The outrage over the suggestion that Russia might have provided or sold the rocket launcher that downed MH17 and killed 300 civilians is such a joke when the annual total of civilians deaths from small arms sales by the permanent members of the UNSC makes that 300 look like a blip.
My data is a little out of date, but I’m sure nothing much has changed. Here are some facts for you to consider.
1. Some 300,000 to half a million people around the world are killed by them each year. (globalissues.org 2006)
2. World military expenditure in 2012 is estimated to have reached $1.756 trillion. (globalissues.org 2012)
3. The 5 UN Security Council permanent members are generally the largest arms dealers. (globalissues.org 2013)
4. The USA is responsible for 44% of arms sales. (globalissues.org 2013)
5. Therefore, if there are between 300K – 500K people killed by small arms every year, and the USA is responsible for 44% of arms sales, then we can assume that the USA is responsible for somewhere in the region of 176,000 deaths every year.
Remember this the next time you hear Obama or Abbott decrying Putin.
Based on this data from The University of Sydney, you are safer living in Iran or Iraq than in the USA.
By the way, I included France because one justification I’ve heard for America’s gun obsession lately is that they fought a revolution and a civil war, so, you know, they, like, need guns.
Yeah well France had a revolution, too. Oh and they were fucking INVADED BY THE NAZIS. Was America invaded by the Nazis? No? Then shut up. The French actually have a very high rate of gun ownership. In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 179 countries, France ranked at No. 12. However their access to handguns, semi-automatics and full automatics is highly restricted.
Here is how France’s gun homicide ranks against the USA:
It's funny the kinds of bullshit you hear from people when they are trying to justify their ideology.
I got into a Facebook discussion today with Rob McNealy, my guest on a recent podcast about gun control in the USA. Rob posted comparing gun laws in Mexico to America, suggesting that tighter gun laws in Mexico haven't made it safer. I pointed out that Mexico's GDP is about one fifth that of the United States and he should really compare the USA to a country with similar economics – like Australia.
Rob replied “You are trying to deny the fact that gun control don't stop murder from happening. You are a typical anti-liberty liberal that wants to create MORE murder victims.”
I explained that in the years after the Port Arthur massacre, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia fell by more than 50% — and stayed there, quoting an article from CNN.
He then replied with this post, claiming that “the percent of murders committed with a firearm (in Australia) was the highest it had ever been in 2006″. His source even claimed this data was from “Australian Bureau of Criminology”.
Oh really? I googled “Australian Bureau of Criminology” and I came up blank. There is an “Australian INSTITUTE of Criminology” but Rob's source doesn't reference any particular report or website, so I don't know where they got their data from. In fact, it is likely they pulled it out of their asses.
This information about the high rate of 2006 gun murders is totally at odds with data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which shows that in 2006, gun homicides in Australia were at an all time LOW.
Here is a graph from UTS. See that huge drop after 1996? That's when Johnny Howard introduced the National Firearm Agreement and the buy-back scheme that aimed to eliminate semi-automatic firearms in Australia. It appears that our gun homicide rate fell by 50% immediately and has continued to drop.
Tell me again how “gun control don't stop murder from happening”?
This second graph is from the ABS and shows the falling rates of guns homicides as a percentage of all homicides. Again – a big drop off after 1996. Although this chart stops at 2003, the ABS site for 2006 confirms that the percentage of homicides from firearms in 2006 was an all-time low.
Unfortunately, Rob's source was the “National Center For Policy Analysis” which, according to SourceWatch, is funded by conservative billionaires like the Koch brothers. You can tell people are desperate when they resort to making up bullshit to support their arguments. Of course, most of their readers are not likely to do their own research, much like Fox News viewers, and will just regurgitate the NCPA's claims.
The real question is whether or not the NFA had much of an impact on overall homicides or if they were already dropping due to other factors. What we *do* know for certain is that there hasn't been another mass shooting in Australia since 1996. However homicides have only demonstrated a slight decrease since then. The rise in sexual assault is thought to be an increase in reporting of sexual assault, not an actual increase in incidents.
By the way, here is a chart of America's gun homicides since 1998:
So, the next time you hear someone tell you that gun control didn't work in Australia, you can just send them to this post and facepalm.
Rob McNealy is back on the show (see gdayworld #329 for his last appearance four years ago) and he’s talking about gun ownership. Rob is a huge believer that citizens need to have weapons to defend themselves against a tyrannical government and for self-defence.
Just in time for the show, here’s a quote from a recent article by former PM John Howard:
Research published in 2010 in the American Journal of Law and Economics found that firearm homicides, in Australia, dropped 59 per cent between 1995 and 2006. There was no offsetting increase in non-firearm-related murders. Researchers at Harvard University in 2011 revealed that in the 18 years prior to the 1996 Australian laws, there were 13 gun massacres (four or more fatalities) in Australia, resulting in 102 deaths. There have been none in that category since the Port Arthur laws.
(Thanks Angus for the link!)
Podcast: Play in new window | Download