021-22.pdf, viewed 13 July 2024.

Sato, K, 2024, Violent crime nearly three times worse since 2020, Queensland statisticians find, and it's not youth, ABC News, 22 April, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-22/queensland-violence-on-rise-report-shows-not-just-youth-crime/103751192, viewed 13 July 2024. 

Weatherburn, D, & Rahmann, S, 2021, The Vanishing Criminal - Causes of Decline in Australia's Crime Rate, Melbourne University Press, https://www.mup.com.au/books/the-vanishing-criminal-paperback-softback.

--o0o--

Overturning Roe v Wade is a death sentence for many women

Overturning Roe v Wade is a death sentence for many women

by Ranting Panda, 26 June 2022

Conservatives are at it again: forcing their religious beliefs and vacuous 'moral' codes on the rest of society. This time, they have managed to overturn the1973 US Supreme Court case Roe v Wade, which had legalised women's rights to access abortion. 

Conservatives think that they are saving lives by banning abortion, although the opposite is true. When former President George W. Bush defunded family planning clinics that either undertook abortion or even gave advice about abortion (the so-called 'Gag' Order), abortions rose by 40% compared to when his predecessor, President Clinton, had continued funding these clinics (Bendavid, Avila & Miller, 2011). Research from the University of Colorado Boulder, indicates that banning abortion will result in a 21% increase in the deaths of women from unsafe abortions (Stevenson 2021). This is replicated globally, in which access to sex education, contraception and medical abortions is essential to reducing the rate of abortion and the likelihood of women dying from the procedure (Amnesty International, n.d.).

All that conservatives have managed to achieve is to drive abortion underground. Perhaps they have forgotten the deaths of women and the horrible disfigurements of babies born after botched backyard abortions. Interestingly, there is a higher rate of abortion in countries that ban it, than in countries where it is legal (Guttmacher Institute, 2018). 

So-called 'pro-life' groups claim they are defending the rights of the unborn, however they are actually creating worse conditions for abortion than if it were legal. Firstly, the main reason that women seek out abortion is because of poverty (Oberman, 2018). Conservatives oppose every means of providing such support. Ever see a Conservative support welfare, community housing, public education, or socialised healthcare? Of course not. These 'pro-lifers' are too selfish to share their income through tax redistribution, not to mention, they are terrified that community programs equate to socialism. They protest against raising the minimum wage, let alone providing welfare to address poverty. Welcome to Capitalism 101: selfishness, avarice and complete disregard for women or the lives of babies born into poverty. Conservatives think that socialism is anything to the left of hunting the homeless for sport.

The religious right has been pushing their agenda of Christian Nationalism for years. The recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v Wade is a major step in progressing Christian Nationalism, which regresses modern society to the days of patriarchal rule, where women were nothing but chattels for men to control and rape. The Supreme Court decision is a highly sexist, retrograde one that makes women nothing but breeding incubators to fulfil the sexual desires of men. Those same men are not held to account for their women they impregnate.  

'Pro-lifers' claim that they are concerned for the lives of children, yet they refuse to part with their precious firearms, even though school shootings are a regular occurrence. The deaths of hundreds of children from gun violence isn't enough to concern the pro-lifers who treat their access access to guns as a basic human right. As at the end of May 2022, the United States has seen more than 250 mass shooting events in 2022. On 24 May 2022, 19 children were gunned down in Uvalde, Texas. Since then, there have been another 38 mass shootings (Ladir & Rabinowitz 2022).  

Access to guns is not a human right. Access to abortion is a healthcare requirement and a basic human right enshrined by the United Nations. Forced pregnancy, including the denial to safe abortion, is a crime against humanity under international law (Amnesty International, 2020, p 10).

Pro-life conservatives bemoan a 'leftist agenda' being thrust upon them. You know, the sort of things that actually don't impact them at all, such as the right for same-sex marriage. Yet, it is conservatives who are constantly thrusting their beliefs onto everyone else in order for control and to appease their sensitive, snowflake feelings of entitlement and supremacy. They are the first ones to whinge about their liberties being infringed if someone so much as wishes them 'happy holidays' instead of 'merry Christmas', or dares to suggest that Black Lives Matter, or that Critical Race Theory shows there's more to history than the white supremacist colonialist fairy-tale. 

The control that these conservative extremists are trying to exercise is nothing short of totalitarianism. They want to dominate others with their nationalist agenda. They claim their religion or morality is superior to everyone else's. They claim they are doing the 'work of the Lord'. They claim they care for others, when they only care about themselves. There's a big difference between caring for others and controlling others. Ironic then, that US conservatives spent decades demonising Islam as depriving women of freedom, only to do the same thing in the name of their perverted 'christian' values and warped sense of 'democracy'. 

Conservatives will not stop at abortion. These extremists will now target same-sex marriage. Justice Clarence Thomas said as much in the decision to overturn Roe v Wade. For conservative Christians there have only been two big issues they are concerned with: abortion & homosexuality. Neither of these issues were even mentioned by Jesus; not that these bible-bashing hypocrites have ever followed Christ's teachings. 

There is also concern that other rights which were enshrined prior to Roe v Wade could be at risk, including the right to contraception and the right to inter-racial marriage (Papenfuss 2022).

It is a dangerous place to be in when conservatives are dominating with their fascist politics. 

References

Amnesty International, 2020, Forced pregnancy - a commentary on the crime in international law', 30 June, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/IOR5327112020ENGLISH.pdf

Amnesty International, n.d., Key facts on Abortion, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/abortion-facts/

Bendavid, E, Avila, P, Miller, G, 2011, United States aid policy and induced abortion in sub-Saharan Africa, World Health Organization Bulletin, 27 September, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3260902/

Guttmacher Institute, 2018, Highly restrictive laws do not eliminate abortion, 25 September, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.guttmacher.org/infographic/2018/highly-restrictive-laws-do-not-eliminate-abortion

Ladir, J, & Rabinowitz, K, 2022, There have been over 250 mass shootings so far in 2022, The Washington Post, 8 June, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/02/mass-shootings-in-2022/

Oberman, M, 2018, Motherhood, abortion and the medicalization of poverty, The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 18 October, viewed 26 June 2022, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1073110518804221.

Papenfuss, M, 2022, Decision Destroying Roe Threatens Legal Right To Interracial Marriage, Experts Warn, Huffpost, 24 June, viewed 26 June 2022, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/roe-v-wade-same-sex-interracial-marriage-clarence-thomas_n_62b64cd3e4b0cf43c864baaf#

Stevenson, A, 2021, A research note on the mortality consequence of denying all wanted induced abortions, SocArXiv, 1 September, viewed 26 June 2022, doi:10.31235/osf.io/sb5f2

Guns don't kill people ... angry, fearful people with guns kill people

Guns don't kill people ... angry, fearful people with guns kill people


When news breaks of a mass shooting event at a school, no-one asks which country. We all know that odds are it will be the United States. And so it was on 17 February 2018, when the world was horrified to learn of yet another massacre at a school in the United States. The school was Marjory Stoneham Douglas in Florida where a white nationalist, Nicholas Cruz used an AR-15 to murder 17 students.

Immediately after the massacre, President Donald Trump ruled out tightening gun control legislation, but instead said that people should report suspicious people to the authorities. Cruz had been reported to authorities on at least 18 occasions, including two reports that he could shoot up a school, and police did nothing about him. One of Trump's other bright ideas was to arm teachers. Then it was revealed that the armed school deputy had hidden rather than draw his weapon on the gunman, and that there were four sheriff's deputies who hid behind cars rather than engage with the gunman⁽¹⁾. Why not just train soldiers to be teachers? Oh wait, there's been numerous massacres and mass casualties on military bases on US soil, including Fort Hood in 2009, that killed 13 people and wounded 32⁽²⁾.

Armed teachers? Great. When bullets start flying, people start running. The chances of a teacher shooting a child is going to escalate dramatically. When cops arrive and there are a dozen armed teachers running around, how the hell are the cops to know who is the active shooter that they need to stop?

Unlike many other school shootings, the students at Stoneham Douglas mobilised political rallies in Florida and Washington, demanding changes to gun legislation. The very powerful and morally bereft, National Rifle Association, pressured politicians from the President down to not change the laws. The NRA supposedly represents responsible gun owners, however, this is a rather dubious claim because what self-respecting, responsible gun owner would oppose any legislation that kept guns out of the hands of mass murderers? Nor do they wish to limit the damage that guns can do, such as banning bump stocks that convert some semi-automatics into full automatics, or limiting the magazine capacity of weapons, or even questioning why the hell anyone needs an assault-style rifle, such as the AR-15 which was used in this massacre ... and in the Sandy Hook school massacre that killed 26 people, including 20 children aged six and seven years old ... or the Las Vegas massacre on 1 October 2017, in which 59 people were killed and more than 850 wounded by a gunman using numerous guns, including AR-15s with 100-round magazines. AR-15s are designed for one thing: massacring humans. They are not designed for hunting animals, or for target shooting. They certainly are not designed for clay pigeon shooting. They are designed to shoot people and make sure those people do not survive. Shots from the AR-15 tear people's bodies apart; they do not leave neat little holes that might increase the likelihood of survival. Peter Rhee, a trauma surgeon with University of Arizona describes wounds from an AR-15 as 'looking like a grenade went off in there'.⁽³⁾

There are an estimated 265 million guns in the United States, which has a population of 323 million people, although only 30% of the population have guns. The average number of guns per gun owner is three, however, some only have one, while others have up to 140. Just 3% of America's gun owners hold 133 million guns, around half of America's personal arsenal.⁽⁴⁾ Many of these weapons are pistols which pwners claim they need them for self-defence. Others will argue they use their rifles for hunting. Considering there aren't too many stags walking down Broadway it begs the question about how much hunting some of these gun owners do.

It may come as a surprise, but the chances for most people of encountering a violent gun-related crime is small for most areas of the United States. Gun violence is very much geographically concentrated, with more than half of America's homicides occurring in 127 cities which account for less than a quarter of the national population, but people in those areas are up to 400 times more likely to encounter gun violence⁽⁴⁾. Even that is very much concentrated in small pockets of those cities. For instance, gun violence in Boston occurred in only 3% of its streets, while juvenile crime in Seattle occurred on only 5% of its streets(5). The chances of encountering situations where a person may feel the need to pull out a gun are small.

Self-defence? Then riddle me this: why are there almost seven times the number of firearm assaults in states with the most guns compared to those with the fewest? Gun-owners are twice as likely to be murdered as people without guns. Part of this issue is the mentality that owning a gun creates. Some gun-owners take greater risks, go to more dangerous places, thinking they are safe because they're 'packing heat'. The only thing being packed is them or their family members into body bags. So how many victims of assault used their guns for self-defence? Less than 1%. Instead, for every legal use of a firearm in the house, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides committed by someone in the home, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. Studies have shown that using a gun in self-defence is as effective as non-violent measures, such as calling for help. The NRA and gun-owners try to argue that if people want to be violent, they will be violent regardless of their access to guns. This is true, but as Scientific American reports, 'guns intensify violent encounters'. Remember the 'Stand Your Ground Laws' that legalised killing people in self-defence when they feel they are in danger, after George Zimmerman killed an unarmed black man, Trayvon Martin, because he felt scared? Since then, Florida's homicide rate has risen by around 25% and other states who have introduced similar legislation have experienced a sustained 8% increase in homicide rates. Mark Hoekstra of Texas A&M University pithily observed, 'we found that making it easier to kill people resulted in more dead people'.⁽⁵⁾

If guns made homes safer, then insurance premiums would go down rather than increase. One insurance broker's website states: 'The risks faced by your insurance company include wrongful death, bodily injury, property damage, and theft, among others. Since your gun adds considerable risk to your renters insurance, it also increases the rates significantly'⁽⁶⁾.

One of the mantras chanted by gun-owners is that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. No shit, Einstein. That's why we're calling for gun control; background checks, training, cooling-off periods and raising minimum ages. Pro-gun people completely remove guns from the equation in crime. In their myopic view, it would make no difference whether the perpetrator had a gun or a rolling pin. Yet, what the hell are firearms designed for? To give foot massages?

In 1994, assault-style weapons such as the AR-15 were banned until 2004. Pro-gunners argue it isn't an assault weapon as this is a military term, however, the legislation defined 'assault weapons' including rifles and pistols that were semi-automatic with detachable magazines and had at least two military-style features, such as bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, folding and telescopic stocks, amongst others⁽⁷⁾. Magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds were also banned. The legislators did not expect the ban to reduce gun crime per se, but to reduce the incidence of mass-shootings. So did it work? Damn straight it worked as shown in the below graph. In the ten years prior to the ban there were 19 incidents of mass shootings (defined as six or more deaths) with a total of 155 people killed. During the ban, mass shootings dropped to 12 with 89 deaths. In the ten years after the ban was lifted, there were 34 mass shootings with 302 deaths.⁽⁸⁾ But hey, according to NRA logic, rolling pins will kill as many people as an AR-15.

So what is the NRA solution to the school shootings? While the NRA is demonising the gun control argument, they are yet to propose a solution other than, 'a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun'.

Further to this good guy/bad guy garbage, some pro-gunners bang on about 'bad people kill people'. However, this idea of there being good people and bad people is founded in simplistic, puerile ideas of absolutism that fails to acknowledge context ... the kind of thinking that far too many Christians embrace ... and funnily enough, a lot of American gun-owners are Christian who sincerely believe that guns are a gift from God ... clearly skipping the entire New Testament ... oh, that's right Jesus said, 'pick your AR-15 and follow me'. There are bad people out there, however, everyone is prone to good and bad actions. Show me one person who has never had a bad day ... I'd love to meet that person. 'Good' people have bad days and 'good' people lose their shit. Let me repeat that: People. Lose. Their. Shit. And armed people losing their shit is not a place anyone wants to be near. People who are armed and having a particularly bad day are more likely to react by drawing their firearm and raining hell on the situation. As Scientific American identified, 'People, all of us, lead complicated lives, misinterpret situations, get angry, make mistakes. And when the mistake involves pulling a trigger, the damage can't be undone'⁽⁵⁾.

The NRA and pro-gun people justify their lack of legislative action by hiding behind the Second Amendment which they claim constitutionally protects their rights to 'bear arms'. This is one fraction of the Second Amendment and completely neglects the bit about 'well-regulated'. For your reading and researching convenience, the Second Amendment in its entirety reads as follows:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Let's unpack this in light of modern America.

• A well-regulated: passing laws, funnily enough, is the very essence of well-regulated
• Militia: sorry, but Mr & Mrs Jones running around the streets of Boston armed with a couple of .32 calibre pistols while looking for a lobster and avocado panini with pan-roasted forest mushrooms, does not constitute a freaking militia.
• being necessary to the security of a free state: Guess what? Now that America spends more per capita on its heavily armed Defence Force than any other nation, kind of negates any need for a militia to defend it. Oh, and if you're intending on over-throwing an oppressive regime based in Washington by facing down the world's biggest military after eating your lobster & avo panini with pan-roasted forest mushrooms ... yeah, good luck with that ... actually, thoughts and prayers are with you.
• the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed: the people ... the militia ...  yeah, kind of only if necessary for the security of the nation, otherwise this does not apply.

Sadly, the NRA has reinvented the Second Amendment to deny any recognition of what a well-regulated militia is or whether it is even necessary. 

When the Second Amendment was introduced, America did not have a formal defence force and was totally reliant on the militia. Oh, did I mention that this was at a time when firearms were just a basic musket that was flat out firing three rounds a minute (compared to your average AR-15 which pumps out 45 rounds a minute ... and more if a bump stock is fitted). Do people really think that armed dumb-asses stuck in traffic in their Cadillacs with Make America Great Again bumper stickers, thinking about that evening's episode of America's Got Talent, constitute a militia?

By the by, 'militia' is a collective noun. A militia is a group. It is not individuals roaming around the streets unregulated and armed to the hilt. The militia of which the Second Amendment speaks was in reference to the legislated civic duty of the time, that required every white male aged between 16 and 60 to have a gun. That is the well-regulated militia, they were compulsorily required to own and provide their own weapons for the defence of the land; it wasn't a choice. A preliminary text of the Second Amendment provided a definition of what the Founding Fathers considered a militia: 'A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms'^{(9, p. 379)}. Most people would agree that with America's significant military might, a body of the people is no longer the best security of a free state, therefore it is no longer necessary.

John Paul Stevens, a former associate justice of the Supreme Court points out that the Second Amendment was designed for two things: one was to arm the people for military purposes and the second to restrict federal control over weapons but not that of the States to regulate firearms. Stevens suggests that the Second Amendment could be clarified through the addition of five words: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed'⁽¹⁰⁾

This may surprise many, but the individual right to gun ownership was only recognised in 2008, 217 years after the Second Amendment was passed⁽¹¹⁾. These individuals are not a militia and will never be called on to defend the nation with their own weapons ... if they are required to defend the nation, they will be conscripted into the military and provided with weapons by the defence force.

The pro-gunners continually portray gun control advocates as wanting to ban all guns, yet this is far from the truth. Most gun control advocates want ... wait for it ... gun control. In other words, they are not solely blaming the guns for killing people, they are blaming people having unfettered access to guns for killing people. The pro-gun mob are in complete denial over the impact of guns in violent situations. They have gone ostrich, sticking their heads in the sand, yet there is a clear correlation between guns and the massacres that we see in America. The common denominator in these massacres is guns. Sure if guns were completely banned, someone set on massacring others will find another way, but most other ways require a bit more planning and skill than grabbing a semi-automatic and unleashing hell on innocent people. 

Gun control people have been asking for changes to the law so that it is more difficult for irresponsible people to get hold of guns. Why would responsible gun owners be opposed to this? Some of things gun control advocates are asking for include:

• background checks
• mandatory safety courses
• mandatory licensing of gun owners
• raise the minimum age to at least 21 before people can buy firearms
• ban private sales of firearms
• ban sales of firearms at gun shows
• cooling off periods, so that someone can't just walk into a store and walk out 10 minutes later with a gun
• ban high capacity magazines; restrict magazine capacity to 10 rounds
• ban the bump stock that turns a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic one
• people with domestic violence convictions banned from holding firearms
• guns to be secured in safes at home
• ban assault-style rifles (again)

While assault-style rifles are in the minority of weapons, they do facilitate mass killings.

Of course, none of these measures will completely stop the over-representation of violent crime in the United States, but they may well reduce it. The pro-gunners argue that legislation makes no difference, yet, as can be seen in the following chart, deaths by guns are lower in those states with the strictest gun control legislation⁽¹²⁾.

Some of the infantile arguments against gun control made by the pro-gun mob include:

• cars kill more people and we don't ban cars ... we also restrict access to cars, people have to be a minimum age, undertake training and licensing, pay for registration and insurance, and driving under the influence is banned. We also don't let people drive Formula One cars on suburban streets, so why allow people to own assault-style weapons that have no place other than in the military. One could say that cars are 'well-regulated'.
• If we ban guns, they'll just buy them illegally ... sure ... so let's legalise all drugs because people are still using them, let's ditch homicide laws because people are still being murdered. We could save a heap of money on prisons by repealing all the laws that people break which put them there in the first place. Clearly laws don't work if there are still criminals, right?
• Video games are too violent ... right, and every other country plays these same games but don't feel led to massacre children sitting in an algebra class!

The right-wing wants to ban everything they dislike, such as abortion, birth control, marriage equality, refugees, anti-bullying programs, immigration, Islam, halal, burqas, left-wing media, books (e.g. Slaughterhouse Five for not being consistent with biblical teaching), rock music, equal rights ... but when it comes to restricting access to guns it's a resounding NO from many right-wingers who have a distorted sense of entitlement, patriotism and biblical values.

One of the scapegoats that pro-gunners blame for mass shootings is the mentally ill. Which is ironic, considering that it is the Republicans who have been defunding mental health programs, but that is another story. For the most part, it is not the mentally ill who have been responsible for the mass shootings ... it is .. get this ... angry people. Psychologist, Laura L. Hayes wrote in 2014 on the tenuous links between mental illness and mass shootings, and emphasised that there was much stronger evidence to link poor anger management with violence and in particular, mass shootings. Hayes identifies that this violent anger is caused by a chronically suppressed rage.⁽¹³⁾

The modern United States is an angry nation. It is factionalised by an 'us and them' mentality that demonises people based on race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation and wealth. It demonises the poor and refuses anything that might represent a welfare state. 

The United States of today is one in which individualism is highly-valued over that of the community. This individualism is neurotically tied to the idea of freedom and that owning firearms is the greatest expression of freedom ... even if it comes at the price of thousands of dead school-children. The USA is riddled with a neurosis that is driven by greed and selfishness, manifesting as an extreme paranoia of the 'other' coming to take their things away. It is a neurosis that has been caused by the extreme form of capitalism that only America embraces. It is a capitalism that sees any form of sharing as being communism. Welfare payments to ensure people can eat? Communism! Universal health-care so that everyone, rich or poor, can receive medical treatment? Communism! Public education? Communism. Taxation? 'That's sharing wealth, you dirty Commo!' Raise the minimum wage so that the working poor aren't forced to work three or four jobs? 'Fuck you, Jack - price of my coffee ain't gonna go up to help someone else! That's communism, you pinko snowflake'! 

Yep, anger. Anger against those who might take away their precious 'freedom', which is really only their belongings purchased through their consumerist indulgence and an anger that comes from a perceived competition with the neighbours; 'keeping up with the Jones's' drives much of the ludicrous competition that causes stress and anger in many Americans.

America's extreme form of capitalism does not allow for empathy or compassion. And we wonder why this selfishness and fear exhibits itself through anger and paranoia that results in mass shootings of innocent people. It's the hate speech and exclusionism of populist politics that is empowering people to shoot up schools and crowds.

Gun control is only one small step in reducing deaths from guns. There are three profound issues that need to be addressed for long-term change in the United States:

• anger
• fear
• hate

America needs anger management, this in itself will help resolve much of the violent crime. 

America needs to overcome its fear; it's fear of the other, fear of loss, fear of communism, fear of sharing. This is a nation that houses some very fearful people ... and they're armed to the teeth with firearms.

America needs to overcome its hate. It is a nation that is still largely segregated by race and religion. It is a nation that illustrates the huge disparity between the haves and the have-nots. Interestingly, most mass shootings are perpetrated by the haves, the privileged members of white America⁽¹⁴⁾... illustrating the power of fear that comes of greed and selfishness.

However, to truly overcome these horrendous mass murders, America needs empathy, sharing, caring, a spirit in which the good of the community is valued more than the individual, more than selfishness and greed.

Sylvester McNutt, a former high-flying type from corporate America who became a best-selling author of motivational books, may have inadvertently nailed the solution, when he wrote:

'Everyone is so focused on acting savage, busy, and heartless these days. Meanwhile, I'm searching for the humans that believe in compassion, love, and human connection'. 

References

1. New York Post, Ruth Brown, Four sheriff's deputies hid during Florida shooting, 23 February 2018, https://nypost.com/2018/02/23/four-sheriffs-deputies-hid-during-florida-school-shooting/. Accessed 3 March 2018.

2. Ranker, Mike Rothschild, Complete list of US military base shootings,
https://www.ranker.com/list/military-base-shooting/mike-rothschild. Accessed 3 March 2018.

3. The New Yorker, John Cassidy, America's failure to protect its children from school shootings is a national disgrace, 15 February 2018,  https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/americas-failure-to-protect-its-children-from-school-shootings-is-a-national-disgrace-parkland-florida. Accessed 3 March 2018.

4. The Guardian, Lois Beckett, The gun numbers: just 3% of Americans own a collective 133m firearms, 15 November 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/the-gun-numbers-just-3-of-american-adults-own-a-collective-133m-firearms. Accessed 3 March 2018.

5. Scientific American, Melinda Wenner Moyer, More guns do not stop more crimes, evidence shows, 1 October 2017, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/. Accessed 22 February 2018.

6. US Insurance Agents, Does owning a gun impact my renter's insurance quotes?, 10 February 2014,  https://usinsuranceagents.com/answers/2557/does-owning-a-gun-impact-my-renters-insurance-quotes. Accessed 3 March 2018.

7. United States Congress, H.R.3355 - Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,     https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355/text. Accessed 3 March 2018.

8. Washington Post, Christopher Ingraham, The real reason Congress banned assault weapons in 1994 - and why it worked, 22 February 2018,   https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/22/the-real-reason-congress-banned-assault-weapons-in-1994-and-why-it-worked. Accessed 3 March 2018.

9. Walker, D.J., 2016. Necessary to the security of free states: the Second Amendment as the auxiliary right of federalism. American Journal of Legal History, 56(4), pp.365–391.

10. The Washington Post, John Paul Stevens, The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment, 11 April 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?utm_term=.157605148899. Accessed 3 March 2018.

11. Politico Magazine, Michael Waldman, How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment, 19 May 2014, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856. Accessed 3 March 2018.

12. SafeHome.org, Gun Laws v Gun Deaths, https://www.safehome.org/resources/gun-laws-and-deaths/. Accessed 3 March 2018.

13. Slate, Laura L. Hayes, How to Stop Violence. Mentally ill people aren't killers. Angry people are. 9 April 2014.    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/04/anger_causes_violence_treat_it_rather_than_mental_illness_to_stop_mass_murder.html. Accessed 3 March 2018. 

14. New York Times, Daniel Victor, Mass shooters are all different. Except for one thing: Most are men, 17 February 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/us/mass-murderers.html. Accessed 3 March 2018.