The Facts That Neither Side Wants to Admit About Gun Control


Washington, DC  – A church was shot up by a lunatic. The US government never lets a tragedy or crisis pass without attempting to find a new way to restrict the American people. So, we can expect a renewed push for gun control. There is a lot of propaganda about gun control. So much so that the truth has been lost.

By:  Justin King

This article first appeared at TheFifthColumn

The National Rifle Association (NRA) would have you believe that guns stop murders. The gun control lobby would have you believe that gun control reduces murders. They are both wrong. Gun bans have always had the same effect once implemented: none. They do not create a (sustained) period of increased murders, nor do they reduce the rate of homicides. The gun control crowd is currently stomping their feet and screaming “No, it reduces violence! I’ve seen the statistics.” What you probably saw were studies that point to reduced instances of “gun murders,” not murder. The pro-gun crowd is screaming that gun bans cause crime. At least this is grounded in reality. Typically, there is a spike in murders immediately after a ban, but it is short lived.

Gun control is designed to stop people from killing each other, at least that’s what we are always told. Let’s take a look at the data:

United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.

Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.

Plain and simple. Gun control has no significant impact on murder rates. Removing firearms does not typically create massive lawlessness. It is a moot point. These figures aren’t a secret. Why would the governments of these nations want a disarmed populace? For the answer, it is best to look at a nation that has had long-time gun bans that is currently relaxing their laws. Russia recently relaxed its firearms laws. For the first time in recent memory, a Russian citizen can carry a firearm. The prohibited items speak volumes about what a government’s motive behind disarming the population is. Russia has allowed “smoothbore long barrelled guns, pistols, revolvers, and other firearms, as well as Tasers, and devices equipped with teargas.” That’s almost everything, what is still banned? Rifles. So the Russian government has made it clear that the real objective is to remove rifles from civilian hands. The reasoning is pretty clear: you need rifles to overthrow a government.

The Real Reason Gun Control Will Never Work:

Poverty has a greater correlation to violent crime than access to firearms. Education and poverty are directly linked. In short, we don’t have a gun problem in the United States, we have a cultural problem.Home Depot. Most people in the gun control lobby know nothing about firearms or their construction. Everything you need to manufacture firearms is available at Home Depot. The materials needed to manufacture a 12 gauge shotgun cost about $20. If someone wanted to build a fully automatic Mac-10 style submachine gun, it would probably cost about $60. Every electrician, plumber, and handyman in the country has the materials necessary to manufacture firearms in their shop. The items are completely unregulated. They aren’t like the chemicals necessary to manufacture methamphetamines. How is the battle against that black market working out?

We have a society that panders to the basest desires and instincts. One of those is violence. We live in a society where women are given dirty looks for breastfeeding in a restaurant, while over their heads on the wall-mounted television plays a movie that graphically depicts someone being tortured to death. We are desensitized to violence, and we have a generation of people that do not have the coping skills necessary to deal with reality.

Firearms are the Pandora’s Box of the United States. The box is open, it can’t be closed through legislation. If you want to change society, you have to actually change the whole of society. You can’t blame an inanimate object that’s availability has absolutely no correlation to murder and expect to end violence.

This article first appeared at TheFifthColumn

  • Mark Ronan

    Great article, and unbiased. The answer is not as simple as banning guns and not as simple as having them

    • Christopher Santana

      Very biased, I would say.

  • A.D. Hopkins

    Thoughtful piece and I believe he’s right. Certainly he’s expressing logically-derived beliefs and not a point of view biased toward either side of the debate. Well done.

  • Brian Petti

    But…no one claimed the murder rate would automatically go down if guns were legislated. There are certainly other methods to pursue if someone is intent on murder. But if you want to kill A LOT of people in a SHORT amount of time, a gun is the weapon of choice (preferably a multiple bullet semi-automatic one.) Would mass killings in schools, theaters, etc. be less likely to occur if weapons of mass killing were made less available? Yeah, probably.

    • Susan Hernandez

      The weapon of choice would probably be a home made IED, or a knife/machete which is what occurs in China, or some kind of IED gas weapon like what occurred in Japan back in the 90s, so no, it wouldn’t.

      • bob

        then please explain why the rates are indeed lower in those nations?
        why their mass attacks are few and far between. meanwhile as many or more people die in teh US every night than did in the attacks you reference.

        • Brian Schwatka

          Most of that is related to criminal activity. Much of that related to our insane war on drugs. There are around 30K firearm deaths in the US every year. That is out of a population of roughly 300 million. That puts the chance of you dying by fire arm at .01% . Now of those 30K around 60% are suicides. The US is not a suicide haven despite our gun laws. We are about mid-pack with countries like France and well below countries like Japan and South Korea all three developed nations with very strict gun laws. So if you are not suicidal the chance of you dying by firearm again decreases by around two thirds so around .003%. Now of the remaining approximately 10-11K per year which are homicides(of which defenses uses including police line of duty shootings as well as accidental firearm deaths) other criminal activity constitutes most of that. Depending on the source you use some put it as high as nearly 80%. So if you are not involved in other crime your chances even further go down. .So you want to pass laws restricting the rights of millions of Americans based on the less then .003% chance an innocent individual will die.

          • bob

            your conflating gun death with being involved in crime.
            its not just the criminals that are dying, while not answering hte question of why your chances of dying in the US are still several times higher than the other countries.

            and the answer is simple: more guns. period.
            less guns. less deaths. period.

    • Bfox

      They still have mass shootings in Australia in spite of the gun ban. Two years ago, there was the cafe incident and that police station getting shot up lat week…part of what needs to be thought about is,the fact that if you ban something you are actually taking away your ability to monitor it. There are now more homemade machine guns in Australia than there were legally manufactured before the ban. Also the media is not presenting an honest and truthful picture of what is really gojng on. They label a mass shooting a terrorist attack but the reality is they are both the same thing. They do this so they can point at places like Australia and say…”look banning guns stops mass shootings” but the reality is the ban has stopped nothing.

      • Ron Staines

        Cafe incident was not a mass shooting. 3 dead, the cafe manager shot by the nutter, the customer killed by a police ricochet and the nutter killed by police.

        There have been no mass shootings in Australia since the 1996 ban on self loading rifles. Stop misrepresenting the facts to push you own warped agenda.

        • James Jamestown

          Right because the attempt wasn’t successful you get to claim it wasn’t a mass shooting. LOL hilarious.

    • theRabbit

      You’re assumption is that “gun control” keeps guns out of terrorists and nutjobs’ hands (besides not considering endless other equally destructive means at their disposal). This is unsupported by the facts. Like France’s mass shootings, Narcos mass murdering entire youth football teams, most of the worst school shootings having been committed outside the US, etc.

      Besides that, anyone can 3D-print any type of gun you can conceive of (including full-auto). Also, the ‘scary’ black rifles the gun-grabbers are obsessed with are used in less homicides than fists, clubs and feet.

      • bob

        it does make it harder actually. that is a fact. france’s mass terror shootings were an aberration, months in the planning, abnormal events. yet fewer people died in those attacks than die EVERY NIGHT in the US to gun violence.

        when guns cost 20-30k$ each because they are only available on the black market because they are so heavility controlled, yes, it absolutely DOES make it harder for them to carry out and plan any sort of violence. that is a fact.

    • Dereck Bruer

      A multiple bullet semiautomatic? Wtf?

    • Sky_Dog

      No, you make a bomb if you want to kill as many people as possible. Read the article.

  • Derek Dwilson

    Good write-up. You should consider including the rising violent crime rate in Australia, though. It is easy to find on their government website, and appears to directly correlate to when they removed guns.

  • Kyle

    This is an interesting article. The point that gun prohibition doesn’t always correlate with decreasing homicide rates is convincing. I think there are some missing details though.. I would be curious to see what percentage of the total homicides in the UK,Australia,Ireland PRIOR to gun prohibition were gun related homicides ( i see that some of this info is in the link for Australia, but I’m not sure how to read and interpret it). It’s imaginable that gun-related homicide have always been uncommon in these places (as opposed to some other form of homicide), in which case gun prohibition is obviously not going to have an effect on overall homicide trends. Similarly, how many people owned guns in these places before prohibition? If only a small fraction of the population owned guns, then again prohibition is not going to matter much.

  • Eric B

    Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics !!
    A very salient point the author left out is that the US gun homicide rate ALONE is 35 per million (or 3 times the total British rate), the total is 51 per million. so in the the US, guns account for more than 60% of homicides. It’s a point to consider.
    The reason the homicide rate is flat is because we just didn’t have that many gun deaths to begin with. The firearm ban was the result of a one off mass killing in Tasmania and the government knee jerked

    • Eric B

      The homicide rate is flat in Australia

      • Quantum_Nanotech

        But doesn’t that underline the conclusion made at the end of the article, that America has a problem of culture and not guns? If Australians were able to have guns without shooting each other in the face all the time while Americans can’t seem to stop, doesn’t it mean the problem is something other than guns? Or were you offering the point in support of the article and I just have terrible reading comprehension?

    • bill

      Nope, gun related deaths are much higher but the US statistics (lies) also include suicide which is 2/3 of the total number of deaths and they include over 500 deaths/year at the hands of law enforcement.

      • Ron Staines

        There was no firearm ban in Australia! There was a ban on self loading rifles. That is not the same.
        There were 13 mass shootings before 1996 and none since. The purpose of the legislation worked 100%.

        • Feedback71

          But what happened with violent crimes such as home invasions? Unintended consequences?

    • Quantum_Nanotech

      Wait, you may not realise this but you basically just summarised the article from a different direction.

    • birdbrained2000

      We are more than 4 times as big as England with at least 4 times as many people. The death rate would naturally be bigger. What you’re not taking into consideration is that if you take out Chicaho, Detroit and New Orleans- all have the strictest gun laws in the country, but most gun violence, your numbers wouldn’t be what you say. We have a problem of culture especially on the inner cities. No one ever takes into consideration that a high percent of black inner city homes have no father in the home. Women have children by many men and are in the 3rd generation of welfare. These are also the same people that no gun ban, confiscation or law will change because they don’t follow laws. You think if we turn in our guns legal gun owners would not turn into illegal gun owners. Americans won’t give up their guns. We are fiercely independent and our second amendment gives us the right and power to protect ourselves and our families and also guard against a tyrannical government. You have no idea how close we are to a second revolution. We won’t be controlled by government. More people wake up every day. With every shooting that Ibama and dems try to use to enact gun control thousands buy more guns. Gun ownership in the gay community is skyrocketing. Obama and the gun control left has been the best tho g for gun and ammo companies since the war.

      • bob

        No, the rate would not naturally be bigger.
        Raw number, possibly (but not a given).
        Do you even math bro?

        • Brian Schwatka

          For god sake man historical historical. Yes the rate is lower guess what it always was lower before and after the gun laws. Like Australia who had a fraction of the homicide rate the US had prior to the 1996 restrictions. However both the US and Australia over the same time period had an approximate 50% reduction in the homicide rate. What they showed in the damm article is the the implemntation of gun control did not have impact on the overall murder rate till. The eventually after a brief spike flattened back to the original rate.

  • Gary

    Blaming guns for these murders is like blaming cars for speeding. Guns, like cars, require an operator to break the law. I enjoy shooting sports. Trap, sporting clays, long range rifle competition, cowboy action shooting…. So because someone else abuses the implements of my recreational endeavors, I’m to be banned from enjoying them? If a criminal kills someone with a baseball bat, is baseball to be banned as well? Let’s get real folks. The issue is with people, not things.

  • Christopher Santana

    Very flawed article with lots of incorrect data here and there… just take the UK example and compare with wikipedia (as source)…First of all, there was no ban, there is a tight regulation on gun control, “In the United Kingdom, access by the general public to firearms is tightly controlled by law, but it is less restrictive in Northern Ireland. The country has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world … The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales.The homicide rate in England and Wales at the end of the 1990s was below the EU average, but the rates in Northern Ireland and Scotland were above the EU average.” … “Police in Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland) are not routinely armed.Fatal shootings of police are extremely rare; there were three in England and Wales in the eleven-year period from 2000/01 to 2010/11” ,… “Britain has had very few spree killings or mass shootings in modern times. During the latter half of the 20th century there were only two incidents in which people holding licensed firearms went on shooting sprees and killed on a large scale, the Hungerford massacre of 1987 and the Dunblane school massacre of 1996; each led to strong public and political demands to restrict firearm use, and tightening of laws.”…

    • mr6

      England also added 20,000 additional police in major cities. This is credited with lower violent crime rates more than the gun ban

      • Christopher Santana

        Police in England do not use guns… so yes, the presence of law enforcement is a deterrent of crime, but the presence of guns with short supply in law enforcement adds to the damage, higher homicidal rates..

    • Brian Schwatka

      Umm if you divide by ten that is around the numbers in the article. They use per million while wiki uses per 100K. You missed the part about how their murder rate was always historically low even compared to the US even when gun laws were similar. They are comparing historical norms. There was no change in the rate after a uptick after restrictions were implemented.

  • Ron Staines

    What rubbish. Australia did not enact a gun ban! Any Australian without criminal convictions can get a gun license which allows them to own and keep long arms. What was banned was self loading rifles. The purpose of the legislation was to prevent mass shootings defined as 4 or more fatalities. So far it has been 100% successful. In the 18 years prior to 1996 there were 13 mass shooting, since 1996 0.

    I struggle to understand how you manage to convince people that this is a balanced article but I guess your readership just want their own biased opinions confirmed.
    The laws have managed to reduce the ability of the insane to get hold of repeating rifles, even black market gun dealers here don’t supply the nutters.

    As for non-mass shooting firearm deaths the research is inconclusive with some studies showing an acceleration in the already declining rate and some showing just a continuation of the already declining rate.

    The laws were enacted by a CONSERVATIVE government.

    I would suggest that Australia is a comparable culture to the USA only we have a better public education system which teaches us how to pull our heads out of our arses and allow governments to make laws that benefit the community.

    • Joe H.

      Since the 1996 gun ban, Australia has a big problem with home invasion.

    • AN1957

      I fail to see how the partial gun ban and confiscation in Australia can be credited with a decline in either mass or single homicides when other repeating firearms such as revolvers and lever action rifles have remained perfectly legal. Committing mass murder perfectly feasible with the two before mentioned types of firearms. Revolvers can be reloaded quickly using a speed loader and the simple expedient of carrying an additional revolver can provide security during the reloading process. Mass murders are also quite possible using a bolt action rifle as demonstrated by our own Texas tower massacre.

      • bob

        AN1957, You’re an idiot who clearly knows little about fire arms.
        The Texas Tower sniper was enabled by the fact he was on a !@#%ing tower, with no comparable nearby high vantage points to disable him, with a locked door, so no one could get up to him to stop him.
        Revolvers pale in comparison to the effectiveness of the self loading weapons commonly used. Capable does not mean just as capable.

  • Joe H.

    We didn’t have these problems with mass shootings years ago. Yet we had semi-auto weapons. The issue is cultural rot.

    • birdbrained2000

      Bingo, Joe. Nobody will admit the problem in this country. It’s truly pathetic.

    • mr6

      Actually we did. These mass shootings happened years ago, what we didn’t have was instant access to news via social media

      • Brian Schwatka

        Asking how many though of the mass shootings were related to crime? Sure there were mass shootings during prohibition for instance but were they the type we are seeing now or crime related.

  • bob

    This article is bs that completely ignores that the homicide rate in countries with gun control is between 1/3 and 1/2 the number that it is in the US. It also uses the disconnect between the vaguely defined “violent crime”, something that includes verbal assault in several european nations, in order to exploit the thusly inflated and misleading numbers.

    • Brian Schwatka

      Bob take a look at the historic rate as the article points out. The US has always had a higher murder rate even when gun laws were similar.

  • jaredstearns

    Has anyone ever done a study of the thousands of innocents killed by civilian gun violence, compared to the tens of millions of murders carried out by Governments against their own unarmed citizens? I think that would be enlightening.

  • Sam

    There is a preference of two major positions, outlined here:

    1. I am willing and able to use a gun to defend me and my family, therefore it is in my advantage to be allowed to have a gun, as I will generally be at the trigger end of a gun.

    2. I am not willing or able to use a gun to defend me and my family, therefore it is in my advantage to reduce the availability of guns as I will likely be at the bullet end of any gun.

    NOTE: It’s a preference. Neither is right or wrong, though each comes with collateral advantages and collateral disadvantages.

    Those who won’t use a gun want to sacrifice for their own safety, the personal advantage it gives to others.

    Those who will use a gun will sacrifice for their own safety, the chosen disadvantage of those who won’t use a gun.

  • Foster Hankins

    This article hits the nail on the head, add to this overpopulation. I don’t mean too many people for the planet to sustain, I mean too many people for our own mental health. Look at studies on mouse and rat overpopulation. They had more than food to sustain them, but they began killing each other anyway. Look at how we live, totally connected 24/7/365, no real privacy anymore and endless crap on TV. The whole world has become one big social experiment waiting to explode, it will get worse before it gets better.

  • pgson

    This is a very good article. One thing wrong, however. I don’t know of anyone, not even the NRA, arguing that more guns stop murder from occurring. What they and I do say is that I’d rather have a gun if an criminal has one and wants to do me harm and that people with guns in their house, or businesses can, and have, stopped armed thugs from committing crimes. The real reason for gun ownership is not to hunt, or to stop criminals, however. It’s to defend against Government control and totalitarianism. However, when criminals have guns, the best way to fight that is having one, yourself.

    Our culture has systematically been destroyed by the degradation of education and this out of control media in news, Hollywood, and everything on TV and in video games. Generations have been warped and corrupted worse in worse, especially in our major cities under Democrat rule. Especially the Black culture, which accounts for over 80% of our murders in this country. Unless that is all turned around, and soon, the violence will not dwindle any time soon. It will only get worse.