The availability of section 1 firearms

---

9.20   In order to test such a hypothesis in the case of the United States of America, which was one of the countries covered by the study and has a much higher level of firearm ownership than this country, the RSD made a comparison of the firearm and non-firearm homicides as between England and Wales and the United States for the period 1985-90. This comparison was similar to a study which had been carried out by Clarke and Mayhew in 1988. The comparison, as set out in Annex G, showed that the average annual rate of firearm-homicide per million of population in the United States was 51 times that in England and Wales; and the handgun-homicide rate 150 times. On the other hand non-firearm homicide was only 3 times; and the overall homicide rate was 8 times. In its note the RSD extended the exercise to the years 1990-94 and to a larger range of crimes. The resulting figures showed that the picture of a more violent culture in the United States was to a degree suggested by the fact that non-firearm robberies and homicides were 70% and 140% higher than in England and Wales. On the other hand firearm-related robberies and homicides were 11 and 50 times higher. The conclusion of the RSD was: "These results strongly suggest that the availability of guns increases both fatal and non-fatal gun-related crimes considerably in excess of what might be expected from differences in recorded crime levels for other offences".

9.21   The criticisms of the work of Professor Killias, and in particular the methodology used, leads me to treat the results with considerable caution but I am not persuaded that it should be wholly rejected as unreliable. It shows that there is a relationship between firearm- ownership and firearm-homicide when considered overall. The material provided by the RSD tends to show that while different cultures may explain differing levels of firearm-homicide to some extent it is probably not the whole explanation.

9.22   The RSD also placed some reliance on a study carried out in 1995 by the Canadian Department of Justice which collated information from agencies in 8 countries as to the levels of legally held firearms and the rates of homicide. The figures for the latter as set out in Annex G unfortunately suffer from a misplaced decimal point; and a comparison with the study of Professor Killias is hampered by the fact that they relate to different periods. The RSD stated that the results showed a fairly suggestive relationship between firearm-ownership and firearm-homicide, although it was weaker than in Professor Killias' study. The Canadian work was also criticised by commentators who challenged the accuracy or comparability of the figures used. It is sufficient for my purposes to say that even if the material was accurate and comparable, the fact that it related to a much smaller group of countries makes it less persuasive. For that reason I attach little importance to it. The remaining research on which the RSD relied was a comparison between homicide rates for Seattle and Vancouver. However, this limited comparison has been strongly criticised in academic circles. It is a comparison between only two locations and there is at least a likelihood that patterns of crime, including armed crime, were affected by demographic and other local conditions.

9.23   Attention is often directed to the case of Switzerland as having a low rate of firearm-related homicide but high firearm ownership even apart from the firearms held by the reserve militia. Comparing Switzerland with this country is difficult since Swiss police figures do not distinguish between homicides and attempted homicides. Further, it has been estimated that the rate of firearm homicide in Switzerland is rather more than 4 times higher than in England and Wales. This has to be taken with some caution because of the relatively low figures. It is true that the level of firearm-related assaults is less than in Great Britain. This is consistent with a much lower rate of violent crime in Switzerland generally. The RSD stated in its note that the reason why this is not reflected in firearm-related homicides may be because very many of such homicides are domestic incidents, where the presence of a firearm at home, including military firearms, may turn conflict into a fatal event.

"Weapon substitution"

9.24   So far I have attempted to assess evidence with which I was presented in regard to the first of the questions which I set out in paragraph 9.3. As regards the second of these questions I have to turn to "weapon substitution". This refers to the theory propounded in 1958 by Professor Martin E Wolfgang "according to which it is not the weapon that dictates the crime, but the gravity of the crime that dictates the weapon". Thus the most significant factor in determining the outcome of a crime of violence is the intent or attitude of the assailant. Compared with this the availability of one type of weapon or another has little significance in the end. The use of a firearm implies a more deadly intent. If offenders are denied access to firearms or a particular type of firearm they would resort to other methods to achieve the same effect. The opposing argument is that the lethal effect of firearms reflects their properties rather than the determination of the users.

9.25   Thus in commenting on the comparison between England and Wales and the United States to which I referred in para 9.20 Mr Munday pointed out while the number of handguns in the United States had doubled since 1974 the rate of handgun homicide was now lower than it was. This showed that the overall homicide rate was not explicable in terms of gun availability. If guns had not been available the offenders would have resorted to other means. He and Mr Stevenson cited the conclusions of researchers that violent acts almost always formed part of a pattern of behaviour. From this they drew the lesson that the objective should be to identify those who posed a threat before it became a reality. Mr Stevenson in particular maintained that this was true not only of the "professional" criminal but also of the "domestic" criminal. Murderers, he wrote, were "real criminals, not good citizens who happened to have a loaded gun in a moment of anger". So robbers who carry a firearm show that they are prepared to use it if the need arises. Banning a certain type of firearm would, as Mr Munday contended, leave children helpless before a man with an axe, a bill hook, a machete or a flame-thrower. Mr Stevenson warned that some criminals would "trade up" to a more dangerous firearm if they were denied access to a particular weapon.

9.26   In my view while there may be many cases in which an assailant's attitude to his victim will be the main determining factor in the result, the proponents of this approach overstate their case. I do not accept that the proposition that many serious crimes and in particular firearm crimes are committed spontaneously can be so lightly dismissed. This seems to me to run counter to general experience. In that connection I note that Professor Gabor observed: "Many people who kill do so out of momentary anger, rather than as a result of an unchangeable determination to kill. The anger often dissipates quickly, but if firearms have been used it is too late for the victim. The fact that a high proportion of those who have killed their spouses attempt or commit suicide afterward attests to the spontaneity of many homicides and the regret that may follow. Many homicides stem from spontaneous altercations and it is especially in these cases that the type of weapon used is instrumental in terms of the outcome". It does not follow from the fact that a domestic homicide is preceded by a history of violence or abuse that there was a determination to kill which was irrespective of the presence or absence of a firearm.

9.27   I also noted that Professor Gabor is in agreement with the RSD in noting that firearms research has shown consistently that assaults and robberies in which firearms are involved are much more likely to result in death or serious injury than incidents in which other weapons or no weapons at all are involved. The RSD also point out that firearms have certain "advantages", providing (i) a relatively impersonal means of killing at a distance; (ii) a method for those who are physically less powerful than their victims to inflict serious damage; and (iii) a means of attacking heavily armed targets.

The net benefit argument

9.28   In the United States of America there are and have been strongly opposed views on either side of the debate concerning gun control. According to the submission of Mr Stevenson many criminologists in the United States had reached the position that they believed that the possession of firearms had a positive effect in discouraging crime and limiting its adverse effect - either through the victim being able to defend himself or through the assailant achieving early control. Mr Stevenson sought to point out that a number of countries had enjoyed advantages from such an approach to gun availability. Thus in the United States burglars were reluctant to break into occupied domestic property. However, in Great Britain there had been no acceptance of this approach, although it was notable that in rural areas where farmers are known to possess shot guns there was a lower level of housebreaking.

9.29   In this country the possession of firearms for self-defence has not, except in special cases, been regarded for many years as a "good reason" for their possession and there never has been a policy of facilitating, let alone encouraging, the acquisition of firearms to discourage crime or limit its effects. Different countries may require to tackle their problems in different ways. In Great Britain the level of firearm ownership is relatively low. I do not see anything in the net benefit argument which is relevant to this country.

Suicide

9.30   Gun availability has implications beyond crime. According to Professor Gabor a number of studies had been to the same effect in finding that countries with higher levels of firearm ownership tended to have higher rates of firearm suicide than those with lower ownership levels; and many of those studies also showed that where ownership levels are lower there was no compensating increase in suicides by other means. Such studies showed that people who had limited access to firearms did not always switch to other suicide methods or that the methods to which they switched were less lethal. Several studies had also shown that the lowering of accessibility of firearms by enhancing safe storage might also lower the number of both attempted and completed suicides.

9.31   The RSD also pointed out that in the United States the rate of firearm suicides was nearly 20 times that in England and Wales, whereas the overall suicide rate was only 40% higher. In the United States nearly 60% of all suicides were by firearm; whereas in England and Wales it was only 4%.

9.32   The importance of the availability and accessibility of firearms seems to be due to the transitory nature of suicidal motivation in many cases. No doubt people who are set on killing themselves can and do find the means where firearms are absent. Professor Gabor pointed out that many suicides, especially those of adolescents are not premeditated. "They are often precipitated by interpersonal crises and facilitated by the consumption of intoxicants. Many survivors of serious attempts by firearms have confirmed the transitory nature of suicidal thoughts and have adjusted well after their attempts".