Opinion

Bernd Debusmann

American riddle: more guns, less violence?

Bernd Debusmann
Jan 6, 2012 10:29 EST

Gun ownership in the United States is up. Violent crime is down. Is this a matter of cause and effect?

The question merits pondering on the January 8 anniversary of the Arizona mass shooting which killed six people, severely injured a member of congress, Gabrielle Giffords, and rekindled the seemingly endless on-and-off debate over gun regulations in the United States, the country with the greatest number of firearms in private hands.

Judging from the background checks gun dealers filed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), that number jumped by around 1.5 million in December, thanks partly to a spurt of buying around Christmas. For Arizona gun enthusiasts who left firearms out of their Christmas giving, gun shows in Tucson and Phoenix provide another shopping opportunity on the Giffords shooting anniversary.

Advocates of tighter restrictions on firearms have long insisted that more guns equal more violence but a series of FBI statistics released in 2011 makes one wonder about that assumption. Gun sales have risen by twelve percent nationally over the last three years, initially spurred by mistaken fears that President Barack Obama would push for tighter controls. In the same period, violent crime (murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault) dropped steadily and now stands at a 37-year low.

Does this vindicate the school of thought that holds that armed citizens are the best defense against crime? “The numbers are consistent with what I’ve been saying for a long time,” says John Lott, author of a controversial 1997 study entitles More Guns, Less Crime. “When bans on guns, as in Chicago and Washington DC, were lifted, murders actually declined,” he said in an interview. (Washington recorded 145 murders in 2009 and 132 in 2010).

The National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the most powerful U.S. lobbies, noted in May, after the FBI’s initial set of 2010 crime figures, that “the decrease in crime coincided with an increase in the number of privately owned guns – particularly handguns and detachable magazine semi-automatic rifles. For example, Americans bought 400,000 AR-15s in 2009.”

With sales at a steady pace, it’s no wonder that the United States holds a commanding lead in private gun ownership – almost as many guns as there are people. According to the 2011 Small Arms Survey by the respected Graduate Institute of Geneva, there are 270 million civilian firearms in the United States (population 312 million). Yemen comes a distant second.

If the size of the arsenal served as a deterrent, as some pro-gun criminologists suggest, the country should be virtually violence-free. But despite the decline reported by the FBI, the U.S. per capita murder rate is three times as high as that of Canada or Britain.

WHAT DRIVES THE TREND?

So, if guns are not a significant driver in the U.S. crime statistics, what is? The experts are baffled because the trend conflicts with a number of long-held assumptions. Criminologists thought that hard economic times and high unemployment tended to prompt crime. But robberies, for example, fell since the beginning of the recession in 2008. Similarly, many experts saw a link between crime and the number of prison inmates, the theory being that people behind bars can’t commit crimes. But because of budget cuts in several states, the prison population actually shrank.

Among several hypotheses for the drop in crime: demographics. The United States is ageing and the fastest growing segment of the population is over-50s, an age group historically less prone to violence and criminal activity than younger people. Another theory: better policing thanks to widespread use of technology to spot crimes. In short: nobody has a convincing answer and, surprisingly in a country full of experts given to predictions, there are no forecasts on how long the trend of declining crime will last.

Here’s one trend that is certain to last — an American fascination with guns and tolerance of regulations that make it easy to buy them. Opinion polls show that support for stricter gun controls has dropped over the past two decades despite mass shootings like the 1999 Columbine high school rampage, the carnage at Virginia Tech university eight years later and the Arizona massacre commemorated this weekend.

You can contact the author at Debusmann@Reuters.com.

COMMENT

“despite mass shootings” really closes with a particular political slant that is disappointing here.

Yes, it’s a shame that madmen did crazy things.

Yes, it’s a shame that criminals misused objects.

But we’re dealing with a few anomalies, usually in unarmed victim zones (schools, universities, and the like) where attackers know that their law-abiding targets are not armed and thus, no match for the shootout that is about to begin.

The fact is that guns exist in America. We have a Constitutional right to them, incorporated finally since Heller and McDonald.

The question isn’t about gun control.

It should be about madman and lunatic control, which frankly given the scarcity of incidents in a nation of over 300 million, we do a marvelous job of.

Posted by rfurtkamp | Report as abusive

The war on drugs and a milestone critique

Bernd Debusmann
Jun 3, 2011 10:08 EDT

The war on drugs is a waste of time, money and lives. It cannot be won. The world’s drug warriors are out of ideas.

Fresh thinking is of the essence. Governments should consider legalizing drugs to take profits out of the criminal trade.

Filling prisons with drug users does nothing to curb the billion-dollar illicit business, one of the world’s richest. Drug use is a public health problem, not a crime. Arresting small-time dealers does little but create a market opportunity for other small fry. Destroy drug crops in one region and cultivation moves to another. Cut a supply route in one place and another one opens up.

By one group or another, each of the above points has been made about long-running drug policies that bring to mind Albert Einstein’s famous definition of insanity — doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

But never before has such criticism come from an international panel of establishment figures with such high profiles as the Global Commission on Drug Policy which presented a devastating assessment of the drug war in New York on June 2. Its 19 members include former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, three former Latin American presidents (of Brazil, Mexico and Colombia), former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, Richard Branson, the flamboyant billionaire chairman of the Virgin group, and Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou.

Other commission members of impeccable mainstream respectability: George Shultz, U.S. Secretary of State during the Reagan administration; Louise Arbour, a former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and now president of the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think tank; former Swiss president Ruth Dreifuss; Javier Solana, former European Union foreign affairs chief; Mario Vargas Llosa, the Peruvian Nobel literature laureate, and Mexican writer Carlos Fuentes.

Whether their report will bring about change remains to be seen but it looks like a milestone on a long road toward reforms that some see as inevitable. “Today is the day when we start to end the war on drugs,” Branson said at the commission’s New York news conference.

The commission’s report does not mince words: “The global war on drugs has failed. When the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs came into being 50 years ago and when President (Richard) Nixon launched the U.S. government’s war on drugs 40 years ago, policymakers believed that harsh law enforcement action against those involved in drug production, distribution and use would lead to an ever-diminishing market in … drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis and the eventual achievement of a ‘drug-free world.’”

“In practice, the global scale of illegal drug markets – largely controlled by organized crime – has grown dramatically over this period.”

A KIND OF ARMS RACE

So has bloodshed and violence as government forces and drug trafficking organizations engage in what the report calls “a kind of arms race” – tougher crackdowns prompt criminal mafias to respond with greater force.

Exhibit A for this arms race is Mexico, where at least 36,000 people have died since late 2006, when President Felipe Calderon declared war on his country’s drug cartels and unleashed the Mexican army to fight them. The death toll has mounted year by year, the army is not winning, and there is no end in sight.

“Poorly designed drug law enforcement practices can actually increase the level of violence, intimidation and corruption associated with drug markets,” notes the report. It echoes many of the points made in a 2009 by a commission that focused on Latin America but did not go as far as recommending that governments debate and seriously consider “models of legal regulation” of all drugs, not only marijuana.

The driving force in the Global Commission, a private initiative launched in Geneva in January, is former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who also led the 2009 Latin American group together with former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo and former president Cesar Gaviria of Colombia.

Latin America is the world’s largest exporter of cocaine and marijuana, largely to the insatiable U.S. market, and a major supplier of opium and heroin. Around the world, drug producing countries are vulnerable to what Moises Naim, a scholar at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former Venezuelan trade minister calls “the politicization of criminals and the criminalization of politicians.” It’s a process that has given birth to “narco states,” a label that has been used for countries as far apart as Venezuela and Afghanistan.

There is reason to be skeptical about the prospect of change within years rather than decades and the commission alluded to it – “a built-in vested interest” in continuing with policies that focus on enforcement, interdiction and eradication. It is an entrenched anti-drug establishment that provides employment for thousands of people, from narcotics agents and intelligence analysts to prison wardens.

One of the essential elements required to change that system is spelt out in the first of the commission report’s 11 recommendations: “Political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many of them acknowledge privately: that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem and that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won.” (You can contact the author at Debusmann@Reuters)

COMMENT

@Watson

I hope you never get rear-ended at a stop sign and suffer chronic pain for the rest of your life that at times makes you wish for death while doctors treat you as a criminal for asking for relief.

I also despise scum like Corey Haim who before he died helped a massive prescription fraud ring which directly leads to the kinds of ignorance you display.

If someone was being tortured, any person would want to help them stop the torture. Chronic pain is like being tortured by invisible torturers. I call mine angry leprechauns because it feels like they’ve been punching and kicking me in the back all night after a few hours of fitful sleep. Constant pain and chronic sleep deprivation are whittling me down. The 19 year old who plowed into me 6 years ago basically killed me. I have a neck injury which dictates that I can only lay flat on my back. I have scoliosis which leads to intense back pain from laying flat on my back. My access to pain medication is fitful at best, but I know that many people in the world have zero access. Years ago a read an account of a woman in Africa with breast cancer so advanced the tumors were coming out of her breast. She was in agony. She was dying. Her only medicine was Tramadol, which is about as effective as taking ten aspirin. Because of our societal ignorance about addiction (as well as our actually ignorant worthless addicts) many innocent people are suffering so badly you would cry if you could feel their agony for five minutes.

The statistics on Oxycodone are thus: Of those who start taking the medication because of legitimate pain, only 2% become addicted. Approximately 48% experience withdrawal, which many (including journalists) completely confuse with addiction. Withdrawal can be avoided by simply slowly and gradually lowering the amount of medication.

Finally, full disclosure. Before I was rear-ended I too believed that people who complained of whip-lash were just shysters out to take advantage. I also bought into the addiction nonsense. At first I took Tramadol (or Ultram) for eight months and after a short lived pain reprieve due to a spinal injection I suddenly stopped taking it. It felt like I had the flu and I couldn’t understand why. When the same thing happened 8 months later I was convinced I’d become addicted to tramadol, which is about as possible as becoming addicted to tylenol. As the years went by and nothing worked with great reservation I went on Oxycodone and I was able to sleep up to 6 hours and lift more than five pounds for the first time. Recently I’ve changed my sleeping position and have gone off oxycodone again and so far I have zero withdrawal and zero desire to go back on. By contrast when I try to quit cigarettes I have dreams of dancing cigarettes in my head telling me to go ahead and have just one.

So I understand addiction. I understand pain. What I’m still trying to understand is the depths of human ignorance and cruelty.

Posted by BajaArizona | Report as abusive

In America, violence and guns forever

Bernd Debusmann
Jan 14, 2011 10:09 EST

Another American mass shooting. Another rush to buy more guns.

On the Monday after the latest of the bloody rampages that are part of American life, gun sales in Arizona shot up by more than 60 percent and rose by an average of five percent across the entire country. The figures come from the FBI and speak volumes about a gun culture that has long baffled much of the world.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation compared January 10, 2011, with the corresponding Monday a year ago.

So what would prompt Americans to stock up their arsenals in the wake of the shooting in Tucson that killed six people and wounded 14, including Gabrielle Giffords, the congresswoman who was the target of an unhinged 22-year-old who has since been charged with attempted assassination?

To hear gun dealers tell it, demand went up because of fears that the Tucson shooting might lead to tighter gun laws. There was a similar spike in sales after the 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech, where a deranged student killed 32 people and himself in the worst such massacre in American history.

Fear of regulation also drove up gun sales after President Barack Obama won the presidency in November 2008. In the first two months of 2009, about 2.5 million Americans bought guns, a 26 percent increase over the same period in 2008.

According to a CBS poll taken two days after Jared Loughner shot congresswoman Giffords in the head, Americans are almost evenly divided on the issue of gun control – 48 percent said gun laws should remain as they are or be made less strict, 47 in favor of more regulation. That is down from 56 percent in 2002 and confirms a Gallup analysis this week that found public support for stricter gun laws has declined over the past two decades.

That prompts one to wonder how many Americans see gun violence as the inevitable by-product of a free society – and whether the gun lobby has been right all along in saying that gun control advocates are out of touch with much of the country.

As one of the staunchest opponents of more gun regulation, John Lott, puts it in a book entitled More Guns, Less Crime: “American culture is a gun culture – not merely in the sense that in 2009 about 124 million people lived in households that owned a total of about 270 million guns but in a broader sense that guns pervade our debates on crime and are constantly present in movies and the news. So, we are obsessed with guns…”

WORLD LEADER IN PRIVATE GUNS
That obsession has long secured the United States the number one position on the list of gun-owning nations. There are more guns in private hands than anywhere else on earth. On a guns-per-capita basis (90 guns per 100 residents) it is comfortably ahead of second-ranked Yemen (61 per 100), according to the authoritative Small Arms Survey issued by the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva.

That obsession, in the eyes of gun control advocates, borders on insanity and some of the wrinkles of America’s permissive gun laws are so bizarre they beggar belief. To wit: “Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law.” Neither does inclusion on the government’s ever-growing terrorist watch list.

So found the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the research arm of Congress, after looking into the background checks of prospective buyers gun dealers are required to file to the FBI. According to a GAO report read at a congressional hearing last May, sales of guns and explosives to people on terrorist watch lists totaled 1,119 in a period of six years.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, came out in opposition to proposed legislation that would have barred people on the list from buying guns. Why? They are placed there on “reasonable suspicion” of terrorist links and the NRA argues that suspicion is not enough for Congress to take away the constitutional right, enshrined in the second amendment to the U.S. constitution, to own and bear arms.

After the Tucson attack hurt one of their own, members of Congress are worried about their safety but whether that will translate into greater willingness to tighten gun regulations remains to be seen. The test will come when a New York Democrat, Carolyn McCarthy, introduces a bill to ban extended magazines, such as the 33-round clip used by Loughner.

Such magazines were illegal from 1994 to 2004 as part of a ban on assault weapons the Bush administration let lapse, a move that prompted gun control advocates to predict a sharp increase in the number of gun deaths. That did not happen. The rate of gun deaths – by murder, suicide or accidents – has held steady at around 31,000 a year and the murder rate has actually dropped.

Which is an argument gun enthusiasts and their lobby are certain to field when McCarthy’s bill is debated. After that, the topic will fade – until the next mass shooting.

(You can contact the author at Debusmann@Reuters.com)

COMMENT

Im just so happy that in the UK we dont have guns readily available like you do in the US. God only knows what would happen if they allowed guns to be sold over here.

Posted by cmw333 | Report as abusive
  •