On April 16 -- the night of the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech that left 33 people dead -- Newsradio 850 KOA host “Gunny” Bob Newman claimed that “violent gun crime rate[s]” have “gone through the roof” in England, Canada, and Australia since they “outlawed” guns. In fact, according to a 2005 Australian government “Facts and Figures” report on crime, “The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued a declining trend begun in 1969.” The report further noted, “In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms.” Similarly, according to a Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics report on homicide, “In 2002, the rate of homicides committed with the use of a firearm continued to decline, reaching its lowest level since 1966. Firearms were used in one quarter (26%) of all homicides in 2002, the lowest proportion since statistics were first collected in 1961.”

Furthermore, as Colorado Media Matters noted when Newman made a similar claim on the January 1 broadcast of his show, England after imposing new gun laws initially experienced increases in its homicide rate and number of armed robberies involving firearms, but in recent years has seen those crimes decrease. According to a 2004-05 British Home Office report, “The number of firearm robberies fell by nine per cent in 2004-05, the third consecutive annual fall.” The report also noted that the use of handguns in crimes had been declining since 2001-02 and the use of shotguns remained about the same since 1998-99. Additionally, the criminal use of imitation firearms (including BB guns, soft air weapons, and imitation handguns) had increased in England since 2000-01, comprising 30 percent of crimes involving non-air weapons in 2004-05.

Discussing the Virginia Tech shootings, Newman said, “Now, there are people who are going to say, 'You know what, it's -- well, it's because of the availability of guns. If we didn't have guns available, if we would outlaw guns, we wouldn't have this problem.' ” Newman added, “Well, you might want to tell the Australians, the Canadians, and the British that, since they've all outlawed guns and their violent gun crime rate has gone through the roof in every case.”

Later in the broadcast, Newman cited the Fraser Institute -- which he said “is based in California” -- as the source for his claim that gun crime rates in Canada, Australia, and England have “gone through the roof.” As Colorado Media Matters has noted, the Fraser Institute is a Canadian think tank based in Vancouver that consistently takes conservative positions on public policy issues. Newman read from a November 2003 Fraser Institute news release about a study by professor and political marketing researcher Gary A. Mauser, who co-authored a book titled Manipulating Public Opinion (Thomson Brooks/Cole, 1990). According to the release, “The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased, while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.” The study also purported to show how “violent crime is decreasing in the United States” but “increasing in Australia.” Similarly, the release claimed that in England, "[V]iolent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States."

England

While Mauser's study compared violent crime rates in the United States to those in three countries with strict gun-control laws, its presentation distorted the comparison of those statistics and was, in some cases, false. For example, in the graph below, Mauser compared homicide rates in the United States with those in England from 1974 to 2000-2001; but the comparison is incongruent because England's rate is measured by per 1 million population (on the left vertical axis), whereas the United States' rate is measured by per 100,000 population (on the right vertical axis). Therefore, the graph deceptively makes England's rate appear higher when, in fact, the U.S. homicide rate is nearly four times that of England's: approximately 60 per 1 million population, compared with approximately 15 per 1 million population, respectively.

Moreover, England's steepest homicide rate increase since implementing the 1997 gun restrictions -- in terms of per 100,000 population -- rose from 1.2 in 1998-99 to 1.5 in 2004-2005, excluding the anomalous year of 2002-03 when 172 of a prolific serial killer's pre-1998 slayings were recorded.

Furthermore, as Colorado Media Matters has noted, recent British crime statistics have been complicated by a different method of recording crimes. According to a January 2006 British Crime Survey (BCS) report, “The introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in April 2002 ... resulted in increased recording of violent crimes.” For example, since 1997-98 (excluding the 172 pre-1998 serial murders recorded in 2002-03), the number of recorded homicides in England and Wales has ranged from a low of 608 (in 1997-98) to a high of 820 (in 2004-05) -- a difference of 212 homicides, or a nearly 35 percent increase. As the BCS report noted, as a result of the new counting rules and crime reporting standards, “the proportion of BCS reported incidents recorded by the police has increased from 36 per cent in 1999 to 67 per cent in 2004-05.”

Canada

Contrary to Mauser's claim that “the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased” over the past decade, the latest Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics' (CCJS) report noted that while holding steady from 2004-05, “in general, the violent crime rate had been falling since the mid-1990s, after increasing fairly steadily for thirty years.” Canada implemented its sweeping gun-control laws in 1996 after passage of the Firearms Act in December 1995.

Moreover, one of the sources Mauser used in his study -- "Homicide in Canada, 2002," by Josée Savoie -- reported that "[i]n 2002, the rate of homicides committed with the use of a firearm continued to decline, reaching its lowest level since 1966. Firearms were used in one quarter (26%) of all homicides in 2002, the lowest proportion since statistics were first collected in 1961." Canada's homicide rate increased slightly from 2003 to 2005, but has still not exceeded the 1996 rate. Similarly, a compilation of crime data reported by CCJS shows that while the robbery rate in Canada rose 3 percent from 2004 to 2005, it was still “about 15% lower than a decade ago.” The compilation also showed that during the same period, “Robberies committed with a firearm continued to drop, falling 5%,” according to a Statistics Canada release. In fact, CCJS reported in 2005 that robberies involving firearms had been steadily declining since 1991. The same report shows that while the robbery rate decreased 15 percent between 1995 and 2005, the robbery rate involving firearms decreased 53 percent during that same period. The report's figures for assaults and homicides committed with a weapon do not differentiate between firearms and other weapons.

Australia

Newman, repeating Mauser's conclusion, claimed that Australia's “homicide rate -- after having remained basically flat from '95 to 2001 -- has now begun climbing again.” But, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, "[t]he homicide rate was 1.9 in 1996 and was at its highest in 1999 at 2.0 per 100,000 before dropping to 1.5 in 2004." And, while Australia's 2005 Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics show a slight spike in the number of homicide incidents (including manslaughter) from 2001-02 to 2002-03, they indicate a steady downward trend in the murder rate since 1999. In fact, 2004-05 marked the lowest number of homicides since Australia began monitoring homicides in 1989.

Similar to the graph comparing the United States' and England's homicide rates, Mauser's study provided another deceptive graphic comparison of comparing U.S. and Australian homicide rates:

The graph measures Australia's homicide rate (on the left vertical axis) in increments of 0.5, while measuring the U.S. rate (the right vertical axis) in increments of 2, an exponential difference of four. Therefore, the increase in Australia's homicide rate indicated in the chart amounts to about 0.3 percentage points, but appears, in comparison with the U.S. rate, to be more dramatic than it actually is. Furthermore, as the graph shows, the year (2000-01) before the slight increase was the lowest Australian homicide rate in at least a decade, and the increase from 2000-01 to 2001-02 was similar to the average for the post-Firearms Act era. What's more, according to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, from 2000 to 2003 the U.S. murder rate actually rose 0.2 percentage points overall, while during that same period the Australian murder rate decreased overall about 0.1 percentage point.

Citing Mauser's study, Newman also claimed that “armed robberies” in Australia “went up 166 percent.” While it is true that armed robberies continued an upward trend from 1996 to around January 1998, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology's Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, the armed robbery rate (per 100,000 people) showed a marked decline after the amnesty period for gun owners to sell their guns to the government expired in September 1997. That drop was followed by a short spike in 2000-2001 -- which may account for Mauser's claim of a 166 percent increase -- but thereafter the Australian downward trend in its armed robbery rate continued. Furthermore, only a small percentage of robberies in Australia involve firearms; robberies involving a firearm comprised only 5 percent of all robberies in 2004, and 6 percent in 2003 and in 2002.

Newman concluded by asking his listeners, “Why don't the anti-Bill of Rights people, who want to take your guns from you, want you to know that [armed robberies in Australia have increased]? Why do they hate it when I cite figures like that?” Answering his rhetorical question, Newman said, “Because they want to affect your judgment with misinformation, disinformation, deception, and lies. That is how they operate.”

From the April 16 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Gunny Bob Show:

NEWMAN: Why does this seem to keep happening here? Now, there are people who are going to say, “You know what, it's -- well, it's because of the availability of guns. If we didn't have guns available, if we would outlaw guns, we wouldn't have this problem.” Well, you might want to tell the Australians, the Canadians, and the British that, since they've all outlawed guns and their violent gun crime rate has gone through the roof in every case.

[...]

NEWMAN: Have a report here from the Fraser Institute, which is based in California. Let me read a -- let me read one paragraph from that report. And this is in the, in the Canada section from the Fraser Institute on gun control:

The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased, while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the U.S. than in Canada.

Now, that -- that's, that's just one paragraph. They are referring to -- this is a whole report on guns being banned. Canada: Guns are nearly totally outlawed. Not completely, but it's -- they don't have Second Amendment rights in Canada like we have in the United States, if you get my drift. And look what happened to the, to the crime rate there. And under -- in the same report, under the Australia section:

The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997. However, the total homicide rate -- after having remained basically flat from '95 to 2001 -- has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is decreasing in the U.S., it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise. For example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide in Australia after the gun ban.

Armed robberies went up 166 percent. Why don't the anti-Bill of Rights people, who want to take your guns from you, want you to know that? Why do they hate it when I cite figures like that? Because they want to affect your judgment with misinformation, disinformation, deception, and lies. That is how they operate.