I don't remember a time this game did not exist. I recall kids
playing it in the early 1950's in Calgary, AB. Nor did it ever go away. It
didn't have any hip street name back then nor was it called a game. It was
just "Hey, let's do the thing(s) that made you pass out." It was done for
the cool feeling we would now call a rush.
I wouldn't do it with anyone because I did not trust anyone. When I got
into...
I don't remember a time this game did not exist. I recall kids
playing it in the early 1950's in Calgary, AB. Nor did it ever go away. It
didn't have any hip street name back then nor was it called a game. It was
just "Hey, let's do the thing(s) that made you pass out." It was done for
the cool feeling we would now call a rush.
I wouldn't do it with anyone because I did not trust anyone. When I got
into my early teens, I did do it alone. After one terrifying experience at
about 16 with hanging myself I quit doing it. While the activity started
out for the rush, it turned into a sexual activity when I hit puberty. It
is very addictive and, as we know, children and teenagers cannot yet
experience the reality of their own death. I know adults who play with
breathe control for sexual reasons. I think they are crazy.
From the statistics on one of the sites, it is clear people were doing
this back in the 1930's too. I bet it is painted on the brothel walls in
Pompeii. If you pay attention to young children you can see them spinning
until they fall down. Humans, and many other animals, seek out such
sensations through activities and substances. It appears to be a common
drive and we need to recognize that it is not, per se, an abberation and
approach it that way.
Millions of dollars are spent to find out why people do drugs, hang
themselves for fun, and engage in risky activities like car surfing. We
know why. It is because it is pleasurable, more pleasurable than the
mundane. For people whose day-to-day existence is painful, they get the
fun and the escape. People seek happiness and, in our culture, happiness
is equated with pleasure. In our intense times the goal is intense
pleasure.
One definition of insanity is to keep doing things the same way despite
the fact that it does not work. We have to apply what we are learning
about the human brain and human needs and stop looking for an answer that
is premised on outdated beliefs and values. We need to educate our
children for this world and this time, not some vision of a perfect world
that never existed and will not exist. People will continue to pursue
altered states of consciousness just as cats will seek out catnip, honey
suckle, and mint to get a rush. It is easy to teach ways of achieving such
states with healthy activities. A side benefit is that meditation and
mindfulness practice lead to a more balanced and happy person with less
need or desire to use dangerous ways of coping.
The finding of an abnormally low pH in the exhaled breath condensates
from patients with asthma and cystic fibrosis [1] raises the possibility
that this pH might be a better metabolic marker to use especially if each
driver were to establish his/her own control values. If exhaled breath
were used alcohol and even other chemical levels could also be measured,
recorded and stored in a black box. What is...
The finding of an abnormally low pH in the exhaled breath condensates
from patients with asthma and cystic fibrosis [1] raises the possibility
that this pH might be a better metabolic marker to use especially if each
driver were to establish his/her own control values. If exhaled breath
were used alcohol and even other chemical levels could also be measured,
recorded and stored in a black box. What is needed is a large prospective
observational study to determine which measurement or combination of
measurements is the best predictor of accidents and/or irresponsible and
criminal behaviour.
References
1. Giovanna E. Carpagnano,Peter J. Barnes, Jackie Francis, Nicola
Wilson, Andrew Bush, Sergei A. Kharitonov. Breath Condensate pH in
Children With Cystic Fibrosis and Asthma: A New Noninvasive Marker of
Airway Inflammation?
It is not my plan to revisit the detailed AIC/ABS data and
statistical analysis covered by the Alpers/Chapman report and other
specialists (McPhedran/Baker). This response will offer comments from the
aspects of clear thinking and logical deduction.
Firstly, since there was never any Judicial Inquiry, nor Coronial
Inquest into the Port Arthur Massacre, there was never the opportunity for
any...
It is not my plan to revisit the detailed AIC/ABS data and
statistical analysis covered by the Alpers/Chapman report and other
specialists (McPhedran/Baker). This response will offer comments from the
aspects of clear thinking and logical deduction.
Firstly, since there was never any Judicial Inquiry, nor Coronial
Inquest into the Port Arthur Massacre, there was never the opportunity for
any other aspects of this tragedy to be explored and investigated. Many
survivors and the relatives of victims of PAM had demanded a full
investigation, but were denied that opportunity. Such questions as why the
local police had failed to act in the weeks before, on complaints from
Martin Bryant's neighbours that he had been wildly firing his rifles late
at night, remained unanswered. Other contributing factors which should
have been investigated include; the influence of the collection of violent
and sadistic videos in M.B.'s possession; the influence of the TV program
"A Current Affair" broadcast ONLY in Tasmania some weeks before PAM, which
comprised a "how to do it" of loading a semi-automatic rifle and blasting
watermelons set up to simulate human heads; the failures of Australia's
Mental Health System after implimenting the recommendations of The
Richmond Report and why were none of the visitors in the "Broad Arrow"
cafe prepared to tackle M.B., as he began his shooting attacks? Would the
shooting spree have continued, or even begun in the first place, if some
of the visitors at Port Arthur had been armed?
Without such a base of possible/probable causes any examination of
the "results" in the ten years past, is simply illogical, wild
speculation.
To use the Alpers/Chapman analogy of the train level crossing crash;
if an electric train had run into a bus and killed 35 people, a full and
detailed Coronial Inquiry would have been carried out with all factors
being considered. For the Prime Minister to act immediately to ban all
electric trains, would be the height of stupidity!
The Alpers/Chapman report also ignores all other variables which have
occurred in Australia during the past ten years which may have reduced the
likelihood of another firearm mass murder; CCTVs now monitor most areas
where people gather; an estimated 200,000 Private Security Guards (most
armed with handguns!) now patrol our shopping centres, clubs and railway
stations.
Randy Marshall of Gun Control Australia, noted that an estimated
300,000 of the newly-banned firearms remained after the gun buy back was
completed in 1997. From my own investigations that figure may be much
higher, since many of the consignments from China of the SKS rifles showed
for Customs Entry "One box: SKS rifle" but actually contained 5 rifles!
It is illogical to conclude that the removal from private ownership of a
small proportion of such rifles would be the reason for there to have been
"no firearm mass murders" since 1996.
The "NFA" with its prohibition of certain firearms and forced
crushing program, was extremely unpopular! Under Australia's Constitution
the States and Territories were responsible for implimenting Prime
Minister Howard's Gun Laws. At that time (1996) all States and
Territories, except New South Wales, were governed by Liberal (Howard's
own party) or National (the Liberals Coalition partner). At each
subsequest State/Territory election those parties were convincingly kicked
out of office. In NSW the Labor Government increased its majority! The
State Coalition Parties have, since 1996, contested and been defeated in
20 elections! In several States the Liberal or National parties now
struggle to maintain official party status. Even P.M. Howard's own Federal
seat is "marginal"!
On a Return on Investment basis, Australia's Gun Prohibition laws are
also quite illogical. A snapshot of Deaths in Australia (ABS) for 2002,
shows: total deaths (all causes) 133,707.
Deaths from "external causes" (car crashes, self harm etc.): 7,820.
Murders: 363
and Firearm Murders: 42. (0.5% of preventable deaths)
So, spending a billion dollars for a possible incremental change (or
not)in an already small number, is pushing the law of diminishing returns.
The Australian research program into the virus which causes cervical
cancer and has the potential to save thousands of lives, was carried out
using only a fraction of the money wasted on gun control.
The Authors have claimed that the NFA and gun crushing program has
been a success, since no firearm massacres have occurred.
But, what if there HAD been another mass murder during the past ten years?
Would advocates of Gun Control have then had to admit that the 1996 NFA
and gun crushing had been a failure?
On past performance, any spike in "Gun Deaths" is treated by the media and
gun control advocates, as yet another excuse to introduce tougher firearms
restrictions.
Let's see a clear statement from Alpers and Chapman agreeing that if
there was another gun massacre, they would admit that the laws had failed.
Then, law abiding citizens could have unlimited access to unregistered
firearms of their choice and the money saved on gun control, registration,
inspections, attendances, etc., invested in the medical system, where it
would save thousands of lives.
Re: Profs. Chapman and Alpers reply to Dr Lawson. E-letter 9 Jan 2007.
I thank Professors Chapman and Alpers for their interest in my
letter[1] in response to their paper[2].
It seems that all parties[3,4,5] agree on the facts, that there was a
steady decline in gun murder and suicide before the Australian National
Firearms Agreement of 1996 and that this trend continued at a slight...
Re: Profs. Chapman and Alpers reply to Dr Lawson. E-letter 9 Jan 2007.
I thank Professors Chapman and Alpers for their interest in my
letter[1] in response to their paper[2].
It seems that all parties[3,4,5] agree on the facts, that there was a
steady decline in gun murder and suicide before the Australian National
Firearms Agreement of 1996 and that this trend continued at a slightly
accelerated rate post NFA. A few years later, a declining trend in total
murder and suicide also began. Whether this means we can call the NFA a
“success’ is problematic. As I pointed out in 1999[6], the precise goals
were never defined at the outset. Hence anyone can make up their own
concept and change it whenever they like. Chapman et al have chosen to
define success as fewer or no mass murders with guns. They are of course
entitled to do this. Chapman considers that the activist must "frame the
debate". “How best can these different framings be assessed in terms of
their reception by politicians and others who make decisions about
policies.” [7]. Others may equally consider success as a sustained
reduction in murder and suicide rates, not otherwise achieved, in a cost
effective manner.
I cannot comment on the “gun lobby" websites mentioned by Profs.
Chapman and Alpers, as they do not list them in their references. However
the factors mentioned are indeed included in the Australian Institute of
Criminology publication “Indicators of Aggressive Behaviour”[8], as being
relevant to violence in general, along with firearms availability as one
factor. This paper reiterates that firearms account for only 24% of
suicides and 15% of murders (p22)
It is interesting to review the references provided by Profs. Chapman
and Alpers.
The FBI uniform crime reports quoted[9] indeed give frighteningly
large numbers for US homicides and presumably Chapman and Alpers have
calculated their ratios from these. However Chapman and Alpers neglect to
point out that the same site reports decreases in rates of 2.4% and 3.3%
for 2003 and 2004 respectively, an annual fall similar to that in
Australia. The WISQARS Injury mortality reports[10] similarly show large
figures for the numbers of US deaths. However, the rates per 100,000 are
printed right alongside and are more informative. For 2004, US total
murder rate=5..91, The ratio of US to Australian total murder rate of
5.91/1.6=3.69 is not nearly as exciting as saying that the US has 173
times the number of Australian gun deaths. This is an outstanding example
of Chapman’s concept of using of "creative epidemiology" in advocacy
work, ie. “reworking” the data into "new, interesting and arresting
forms."[11]. From the same source, 67% of US murders are with guns,
compared with Australia’s 16%. For the US, the same reference shows a
black murder rate of 21.07, about six times the white rate of 3.63 and a
black gun murder rate of 16.06, about 8 times the white rate of 3.96. One
wonders about the cause of this discrepancy, as blacks and whites
presumably have the same access to both legal and illegal guns. Could
broader societal factors be involved? I find it incomprehensible that
Chapman and Alpers declare we cannot learn anything from a society which
has halved its murder rate over 10 years. The US suicide rate of 11.05 is
very similar to the Australian rate.[12]
The British are indeed fortunate that their spiraling gun murder rate
has started from such a low base. Chapman and Alpers have not addressed
the problem that the confiscations they favor are associated with the
opposite of the desired effect. The deaths are still going up, even if
many of the lesser offences do involve air guns and replicas.
The article by Morrell et al,[13] quoted by Chapman and Alpers,
maintains that the fall in suicide of young adult males is attributable to
the government’s National Youth Suicide Prevention Strategy. This cost
AUS$31 million over 4 years, less than one tenth the cost of the legal gun
confiscations and less than the annual cost of the various states firearms
registries. Yet Morell et al confirm that firearm suicide showed no sharp
decrease as occurred for hanging or gas.
In regard to the Lott and Mustard paper, Chapman and Alpers quote
the US National Academy of Sciences report [14] as finding no evidence
that right to carry laws have no impact, either way, on violent crime. The
report actually says “it is impossible to draw strong conclusions-on the
causal impact”(p121) and “it is not possible to determine that there is a
causal link between the passage of right to carry laws and crime
rates”(p150).The report did not dispute the finding of a fall in violent
crime rates associates with increased legal gun carrying in some US
states, the opposite of the result predicted by the more extreme anti-gun
dogma. This report also states “existing research studies and data -------
do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between ownership of
firearms and ---causes or prevention of criminal violence and
suicide”(p6). And “a high level of violence may be a cause of high level
of firearms availability instead of the other way around”(p54). Also “It
is the committee’s view that the theory underlying gun buy-back programs
is badly flawed and the empirical evidence demonstrates the
ineffectiveness of these programs”(p95).
In their letter, Profs Chapman and Alpers state “Other than the
Childers incident, we know of no other mass killing by any method--“ Yet
Chapman et al quote Reuter and Mouzos [15] “Given that mass murders cause
so much fear-----it is appropriate to choose this as an evaluation outcome
separate from homicide---“. Apparently Chapman and Alpers missed the
immediately preceding sentence where Reuter and Mouzos state “There have
been 3 mass murders in 5 years, a statistically insignificantly lower rate
then pre-1996.”( Reuter and Mouzos do not mention the Childers incident-15
deaths, and presumably were writing prior to this.)
Profs Chapman and Alpers accuse myself and the "gun lobby" of
“trivializing mass public shootings as rare events”, on the basis that I
put the problem in perspective by pointing out that such killings
constitute less than 3% of total murders. This is very strange, as
Chapman’s co-author, Prof. Alpers is also co-author of a paper [16] where
mass public shootings are described as “very rare” and “exceptionally
rare”(p283) and of “extreme rarity”(p284). Piehl [17] states they are
“rare events” and claims there is a 13.5% chance of no mass killings in a
5 year period, even if the frequency were unchanged. Mouzos [18]
describes mass and serial murder as “statistically rare” It is unlikely
that Chapman and Alpers would agree that they are trivializing the other
97% of Australian murders because they are not mass murders committed with
guns.
I cannot accept Chapman and Alpers apparent casual dismissal of the
need for an inquiry into exactly how the mentally retarded unlicensed Port
Arthur murderer obtained military rifles. If we are serious about
preventing a recurrence, it is not good enough to just say that “the
answer would seem rather obvious”.
There was indeed great media support for the NFA, doubtless assisted
by Prof. Chapman putting “several hours a week into advocacy for stronger
gun control” over the 4 years before Port Arthur. The intense public
debate in 1996 could not be fully informed as little hard data were
available at that time. For example, it was not until 4 years later that
Mouzos’ work[19] was published, confirming that 90% of gun crime is
committed by unlicensed persons with unregistered guns. Indeed, the mass
media may well be part of the problem. Again, Chapman’s co-author, Prof.
Alpers, is also co-author in Cantor et al[20] who suggest “the media are a
necessary link in the chain of causation” (p287)
Criminologists have repeatedly pointed out the media practice of
concentrating on rare sensational events, thus misleading the public about
crime risks in the real world. [21-23]. In fact, Mouzos and Segrave
specifically state that the media misrepresentations may lead to
misconceptions about the realities of homicide in Australia, through the
media tendency to focus on firearms.
Prof. Chapman’s style of writing blurs any distinction between
military weapons and civilian firearms and also between legal and illegal
firearms. According to Wilmoth [24], figures are only available for the
state of Victoria, but these show that only 3.3% of the guns destroyed
were high powered semi-automatics. The rest were civilian shotguns or
rimfire rifles useful only for hunting and target shooting.
I have not seen the film “Bowling for Columbine”. Those who have may
be interested in the critique by Hardy.[25] Also, Thompson gives an
interesting psychiatric perspective on the debate [26].
Finally, Profs. Chapman and Alpers seem to believe I am some sort of
spokesman for the “gun lobby”, although they give no reason for this and I
would be interested to know what their reasons are. It cannot be simply
that I do not agree with their conclusions.
In summary, the NFA is a success if we adopt the criteria of Chapman
et al, of fewer subsequent mass gun murders. Unfortunately, it has also
been extremely expensive to establish and maintain and is irrelevant to
97% of murders and at least 80% of suicides. To remove all legal guns in
Australia would be even more expensive and could not reduce the murder
rate by more than 2%. Could we save more lives by using the resources
differently?
References
1. E-letter to Injury Prevention 4 Jan 2007.
2. Chapman et al. Injury Prevention: 12; 365-372. Dec 2006.
Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearms, deaths
firearms suicides and a decade without mass shootings.
3. Reuter P, Mouzos J."Australia: a Massive Buyback of Low-Risk
Guns".Chapter 4. In: "Evaluating Gun Policy- Effects on crime and
violence". Eds. Ludwig J, Cook P J. Brookings Institute Press, 2003.
4. Ozanne-Smith J et al. Firearms related deaths: the impact of
regulatory reform. Injury prevention 2004;10:280-286.
5. Baker J, McPhedran S. Gun laws and Sudden Death: Did the
Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference? British
Journal of Criminology 2006- Advance Access published 18 Oct 2006.
6. Lawson JB. “New national Gun Laws: are they cost-effective.
Institute of Public affairs Review. 51(4) 27-8. Dec 1999
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?
pubid=5 Accessed 20-1-07.
7. Chapman S, Lupton D. "The Fight for Public Health-Principles and
practice of media advocacy". BMJ Publishing Group 1994. p12.
8. McDonald D, Brown M. “Indicators of Aggressive Behaviour”
Australian Iinstitute of Criminology 1996.
9. US Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Murder.
Table 2.9
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html
Accessed 20 Jan 2007.
10. US Centers for Disease Control. National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control. WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports 2004.
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html Accessed 20 Jan
2007.
11. Chapman S, Lupton D. "The Fight for Public Health-Principles and
practice of media advocacy". BMJ Publishing Group 1994. p160.
12. Australian Bureau of Statistics Year Book Australia 2002. Health-
Special Article—Suicide.
13. Morrell S, Page AN, Taylor RJ. “The decline in Young Australian
male suicide” Social Science and Medicine 64 2007, 747-754.
14. 9. National Academy of Sciences. Committee on Law and Justice.
Firearm violence: a critical review. Washington, 2004.
15. Reuter P, Mouzos J. op ci t. p141.
16. Cantor CH, Sheehan P, Alpers P, Mullen P, “Media and Mass
homicide. ” Archives of Suicide Research .5, 283-290. 1999.
17. Piehl AM. Commentary on Reuter and Mouzos. In "Evaluating Gun
Policy- Effects on crime and violence". Eds. Ludwig J, Cook P J. Brookings
Institute Press, 2003. p143.
18. Mouzos J ”Homicidal Encounters A study of homicide in Australia
1989-1999. “ Australian Institute of Criminology 2000. p83.
19. 25. Mouzos J. “The Licensing and Registration Status of Firearms
used in Homicide”. Australian Institute of Criminology May2000.Trends and
Issues Paper 151.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi151.html
Accessed 20 Jan 2007.
20. Cantor CH, Sheehan P, Alpers P, Mullen P, “Media and Mass
homicide. ” Archives of Suicide Research .5, 283-290. 1999.
21. Mouzos J., Segrave M. "Homicide in Australia. 2002-2003 National
Homicide Monitoring Program Annual Report". Australian Institute of
Criminology 2004. p3.
22. Weatherburn D. "Law and Order in Australia-Rhetoric and reality".
The Federation Press 2004. pp 2,3,48
23. Grabowsy P., Wilson P. "Journalism and Justice-How crime is
reported". Pluto Press Sydney. 1989. Especially chapters 2,8,9.
24. Wilmoth R. Unpublished report. Copy available from author.
25.Hardy DT. The truth about “Bowling for Columbine”.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html Accessed 19-Jan 2007
26. Thompson S. “Raging against Self defence”.
http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm Accessed 19 Jan
2007.
Dr.J.B.Lawson. MB BS., B Med Sc., FRANZCR. 3 Lucas St. Brighton Vic
3186. Australia.
I would not have expected any different from concerted 'public health
advocates' and long time anti-gun campaigners Philip Alpers and Simon
Chapman than a vindication of the John Howard gun bans.
Could it be that they have discovered the one instance in the world
where gun bans can be shown to have saved lives? Could Australia be the
exception to the rule that gun laws are ineffective the worl...
I would not have expected any different from concerted 'public health
advocates' and long time anti-gun campaigners Philip Alpers and Simon
Chapman than a vindication of the John Howard gun bans.
Could it be that they have discovered the one instance in the world
where gun bans can be shown to have saved lives? Could Australia be the
exception to the rule that gun laws are ineffective the world over? Or
could it be that they have used the resources of Sydney University to
produce a detailed but one-sided argument to support their long promoted
beliefs?
Rather than enter into a long analysis of the work I'll leave it to a
criminologist, rather than a health campaigner, to offer a counter to it;
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-fall-short-in-war-on-
crime/2005/10/28/1130400366681.html#
-Beginning of article-
Gun ownership is rising and there is no definitive evidence that a decade
of restrictive firearms laws has done anything to reduce weapon-related
crime, according to NSW's top criminal statistician.
The latest figures show a renaissance in firearm ownership in the
state - a 25 per cent increase in three years. And the head of the Bureau
of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, said falls in armed
robberies and abductions in NSW in the past few years had more to do with
the heroin drought and good policing than firearms legislation.
Even falls in the homicide rate, which have been steady, began long
before the gun law debate provoked by the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.
Nationwide, the proportion of robberies involving weapons is the same
as it was in 1996, while the proportion of abductions involving weapons is
higher, the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures reveal. They
show a mixed result in firearms-related offences since the mid-1990s.
There has been a fall in firearms murders (from 32 to 13 per cent) but a
rise (19 to 23 per cent) in attempted murders involving guns.
"I would need to see more convincing evidence than there is to be
able to say that gun laws have had any effect," Dr Weatherburn said. "The
best that could be said for the tougher laws is there has been no other
mass killing using firearms [since Port Arthur].
"There has been a drop in firearm-related crime, particularly in
homicide, but it began long before the new laws and has continued on
afterwards. I don't think anyone really understands why. A lot of people
assume that the tougher laws did it, but I would need more specific,
convincing evidence …
"There has been a more specific … problem with handguns, which rose
up quite rapidly and then declined. The decline appears to have more to do
with the arrest of those responsible than the new laws. As soon as the
heroin shortage hit, the armed robbery rate came down. I don't think it
was anything to do with the tougher firearm laws."
The Shooters Party MP John Tingle agrees with this analysis but has
decided to retire from politics next April because he is frustrated in his
attempts to prevent further restrictions, even though the number of
registered guns in NSW has jumped from 516,468 to 648,369 since 2002.
"If the laws had worked there would be much less illegal gun crime …
we are continuing this perception that if you tighten firearm laws you are
going to control firearm crime, even though the opposite is true.
Restrictive laws against legitimate ownership and use do nothing to stop
gun-related crime because only law-abiding citizens will adhere to laws."
The Police Commissioner, Ken Moroney, supports the laws irrespective
of the statistics. "I don't think the laws have been designed to eliminate
every firearm off the face of the Earth … but it has achieved proper
registration, storage and more effective licensing. These measures have
all been successful and John Tingle's role should be acknowledged … he is
a man of objectivity and fairness. He hasn't been an advocate for advocacy
sake."
-End of article-
For the article go to; http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-
fall-short-in-war-on-crime/2005/10/28/1130400366681.html#
Alpers and Chapman may puport their personal point of view to be fact
using elongated means, however 'NSW'a top criminal statistician' shows
otherwise.
Barry Pless claimed that critics of helmet laws rely on fatality data. Yet my review considered all injuries serious enough to require hospital admission in all jurisdictions where helmet wearing increased substantially (more than 40 percentage points). There were no obvious responses in percent head injury.[1]
Barry Pless claimed that critics of helmet laws rely on fatality data. Yet my review considered all injuries serious enough to require hospital admission in all jurisdictions where helmet wearing increased substantially (more than 40 percentage points). There were no obvious responses in percent head injury.[1]
In contrast, the large, obvious falls in both non-head and head injuries with Victoria's helmet law – see graph (right) – refute Pless' claim that times series studies are "weak". Helmets cannot prevent non-head injuries, so the only plausible explanation for the large drop in non-head injuries is a decrease in cycle-use. Coupled with pre- and post-law observational surveys (640 person-hours per year at the same sites, observation times and the same time of year) showing a 36% reduction in cyclists counted, this represents overwhelming evidence that the main effect of the law was to discourage cycling.
Confusion arises when people hear only half the story. A busy researcher, reading in the Cochrane review of Thompson et al.[2] that Victoria's helmet law reduced head injuries by an estimated 40% would have no idea that non-head injuries also fell substantially. It would be natural to jump to the conclusion that the effect was due to increased helmet wearing. Even though Pless finds the arguments "tiresome, almost boilerplate", people need to see the data on both head and non-head injuries so that constructive debate can take place.
Despite the irritation, real progress has been made, as demonstrated by Pless' comment that "no sensible helmet advocate has argued that a typical bike helmet provides adequate protection against several tons of moving metal". Only about 47% of non-helmeted cyclists die of head injury (a proportion that, after adjusting for age, sex and other confounders appears no different to the 33% of helmet wearers dying of head injury), yet two recent papers in Injury Prevention claimed or assumed that helmets prevent an astonishing 73% and 65% fatalities.
The moderation from claims that helmets prevent 65-73% of fatalities (i.e. all head injury deaths and a large proportion of other deaths) to "inadequate protection" is a welcome improvement. Debate can now focus on the evidence (summarised in my review and elsewhere) that risk compensation, losses in health and environmental benefits from reduced cycling, and reduced safety in numbers probably outweigh any benefits of helmet laws.
Health benefits vs cost of reduced cyling The health benefits of cycling are large. In Denmark (where only about 3% of cyclists wear helmets), the modest amount of daily cycling needed to ride to work reduces mortality by 40%.[3] A UK study of mainly non-helmeted cyclists found that the health benefits of cycling, measured in years of life gained, outweigh the injury risks, measured in years of life lost, by about 20 to 1.[4]
In contrast, the benefits of helmet laws are small. Estimated head injury reductions from New Zealand's helmet law ranged from zero (if trends were fitted in the model) to about 19% (ignoring trends). A peer-reviewed paper calculated the saving in hospital costs. The most optimistic estimate for a helmet bought to satisfy the law was a saving of NZ$0.65 over its 5-year lifespan, i.e. 13 cents per helmet per year![5]
Estimates are slightly higher (about NZ$2.85/helmet/year) if no consideration is given to the cost of reduced cycling nor willingness to pay to avoid inconvenience and discomfort of helmet-wearing, but willingness to pay to avoid pain and inconvenience of injury is included. Cyclists who are free to choose can weigh up the risks and the inconvenience, perhaps wearing a helmet for a rapid mountain descent but not for a short trip to the shops on a hot day. One possible explanation for the lack of benefit from helmet laws is that cyclists are able to judge the risks and know what gear is appropriate.
Simple criteria vs "solid" research designs Simple criteria, such as the absence or presence of a response (and the size of that response) are an effective way of judging the value of an intervention. For example, fatality data provide very convincing evidence that speed cameras and random breath testing are highly effective road safety measures. But if no response had been evident (either for fatalities or serious injuries), would we argue that the measures were effective, the lack of response being due to the "weakness" of time series data? Or simply concentrate on measures that produced large, obvious responses?
Case-control studies that Pless describes as "solid research designs" led to the conclusion that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) reduces the risk of heart disease by 50%. This was later dismissed when randomised control trials showed that HRT can actually increase the risk of heart disease.[6]
A case-control study of children injured in an activity that could entail use of protective equipment (PE) led Barry Pless to conclude that risk compensation by children was "highly doubtful".[7] Yet when completing an obstacle course in a gym, wearing a helmet and wrist guards increased risk taking (measured by tripping, falling and bumping into things) by 60% and 49% for 10-12 and 7-9 year old girls and 48% for 10-12 and 7-9 year old boys. Just as the best way to measure risk compensation is to observe the behaviour of the same children with and without PE, the most reliable way to determine the outcomes of helmet laws is to evaluate what happens when such laws are passed. Consequences such as risk compensation or reduced safety in numbers do not have to be quantified separately. They are instead (quite correctly) treated as consequences of legislation.
All costs and benefits should be considered. To assess potential returns from use of scarce resources, cost-benefits should be compared those for other road safety measures. For example, one team of researchers concluded from real-life crash data that helmets for motor vehicle occupants might prevent 28%, 40% and 26% of minor, moderate and severe brain injuries. Thus a helmet law for motorists (in addition to seatbelts) could save $1.9 billion (over 5 years, all vehicles equipped with airbags) to $2.2 billion (50% with airbags).[8] This works out at more than $100 per helmet, an order of magnitude greater than the most optimistic estimate of the benefit of NZ's helmet law.
Although benefits of helmet laws for vehicle occupants might be offset by risk compensation, there would be no problem of discouraging healthy exercise and environmentally friendly transport. The higher estimated benefits and fewer drawbacks imply that any future calls for bicycle helmet laws should be postponed until helmet laws for motorists have been implemented and shown to be beneficial.
References 1 Robinson DL. No clear evidence from countries that have enforced the wearing of helmets. BMJ 2006;332:722-725.
2 Thompson D, Rivara F, Thompson R. Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3. Oxford: Update Software, 2003.
3 Andersen LB, Schnohr P, Schroll M, Hein HO. All-cause mortality associated with physical activity during leisure time, work,sports, and cycling to work. Arch Intern Med 2000;160(11):1621-8.
4 Adams J, Hillman M. The risk compensation theory and bicycle helmets. Inj Prevent 2001;7(2):89-91.
5 Taylor M, Scuffham P. New Zealand bicycle helmet law-do the costs outweigh the benefits? Inj. Prevent. 2002;8:317-320.
6 Lawlor DA, Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. Commentary: The hormone replacement-coronary heart disease conundrum: is this thedeath of observational epidemiology? Int. J. Epidemiol. 2004;33(3):464-467.
7 Pless IB, Magdalinos H, Hagel B. Risk-compensation behavior in children - myth or reality? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2006;160:610-614.
8 McLean A, Fildes B, Kloeden C, Digges K, Anderson R, Moore V, et al. Prevention of Head Injuries to Car Occupants An Investigation of Interior Padding Options: Federal Office of Road Safety: Rpt CR160. Available at http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/atsb160.pdf 1997.
We read with great interest the cost analysis of fatal and non-fatal
falls among older adults aged >or=65 years. The authors point out that
fall related injuries among older adults are associated with substantial
economic costs with fractures accounting for 35% of non-fatal injuries but
61% for total costs. The authors concluded that effective intervention
strategies are mandatory to implement in...
We read with great interest the cost analysis of fatal and non-fatal
falls among older adults aged >or=65 years. The authors point out that
fall related injuries among older adults are associated with substantial
economic costs with fractures accounting for 35% of non-fatal injuries but
61% for total costs. The authors concluded that effective intervention
strategies are mandatory to implement in order to decrease morbidity,
mortality and healthcare cost.
Currently, especially among sporting athletes, the implementation of
a balance board training has been convincingly shown to decrease injuries
such as the rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament, ankle sprains or
muscle injuries [1,2,6]. With advancing age motor control and coordination
is tremendously decreased which impairs the daily activities
substantially. Raty tested 105 former elite athletes (aged 45-68) and 966
community control subjects regarding the balance capabilities finding that
former athletes were on average comparable to those of 24-30years younger
community control subjects [4].
As early as in 1995 Province and coworkers studied the effects of
exercise on falls in elderly patients in two nursery homes and five
community-dwelling sites [3]. They stated that treatments including
exercise for elderly adults reduce the risk of falls. Steadman involved in
2003 199 patients older than 60 years with a mean age of 83±6years a six-week balance training with increasing difficulty, while the control group
performed conventional physiotherapy [5]. Both groups could increase the
results in the 10-m-walk test significantly following six weeks of
training. Both groups showed improvements in Ten-meter timed walk test
(intervention: 22.5-16.5 seconds, P =.001; control: 20.5-15.8 seconds, P
=.054), Frenchay Activities Index (18-21, P =.02 in both groups), Falls
Handicap inventory score (intervention: 31-17, P =.0001; control: 33-17, P
=.0001) and European Quality of life score (intervention: 58-65, P =.04;
control: 60-65, P =.07). More patients reported increased confidence in
walking indoors (36% vs 28%; P =.04) and outdoors (27% vs 18%; P =.02) in
the enhanced balance-training group.
Therefore in both, young and older people a balance training as
protective balancing® may be a reasonable option for injury prevention and
should be advocated to enhance coordination and therefore decrease the
risk of falls.
References
(1) Caraffa A, Cerulli G, Projetti M, Aisa G, Rizzo A. Prevention of
anterior cruciate ligament injuries in soccer. A prospective controlled
study of proprioceptive training. Knee Surg Sports Traumtol Arthrosc
1996;4:19-21.
(2) Mandelbaum BR, Silvers HJ, Watanabe DS, Knarr JF, Thomas SD,
Griffin LY, Kirkendall DT, Garret W Jr. Effectiveness of a neuromuscular
and proprioceptive training program in preventing anterior cruciate
ligament injuries in female athletes: 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med
2005;33(7):1003-10.
(3) Province MA, Hadley EC, Hornbrook MC, Lipsitz LA, Miller JP,
Mulrow CD, Ory MG, Sattin RW, Tinetti ME, Wolf SL. The effects of exercise
on falls in elderly patients. A preplanned meta-analysis of the FICSIT
Trials. Fraility and Injuries: cooperative studies of intervention
techniques. JAMA 1995;273(17):1341-7.
(4) Raty JP, Impivaara O, Karppi SL. Dynamic balance in former elite
male athletes and community control subjects. Scand J Med Sci Sports
2002;12(2):111-6.
(5) Steadman J, Donaldson N, Kalra L. A randomized controlled trial
of an enhanced balance training program to improve mobility and reduce
falls in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003;51(6):847-52.
(6) Verhagen E, van der Beek A, Twisk J, Bouter L, Bahr R, van
Mechelen W. The effect of proprioceptive balance board training program
for the prevention of ankle sprains: a prospective controlled trial. Am J
Sports Med 2004;32(6):1385-93.
In his letter "Timely reporting of research is necessary", Mr Wardlaw
suggests that lack of enforcement of bicycle helmet legislation in Ontario
is an underreported aspect of bicycle helmet research.
Although the issue of enforcement of legislation has been raised as a
potentially important aspect of bicycle helmet laws, to our knowledge, no
one has studied the nature of enforcement of helmet leg...
In his letter "Timely reporting of research is necessary", Mr Wardlaw
suggests that lack of enforcement of bicycle helmet legislation in Ontario
is an underreported aspect of bicycle helmet research.
Although the issue of enforcement of legislation has been raised as a
potentially important aspect of bicycle helmet laws, to our knowledge, no
one has studied the nature of enforcement of helmet legislation in Ontario
(or elsewhere). A single police force in Ontario (Toronto Police
Services) has no record of charging a child for not wearing a helmet,
there are many ways that the police can enforce legislation that do not
include the police issuing citations. For example, the police can warn
children verbally that there is a helmet law. Further, Toronto Police
Services routinely work with schools to promote safe bicycling in the form
of Bike Rodeos. All children must ride helmeted at these events.
Many other ways of ‘enforcing’ laws exist, particularly for laws
aimed at children. Laws give parents, teachers, and other adults the
authority to promote certain behaviours in children. Many parents are
grateful for the helmet law, because the requirement to wear a helmet is
not based on their decision, but on a societal choice. They can therefore
enforce the law within their own family. Further, school principals often
require that children wear helmets bicycling to school because "it is the
law". These are just two examples of ways that helmet laws have been
enforced in Ontario, but their measurement is beyond the scope of the
published study. The unit of analysis in our study was observed children,
not their parents or teachers, and we did not measure their knowledge of
the law.
Mr. Wardlaw comments on the decline in hospitalizations for head
injuries in Ontario <1>. Administrative data are helpful in
assessing trends in hospitalizations, but they do not measure factors such
as helmet use. The report cited by Mr. Wardlaw measured hospitalizations
which have been declining for many reasons, including changes in practice
patterns for admission of head injuries. There is no concurrent
comparison group with which to compare these trends. Although evidence
from systematic reviews suggests that helmets are effective in reducing
head injuries <2,3>, we do not know whether children admitted to
hospital for bicycle-related injuries in Ontario were helmeted or not.
The distribution of helmet use among admitted children is one key
(unmeasured) factor that is necessary to understand the population impact
of helmet laws.
In conclusion, we agree that timely reporting of results is
necessary. We also believe that research results reported in the peer
reviewed literature must be based on scientific evaluation of risk factors
considered within the study design. Helmet laws have been shown to be
effective in reducing head injuries in published studies from around the
world <4,5,6,7,8>. Our study did not measure enforcement of the
helmet law in Ontario.
References
1. "Bicycle-related injuries among Ontario children declining".
Canadian Institute for Health Information.
http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_19mar2003_e
2. Thompson DC, Rivara FP, Thompson R. Helmets for preventing head
and facial injuries in bicyclists (Cochrane Review). In The Cochrane
Library, Issue 3, 2000. Oxford: Update Software
3. Attewell RG, Glase K, McFadden M. Bicycle helmet efficacy: a meta
-analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2001;33:345-52.
4. Scuffham P, Alsop J, Cryer C, Langley JD. Head injuries to
bicyclists and the New Zealand bicycle helmet law. Accident Analysis &
Prevention 2000; 32:565-73.
5. Macpherson AK, To TM, Macarthur C, Chipman ML, Wright JG, Parkin
PC. Impact of mandatory helmet legislation on bicycle-related head
injuries in children: a population-based study. Pediatric 2000; 110:e60.
6. Cameron MH, Vulcan AP., Finch CF, Newstead SV. Mandatory bicycle
helmet use following a decade of helmet promotion in Victoria, Australia--
an evaluation. Accident Analysis & Prevention 1994; 26:325-37.
7. Leblanc JC, Beattie TL, Culligan C. Effect of legislation on the
use of bicycle helmets. CMAJ Canadian Medical Association Journal 2002;
166:592-5.
8. Shafi S, Gilbert J, Loghmanee F, Allen JE, Caty MG, Glick PL,
Carden S, Azizkhan RG. Impact of bicycle helmet safety legislation on
children admitted to a regional pediatric trauma centre. J Pediatr Surg
1998;33:317-321.
Dr James Lawson [1] seeks to summarise similarities in our findings
[2] with those of three other reports, particularly that of Baker and
McPhedran [3]. He notes that we agree that there was a “continuation” of
the pre-existing trend in falling firearm deaths following the
implementation of the Australian National Firearms Agreement (NFA) of
1996. The word we used purposefully was that there was a sta...
Dr James Lawson [1] seeks to summarise similarities in our findings
[2] with those of three other reports, particularly that of Baker and
McPhedran [3]. He notes that we agree that there was a “continuation” of
the pre-existing trend in falling firearm deaths following the
implementation of the Australian National Firearms Agreement (NFA) of
1996. The word we used purposefully was that there was a statistically
significant “acceleration” of the downward trend. He says we attribute
this to the NFA. In fact, we took care to emphasise (p370) that the
accelerated overall decline was only associated with the passage of the
NFA. We highlighted the difficulty of inferring that the downturn – being
so dominated by firearm suicides – could have been readily attributable to
the removal of semi-automatic firearms from the community.
We readily agree that the large scale effort to try and reduce
suicide in the community is relevant to any consideration of why total
suicides have fallen [4]. Browsing gun lobby websites shows that poor
policing and mental health services, violence in the media, failure of the
media to censor reports of mass killings, and failure to report people who
“act strangely” are all putative causes of gun violence which have their
enthusiasts, as do simplistic notions that people posing danger to the
community are readily identifiable in advance. But suggesting that easy
access to guns designed to kill many people quickly may be relevant is a
profanity in such circles.
Where we differ from those who 10 years on, remain angered about
their inability to own military-style weaponry such as that used to kill
35 at Port Arthur, is that we are open to the possibility that removing
such firearms from the community might have reduced the ability of people
to carry out such killings.
We described the most palpable and plausible effect of the NFA as the
cessation of mass shootings, an omission of “rhinoceros in the living
room” proportions from the Baker and McPhedran paper. A cornerstone of the
NFA was the unanimous decision of all Australia’s federal, state and
territory governments to outlaw private ownership of semi-automatic rifles
and pump-action shot guns. These are weapons of choice for those intent on
killing many people quickly. The Australian Prime Minister said at the
time: “There is no legitimate interest served in my view by the free
availability in this country of weapons of this kind… Every effort should
be made to ensure such an incident [Port Arthur] does not occur again.”
[5]
Dr Lawson and others in the gun lobby regularly seek to trivialise
mass public shootings as rare events, implying that their infrequency
somehow makes them an improper outcome of interest. Here, we would simply
point to the overwhelming degree of public support for the NFA which
occurred against a background of unparalleled public discussion and media
attention where the gun lobby had every opportunity to put alternative
views, including arguments that the buyback money could have been more
effectively spent on other strategies. The small and transitory levy on
income tax which paid for the gun buyback attracted minimal criticism.
People intent on mass murder have other options than using guns, as
the Childers backpacker arsonist/murderer showed. Our analysis however,
showed that there was no apparent net substitution effect for either
homicide nor suicide. Other than the Childers incident, we know of no
other mass killing by any method in Australia since the passage of the
NFA.
Dr Lawson wonders how the Port Arthur gunman was able to acquire his
highly effective mass killing weapons. The answer would seem rather
obvious. There were hundreds of thousands of semi-automatic rifles and
pump action shot guns in the community. Being largely unregistered, and so
difficult to trace in their movement among gun owners, they were readily
available to anyone willing to sell such a gun to any buyer with money. If
even one in 1000 of Australia’s some 800,000 licensed shooters were
prepared to sell just one such gun to criminals or unstable individuals,
in an unregistered environment 800 such untraceable guns would fall into
the hands of high risk individuals. The government saw this as
unacceptable and the community agreed.
Lawson thinks it “strange” that our paper did not mention
international comparisons in firearm deaths. Our paper concerned the
Australian situation, but we are pleased to respond to his comments about
the USA and the UK. We believe there are few lessons for nations like
Australia in the USA’s track record with firearm deaths. Currently, the
United States has 14.5 times Australia’s population, 102 times its total
firearm deaths [2,6], and 173 times its number of firearm homicides
[2,7]. Relating different periods of firearm deaths in the USA with the
implication that Australia should emulate US gun policy is like arguing
that Baghdad is safer than Bogota.
Similarly, Lawson notes that in the UK, total homicides have risen
62% and firearm homicides by 20% since the introduction of the post-
Dunblane laws [8]. He fails to note though that the UK has, by US
standards, an almost homeopathic rate of gun homicide (in 2002/03, just 80
in a population of about 60 million) [8]. On the assumption that he is
arguing that US-style gun laws rather than UK and Australian laws make
communities safer, it would appear that he has a little explaining to do.
Also, of 24,070 crimes committed with “firearms” in the UK in 2002/03,
13,822 (57%) involved airguns and 1,815, toy or imitation guns [8].
Dr Lawson’s nostalgia for a return to the days when firearms were
unregistered and his carefully qualified hints about the desirability of a
heavily armed society where armed “good guys” could dispatch violent armed
“bad guys” in public settings is not a view shared by the great majority
of Australian citizens who have now lived over 10 years free of the
regular gun mayhem that characterises news about guns coming from the
United States. Similarly, his opinion of Lott and Mustard’s paper as a
“landmark” contribution to evidence about armed deterrence is not one
shared by a wide range of critical reviews, including the US National
Academy of Sciences which found no evidence showing right-to-carry laws
have an impact, either way, on rates of violent crime [9].
Finally, Dr Lawson gives SC far too much credit for “coordinating”
gun control advocacy in Australia. SC was involved for a relatively short
period (1993-1996), typically putting no more than several hours a week
into advocacy for stronger gun control. The vast majority of Australian
citizens strongly supported the NFA. They needed little persuading that
Australia did not want to go down the US road so memorably examined by
Mike Moore in Bowling for Columbine.
2. Chapman S, Alpers P, Agho K, Jones M. Australia’s 1996 gun law
reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides and a decade
without mass shootings. Injury Prevention 2006; 12; 365-372.
3. Baker J, McPhedran S. Gun laws and sudden death. Did the
Australian firearms legislation of 1996 make a difference? British Journal
of Criminology 2006; Advance access Oct 18 doi:10.1093/bjc/921084
4. Morrell S, Page AN, Taylor RJ. The decline in Australian young
male suicide. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(3):747-54.
5. Howard J. ‘Never, Ever Again.’ Prime Ministerial Op-ed. Herald
Sun. Melbourne, 10 May 1996.
6. US Centers for Disease Control. National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control. WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports 2004.
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
7. US Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Murder.
Table 2.9
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html
8. Povey D. (ed).Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003: Supplementary
Volume 1: Homicide and Gun Crime 01/04 January 2004. Home Office Research,
Development and Statistics Directorate (RDS).
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf
9. National Academy of Sciences. Committee on Law and Justice.
Firearm violence: a critical review. Washington, 2004.
Re: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearms,
deaths firearms suicides and a decade without mass shootings. Chapman et
al. Injury Prevention: 12; 365-372. Dec 2006.
Chapman et al. use official Australian Government statistics to
demonstrate a continuing fall in firearms murder and suicide following the
implementation of the Australian National Firearms Agreement (NFA) of
1996. T...
Re: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearms,
deaths firearms suicides and a decade without mass shootings. Chapman et
al. Injury Prevention: 12; 365-372. Dec 2006.
Chapman et al. use official Australian Government statistics to
demonstrate a continuing fall in firearms murder and suicide following the
implementation of the Australian National Firearms Agreement (NFA) of
1996. They also state that this was a continuation of a pre-existing trend
in falling firearms deaths over several years. This confirms the previous
reports of Reuter and Mouzos [1], Ozanne-Smith et al [2] and Baker and
McPhedran [3]. In all four papers, the authors agree that there had been
a steady decline in gun murder and gun suicide before the NFA [4] and that
this decline continued post NFA. Reuter and Mouzos and Ozanne-Smith et al
found no decrease in total suicide after 5 years. Reuter and Mouzos found
a marginal fall in total murder, whereas Ozanne-Smith did not. Ten years
post NFA, Baker and McPhedran and Chapman et al confirm continuing falls
in both gun murder and gun suicide and also total murder and total
suicide. Thus far, all authors are in agreement.
Controversy arises in that Baker and McPhedran report a slightly
faster fall in total and gun suicide post NFA but no significant increase
in the rate of decline in gun and total murder. They attribute the
continuing decline to general social factors, not the NFA. In contrast,
Chapman et al maintain that there are marginally faster rates of decline
in gun and total murders and suicides which are significant and due to the
NFA. While it makes sense that fewer guns would be associated with fewer
gun deaths, it is intuitively difficult to see how mass gun confiscations
would reduce suicides by hanging and car exhausts and reduce murders by
stabbing and beating.
Harrison and Steenkamp reported a marked increase in suicide by
hanging and car exhaust in the first 2 years after the NFA [5], suggesting
initial method substitution. The subsequent fall in total suicide
developed after Australia mounted a strong campaign to raise awareness of
depression as a severe and treatable illness and to remove any shame or
stigma attached to depression and other mental illness. Well known public
figures, including politicians, actors and sporting personalities have
described in the media their personal struggles with depressive illness
[6]. This may account for the observed fall in total suicides, including
the continuing decline in the subset of gun suicides.
Despite the welcome post NFA fall in murder, the current rate is
still higher than in 1950-1980, when there were virtually no long gun
controls at all [7]. Curiously, Weatherburn maintains, that for the most
populous state of New South Wales, the fall in gun crime is due to good
policing, reduced availability of heroin and the arrest of hard core
violent criminals [8]. This has apparently occurred despite a 25% increase
in legal gun ownership over 2002-5.
International comparisons are even more confusing. Despite
increasingly strict gun laws, the United Kingdom murder rate doubled since
1966 [9] and is now higher than the Australian rate. (See Povey - Table 1.01 p15). In particular, since the total handgun confiscations of 1996,
the total murder numbers have risen 62%. This includes gun murder numbers
up 20%. ( Povey - Table 1.03 p17) and handgun crime numbers up 66%. (Povey - Table 2.03 p 51.) IE Mass gun confiscations in UK have produced exactly
the opposite effect claimed for Australia.
The USA murder rate doubled during 1960-1975, from about 5/100,000
to 10/100,000per annum, remained at this level for 10 years, and has now
fallen to almost 1960 levels.[10] This drop occurred despite a 36%
increase in the number of legal US guns over 1975-1985 [11].
Paradoxically, the landmark paper of Lott and Mustard [12] reported a
marked decrease in mass gun murders in public places in those US states
which changed their laws to allow citizens to carry concealed handguns.
Curiously, new Zealand, which participated in the Australian
deliberations, but chose not to implement the NFA, experienced a
significant decline in gun murder, but no change in total murder. [13]
Strangely, Chapman et al do not mention any of the international figures.
Chapman et al claim correctly that there have been no mass gun
murders in Australia since the implementation of the NFA in 1996 and that
the NFA is therefore a “success”. Unfortunately, there was never any
generally agreed definition of “success” at the time the NFA was
implemented .However there have been a few mass murders, not involving
firearms, particularly the arson attack at Childers, Queensland, in which
15 people died. The others were domestic tragedies in which parents killed
their children and then suicided. Oddly, Chapman et al appear to define a
mass murder as an incident with 5 or more deaths [14]. They state
specifically that “this is to exclude most of the more common firearm
related spousal and family violence killings” (footnote to Table 1 p367).
In contrast, the Australian Institute of Criminology uses a definition of
4 or more deaths in a single incident [15]. Chapman’s choice of definition
would result in fewer “mass murders”. (Note: The murders in Snowtown,
South Australia, 12 deaths, were serial killings). It is puzzling that
Chapman et al quote Reuter and Mouzos [16] that mass murders are an
“appropriate evaluation outcome”, but ignore their contention in the same
article that “the frequency of those events is so low that not much can be
inferred”[17] and that mass murder shows a “statistically insignificant
lower rate than pre-1996”[18]. Fortunately, Reuter and Mouzos put the
matter in perspective, pointing out that mass murders account for only 3%
of all homicides in Australia [19].
In an earlier work, Chapman points out that the Port Arthur murderer
was receiving a pension for intellectual handicap and sociopathic
personality disorder, and had a mental age of 11[20]. The murderer had
never had a gun licence and also drove a car without a licence [21]. If we
wish to prevent further mass gun murders in public places, it seems a good
idea to find out how such a person managed to obtain a military assault
rifle illegally. This was never even investigated. It did not emerge at
the trial as the accused pleaded guilty.( Note: For the benefit of readers
outside Australia, I point out that all the Port Arthur victims were
unarmed, as local laws prohibited weapon carrying for self defence. I
state this as a matter of fact, without comment).
Chapman et al quite correctly point out that there was great public
and media support for the NFA in 1996. Most of the credit for this must go
to Chapman himself. Over several years before the Port Arthur killings,
Chapman himself co-ordinated “the planned ,strategic use of media”, and
“a sustained period of public advocacy for gun law reform” [22]. He
describes “preceding years of advocacy”[23] and recommends that “violent
gun incidents should be anticipated and planned for so “advocates exploit
to advantage the huge public and political interest these disasters
generate when they occur” [24]. The distinction between media advocacy and
propaganda is never explained.
These matters are not mere academic quibbles. The Australian federal
government has spent at least half a billion dollars of public funds on
mass confiscations of legally owned guns over 1996-2003. “Buy-back” was a
euphemism for confiscation under threat of fines and imprisonment,
although monetary compensation was paid. Further tens of millions of
dollars are spent annually on registering each individual legal firearm,
despite the lack of any clear benefit. The state of Victoria has actually
gone so far as to require registration of all antique black powder muzzle
loaders and blank-firing sports starting pistols! As 90% of Australian gun
crime is committed by unlicensed persons with unregistered guns [25] and
legal guns are involved in about 2% of Australian murders [26], even total
destruction of all legal guns in Australia would have only minimal
benefit.
Could greater cost effectiveness have been achieved by using the
resources for improving mental health services or drug rehabilitation,
preventing domestic violence, anti-smoking campaigns? No-one has examined
this, a surprising omission for a Professor of Public Health.
References
1"Australia: a Massive Buyback of Low-Risk Guns".Chapter 4. In:
"Evaluating Gun Policy- Effects on crime and violence". Eds. Ludwig J,
Cook P J. Brookings Institute Press, 2003.
2. Ozanne-Smith J et al. Firearms related deaths: the impact of
regulatory reform. Injury prevention 2004;10:280-286.
3. Baker J, McPhedran S. Gun laws and Sudden Death: Did the
Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference? British
Journal of Criminology 2006- Advance Access published 18 Oct 2006.
4.Firearms Deaths-Australia 1980—1995.Australian Bureau of
Statistics 1997. cat no. 4397.0.
5. Harrison JE, Steenkamp M. Australian Injury prevention bulletin
Issue 23, 2000.
http://www.nisu.flinders.edu.au/pubs/bulletin23/bulletin23.html Accessed
22 12 2006.
6. See for example http://www.beyondblue.org.au/
7. Mouzos J. Homicidal Encounters. A study of homicide in Australia
1989-1999. Australian Institute of Criminology. 2000. p9.
8. Weatherburn D. “ Gun laws fall short in war on crime.” Quoted
in Sydney Morning Herald 29 10 2005.
9. Povey D. (ed).Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003:
Supplementary Volume 1: Homicide and Gun Crime 01/04
Editor: David Povey January 2004. Home Office Research, Development and
Statistics
Directorate (RDS). www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf Accessed
23-12 2006.
10. Fox JA, Zawitz MW. “Homicide Trends in the US. Long term trends
and patterns.”
United States Dept. of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of
Justice Statistics.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm Accessed 23-12-2006.
11. Kleck G. “Targeting guns”. Aldine de Gruyter 1997. pp96-97.
12. Lott JR, Mustard DB. “Crime, Deterrence and Right-to-Carry
Concealed Handguns.” Journal of Legal Studies 26(1). Jan 1997.
13. Reuter P, Mouzos J. op cit. p135.
14. Chapman S, Alpers P, Agho K,Jones M. “ustralia’s 1996 gun law
reforms: faster falls in firearms, deaths firearms suicides and a decade
without mass shootings” Injury Prevention: 12; 365-372. Dec 2006. p366.
15. Mouzos J. “Homicidal Encounters. A study of homicide in Australia
1989-1999”. Australian Institute of Criminology 2000.
16. Reuter P, Mouzos J. op cit. p131.
17. ibid. p122
18. ibid p141.
19. ibid p127.
20. Chapman S. Over Our dead Bodies. Port Arthur and the Fight for
Gun control. Pluto Press 1997. pp136-7.
21. ibid p73.
22. ibid. preface, 1st page
23. ibid p5.
24. ibid pp6-7.
25. Mouzos J. “The Licensing and Registration Status of Firearms used
in Homicide”. Australian Institute of Criminology May2000.Trends and
Issues Paper 151.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi151.html Accessed 28-
12 2006
26. Mouzos J, Segrave M. Homicide in Australia. 2002-2003 National
Homicide Monitoring Program Annual Report. Australian Institute of
Criminology. 2004 p15.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/66/ accessed 28-12 2006.
Dr.J.B.Lawson. MB BS., B Med Sc., FRANZCR.
3 Lucas St.
Brighton Vic 3186. Australia.
Mob 0417 08 1113
lawbb@melbpc.org.au
Dear Editor
I don't remember a time this game did not exist. I recall kids playing it in the early 1950's in Calgary, AB. Nor did it ever go away. It didn't have any hip street name back then nor was it called a game. It was just "Hey, let's do the thing(s) that made you pass out." It was done for the cool feeling we would now call a rush. I wouldn't do it with anyone because I did not trust anyone. When I got into...
Dear Editor
The finding of an abnormally low pH in the exhaled breath condensates from patients with asthma and cystic fibrosis [1] raises the possibility that this pH might be a better metabolic marker to use especially if each driver were to establish his/her own control values. If exhaled breath were used alcohol and even other chemical levels could also be measured, recorded and stored in a black box. What is...
Dear Editor
It is not my plan to revisit the detailed AIC/ABS data and statistical analysis covered by the Alpers/Chapman report and other specialists (McPhedran/Baker). This response will offer comments from the aspects of clear thinking and logical deduction.
Firstly, since there was never any Judicial Inquiry, nor Coronial Inquest into the Port Arthur Massacre, there was never the opportunity for any...
Dear Editor
Re: Profs. Chapman and Alpers reply to Dr Lawson. E-letter 9 Jan 2007.
I thank Professors Chapman and Alpers for their interest in my letter[1] in response to their paper[2].
It seems that all parties[3,4,5] agree on the facts, that there was a steady decline in gun murder and suicide before the Australian National Firearms Agreement of 1996 and that this trend continued at a slight...
Dear Editor
I would not have expected any different from concerted 'public health advocates' and long time anti-gun campaigners Philip Alpers and Simon Chapman than a vindication of the John Howard gun bans.
Could it be that they have discovered the one instance in the world where gun bans can be shown to have saved lives? Could Australia be the exception to the rule that gun laws are ineffective the worl...
Barry Pless claimed that critics of helmet laws rely on fatality data. Yet my review considered all injuries serious enough to require hospital admission in all jurisdictions where helmet wearing increased substantially (more than 40 percentage points). There were no obvious responses in percent head injury.[1]
In contrast, the large, ob...
Dear editor,
We read with great interest the cost analysis of fatal and non-fatal falls among older adults aged >or=65 years. The authors point out that fall related injuries among older adults are associated with substantial economic costs with fractures accounting for 35% of non-fatal injuries but 61% for total costs. The authors concluded that effective intervention strategies are mandatory to implement in...
Dear Editor
In his letter "Timely reporting of research is necessary", Mr Wardlaw suggests that lack of enforcement of bicycle helmet legislation in Ontario is an underreported aspect of bicycle helmet research.
Although the issue of enforcement of legislation has been raised as a potentially important aspect of bicycle helmet laws, to our knowledge, no one has studied the nature of enforcement of helmet leg...
Dear Editor
Dr James Lawson [1] seeks to summarise similarities in our findings [2] with those of three other reports, particularly that of Baker and McPhedran [3]. He notes that we agree that there was a “continuation” of the pre-existing trend in falling firearm deaths following the implementation of the Australian National Firearms Agreement (NFA) of 1996. The word we used purposefully was that there was a sta...
Editor
Re: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearms, deaths firearms suicides and a decade without mass shootings. Chapman et al. Injury Prevention: 12; 365-372. Dec 2006.
Chapman et al. use official Australian Government statistics to demonstrate a continuing fall in firearms murder and suicide following the implementation of the Australian National Firearms Agreement (NFA) of 1996. T...
Pages