Comprehensive Analysis of the Gun Control Debate and violence in General
A lot can be said about the "common sense" nature of gun control. While it may seem intuitive and instinctive for some ,for others who lack an understanding about firearms or what firearms legislation would entail, they simply need cold hard facts to be convinced that many forms of gun control are bad. Even then, many more will need additional information and explanation as well as rigorous debate before they would even consider an alternative option to gun control measures, even if it's proven to be ineffective. Not all gun or weapon control is bad, such as mandatory background checks (which already exist), or the banning of nuclear weapons. But gun control, in general, is not the best idea, and is rarely supported by the facts. Gun control typically refers to laws aimed at restricting currently legal firearms, most of which are still far below what would be considered extremely deadly or dangerous. When it comes to that, very few pieces of legislation seem to have enough substance or target the right issues to do anything meaningful. We should not simply "do something" about gun violence as many politicians say, we should do something good about all forms of violence. And ultimately, stopping violence comes down to understanding and combating variety of different underlying social factors, as well as the raw physical prevent of it such as, the policing of the violence, or self defense to act as a way to stop or deter attacks.
There are far more prevalent factors to violence in any country, including the U.S., than the mere presence of firearms. Social issues, economics, poverty, the effectiveness of law enforcement, the presence of organized crime, and in general a certain element of randomness tend to be more important to determining a country's violent crime rate or murder rate, than the ownership of guns. Take Honduras for example; it has the highest homicide rate of any country in the world, at around 85-90 per year per 100,000 people. This compared to the U.S., at approximately 4-5 per year (depending on the year), despite the U.S. having the most guns in the world. Africa as a continent has some 30 million guns out of a population of 1 billion people, or a gun ownership rate lower than 3%, compared to the U.S.'s 300 million+ guns or more than 1 gun per person, yet the violence is 2-3 times higher on average in Africa than in the U.S., or is 12.5 per 100,000 people. Mexico, literally on the border of the U.S., has approximately 3 times the murder rate or, a murder rate of 15.7, compared to the U.S., and only has 3 million legally registered guns in the entire country, and 15 million guns, with a very low gun ownership rate of around 10%, and yet, has a much higher violent crime and murder rate. While this is according to self reported statistics (as reported by the U.N. [1][2]) as a rough comparison, countries with the least amount of guns, don't have the least amount of homicides, and countries with the most guns, don't have the most homicides. To truly solve the problem of crime, and violence, we have to understand that inherently it's a social issue, dependent on the people involved. Only by focusing on people, and not things, in this case guns, can we solve our problems.
Poverty is very clearly associated with increased crime. Poor people tend to be more desperate, have less ability to defend themselves, and generally can't pay as high taxes, which in turn weakens the government. Poverty exponentially increases crime by not only creating desperation which attracts bad elements of society to do bad things they may not have in a more comfortable environment, but also by weakening the citizen's own ability to respond to that crime. With these two factors conflated with each other, crime can become extremely rampant, going from around 1.0 to 2.0 murders per 100,000 people in the rest of the U.S., compared to 45.0 in detroit. The murder rate increases exponentially whenever gangs can essentially be seeded in to the environment, with the lawlessness essentially creating a breeding ground for large criminal groups. Despite making up less than .5% of the population, gangs and organized crime were responsible for approximately 48% of the violent crime in the U.S. (FBI), making groups of young violent men significantly more dangerous than they would be alone. When these poor environments become so inept at combating crime that entire organizations can form and people are so desperate they are willing to join the organizations for the chance at a decent life, crime inevitability sky rockets. This trend can be found in Mexico, Honduras, Eastern Europe and even Russia, where crime sky rockets after gangs and organized crime seed in to the environment. The Netherlands, Switzerland or other such places have low gang activity, and low crime, but places in Africa with various tribal leaders also have lower crime, despite being incredibly poor and living primitively, primarily due to the lack of a presence of such organizations. Poverty does not always lead to crime, but in many places it can, especially urban environments. Urban areas also tend to have much higher violent crime rates in general, and much higher stranger victimization rates. [1][2] Poor urban areas in the U.S. with heavy gang presences have the highest crime rates and even higher violence rates, and this trend holds true for the world. Making the issue about guns completely ignores the real issues, while wasting resources and needlessly punishing innocent civilians for the crime of owning a gun. What we need to do is focus on the people involved.
Better educations can help give people a better chance at life and a more likely chance to get a job, and thus help reduce poverty. The average gang initiate is 14 [1], and disparaged school systems are practically recruiting grounds for gangs. Kids with bad family lives, in part due to poverty, can see the schools as a safe haven and find a way to progress beyond their means, allowing them to escape the cycle of poverty and the resulting violence. Mental illness and drug abuse are also closely associated with violent crime. Approximately 46.7% of violent criminals are classified as drug dependent, compared to about 9.4% of the population in general. [1][2] The mentally ill are also more likely to commit crimes, with approximately 45-64% of all prisoner having some form of mental illness. [1] Treating mental illness and drug addictions is also beneficial to society as these people are often in desperate need of help; nearly 90% [1][2] of suicides are committed by the mentally ill, and a disproportionate amount of homeless people are drug addicts or mentally ill. Decriminalizing drug use (but not sale or trafficking) and court ordering mandatory rehabilitation for drug use can be a very effective way to reduce drug use, compared to the nearly revolving door of drug addiction our current prison system has. While 40-60% of the time drug rehabilitation is successful, imprisonment is only successful 10-25% of the time. Both for moral and practical reasons, this can be done to help people, and it would also put a sizable dent in our violent crime rate. It's also no secret that drug use fuels organized crime, such as drug cartels, and thus putting a dent in usage also hurts their profits, and subsequently in the long run can make them weaker.
While there are no magic beans that will make crime go away, putting tremendous dents in to the existing crime rate is possible with some very simple steps. Even more so, the money that's spent on incarceration (nearly 25,000 per prisoner a year [1]) can be better spent on rehabilitation and screening programs to catch people who have addictions or are mentally ill earlier before they become out of control, thus not costing us drastically more money than they would have already spent. Rehabilitation won't work on everyone and people will always slip through the cracks, but if mandatory psychological screening was required for all people and rehabilitation was required for all drug addicts instead of, or in concert with imprisonment, a reduction in the impact of one of the most prevalent causes of crime, and violence in general, could be achieved. Instead of spending hundred of billions of dollars on buyback programs and the policing of the mere ownership of a firearm, we could instead target factors that would prevent all violence, for the same or less money, without the removal of anyone's rights. Ignoring the potential backlash in hatred of riots over gun control laws, we still could reduce violence further with more effective means that would also impact suicides, homelessness, and all crimes in general, improving the quality of life of everyone. Better educations and mental health programs, including those directed at drug and alcohol abusers, could very easily lower the murder rate, as well as help with many other problems. There are more reasonable and easily implemented measures than gun control, that would have a superior impact. In a world of finite resources with a limited government budget, the best allocation of these resources, and the manpower needed to achieve the results, has to be considered. Because these measures are ultimately more effective, they should be used, instead of gun control. In Switzerland, nearly every citizen is required to own a fully automatic machine gun giving them a gun ownership rate rivaling the U.S., yet they have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world, with a murder rate of .5, lower than the UK, Australia or Canada. Yet as every citizen is psychologically screened as a result of a mandatory military draft, their violent crime rate is very low. In Norway and Israel, we see a similar trend, where mandatory military service of all able-bodied and minded people and gun ownership lower crime, in large part because of the psychological screenings of all citizens to prove if they're able-minded for military service in the first place. While it will alway exist, crime can be reduced if targeted properly, which runs perhaps completely counter to the gun control argument all together. Than, the goal needs to shift away from gun control, and instead be placed on education, mental health, and drug addiction.
Focusing on the people, instead of on the tool, will likely yield greater successes on curbing violence and other social issues. However, if we were to continue the mental exercise, scurrying down the rabbit hole to address other gun control arguments, how would that argument go? Well, criminals would still get guns if gun laws were illegal, guns are not needed for murder and are not the deadliest weapons available to civilians, guns are used more defensively than for crimes meaning that you would need to save more than "just 1 life" as many have claimed, and removing rights to save just one life doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense on any issue, let alone with guns. There's no guarantee that criminals would use knives instead of guns, as they could use explosives or cars or other weapons instead, and there's no guarantee that knives are less deadly. Illegal manufacturing of guns, the theft of guns currently in circulation and even smuggling contribute to illegal firearms, and with the absolutely massive wealth of guns in this country, it seems unlikely that guns would suddenly be unavailable to criminals if they're simply illegal for commercial sale in local businesses. Many of the features of the supposed "assault weapons ban" are also easily replicable, such as the adjustable stock or pistol grip, meaning that these so-called assault features can be easily made on the street. A generally ineffective law would have, basically no reason to exist, other than to unnecessarily punish otherwise law-abiding civilians. So, what do we find?
There are weapons just as, if not more deadly than guns
The entire basis of gun control rests on the notion that, if criminals were to use other weapons, less people would die. It's not that criminals won't attack people or the rampant poverty or other social issues won't exist, but that guns are simply more effective at killing. The hope, the dream of gun control advocates is that, criminals will simply switch to less deadly weapons if guns are outlawed; that out of the thousands of weapons available, guns are the most deadly, and banning these will reduce violence. While it may seem a bit weird from the outside to ban one type of gun or one gun in hopes that all other weapons that are more deadly than guns aren't used, this is essentially the argument of gun control advocates. That they'd switch to knives or explosives, and this would kill less people. Not only is it a pretty strange hope that this would occur as there's no guarantee that criminals would use a less deadly weapon than a gun, but it's not even true that guns are more deadly.
While certainly not my favorite topic to discuss, in mass murderers more people have died from explosives, arson, poison and vehicle attacks than from guns. The deadliest single person mass shooting in the world occurred in Norway, and killed 67 people, which was done predominately with a handgun, with a magazine capacity lower than 10 rounds. [1] Automatically, the concept of an "assault weapons ban" is thrown out the window as, a handgun was used to commit the deadliest mass murder of all time. A handgun can kill just as many people as an "assault rifle" in a mass murder, so the type of firearm effectively makes very little difference. When an aggregate comparison is made, assault weapons killed slightly less people than non-assault weapons in mass shootings, making the type of gun virtually irrelevant for shootings. According to a congressional study by the government [2], around 27.3% of mass murderers use an assault weapon in public mass shootings (and 9.7% in all mass shootings) and less than 2% of all murderers use one. [3] It effectively makes no difference if someone uses a so-called "assault weapon", handgun, or other type of firearm. If civilians cannot mount an effective defense against the shooter, it could be a bolt-action hunting rifle, such as the texas tower shooting, or a handgun, such as in the Virginia tech shooting that is the second deadliest shooting in U.S. history. The type of weapon often makes little difference in the impact of the shooting.
So, what about other weapons? As sad as it is to talk about, guns are not the deadliest weapons to be used in mass shootings. To obtain a weapon in the U.S. you have to pass a background check, pay several hundred dollars and generally maintain good legal standing to be able to own one. Anyone with severe mental illnesses, felonies on record, domestic abuse or even just 1 year in prison are effectively barred from owning a gun, unless a judge overturns this decision. This means that few criminals or bad people can even obtain guns in the first place, making it very difficult to do legally (illegally is another matter, of course). Fertilizer, pressure cookers, gasoline, poison or cars on the other hand are extremely widely available, and cars are at least as easy to obtain as guns. Sadly, these can kill far more than guns ever can. The Oklahoma city bombing attack with a fertilizer bomb killed 168 people and injured approximately 680, in one of the deadliest attacks on U.S. soil in history. In India a train bombing killed 209 people and injured 714 people, using a pressure cooker bomb. In Australia, 173 people died and 414 more were injured in an arson attack, set off by a few gallons of gasoline. 87 people died and 434 were injured in the France Nice attack, and they perpetrator used a car. 918 people died in one of the worst mass poisonings in U.S. history, considered by many to be a mass murder as most people drank the poison under duress. The obvious pattern here is that many other forms of killing people, be it by explosives, arson, poison or vehicles not only exist, but are far more deadly than guns could ever be. The worst single person mass shooting killed 67 people in Norway by comparison, and most mass shootings kill far less. The point is that other just as easily available weapons can kill not only just as many people, but more people than guns. How do we stop killers by getting rid of guns if they switch to more deadly weapons? The issue here is not gun violence, but violence in general. There's no guarantee that a killer would use a butter knife or other less deadly weapon instead of a pressure cooker bomb if guns were illegal. For every killer stopped there would be just as many switching to even deadlier weapons, effectively making gun control moot. To truly stop the mass murders and murder in general, you need to go after people, criminals, and not guns. 9/11, perhaps one of the most infamous mass murders in history, was committed by using a box cutter and taking over a plane, which lead to at least 3,000 deaths and 3,000 additional injuries, deadlier than every single mass shooting in the last 10 years in the U.S. combined. If even a single killer switched over to use a weapon other than guns, more people would actually die. While keeping guns legal in the hope that criminals will use them instead of other methods is not exactly a good strategy, it's just as bad a strategy to ban guns in hope of the opposite. Ultimately, the person, not the tool, is the problem. People have been finding creative ways to kill each other since before guns even existed. Nearly every war in history is proof of that.
So, what about a knife? Just for the sake of the argument, let's just say killers switched to knives instead. As previously mentioned there are actually deadlier weapons, so there's no guarantee someone would choose to switch to a knife. But what if they did? Many mass murders have been committed with knives, blunt instruments and other edged weapons such as axes, and their death tolls are nearly as high on average as mass shootings, effectively making the difference in mass murders moot. Notable examples are Cairns child killings which killed 8 in Australia, 5 dead in the Calgary stabbings, 19 dead and 26 injured in the Japanese stabbing attacks, and 33 dead and 143 injured in the Chinese Kunming attack. At least 50 people died in a Chinese knife attack at a coalmine, with the numbers still uncertain. All of these examples illustrate one thing, that mass knifings are no less deadly than mass shootings, and are entirely possible. If everyone switched over to knives instead of guns, there likely wouldn't be less deaths. Most gun murder occur within close proximity to their victim, close enough to where a knife could have been used instead, and gunshot wounds do not tend to be significantly more deadly than knife wounds according to medical date (although based on how you compile it, there are discrepancies between various groups). Nonetheless, the most likely cause of death from a gunshot wound or knife wound is bleed-out or infection, meaning that the injury itself is not as important as the perforation of the vital organs by any means, which opens them up to bleed-out and contagions which can lead to an infection. There is a chance that a killer could put poison or other drugs on their knives, thus combining the effect of the injury with the poison, and effectively eliminating the difference in deadliness in general. Ultimately, the type of the weapon matters less than proximity and target choice, as an area with lots of people will result in more deaths, and an area far away from a hospital will result in the greatest amount of deaths as the wounds will be more difficult to treat. There is a certain randomness to the death toll as a result based on targets chosen, and methods used. But switching from a gun to another weapon, even a knife, would likely save few, if any lives.
Criminals will get gun anyways
Even if guns were somehow more deadly than other weapons, and by making guns illegal no-one would use these other deadly weapons, even more deadly and dangerous than guns, criminals could still get guns by illegal means. Illegal smuggling, illegal gun manufacturing, and simply the raw volume of the number of guns already in circulation, particularly in America, means that stopping the legal production of guns won't stop the illegal production of guns. Interestingly enough, these sorts of firearms already account for the majority of crimes committed by criminals anyways, suggesting that making them illegal won't make them go away. At least 79% of weapon used by criminals were obtained illegally, where as between 89-97% of guns are estimated to be illegally obtained. So, the vast majority of guns are not purchased legally, with a legal background check in the U.S.
Illegal smuggling of firearms is a huge issue, although no exact numbers are known for how many are smuggled in or out of the U.S. annually. Russia, eastern bloc countries and China are the biggest culprit of illegal weapons smuggling, haven given weapons directly or indirectly to Iran, Hezbollah, the cartels, the Taliban, the Russian mafia, and even to some extent their own enemies, such as Chechynians or the Afghanistan people. Their illegal arms trade is so prolific Russia most commonly fights against their own guns in their own wars. With nearly 100 million ak-47's in the worst, most going for 50-100 dollars, they are easily and frequently trafficked across borders of countries, most of which have little if any real means to stop smugglers. Only about 1-5% of land based traffickers are stopped in the U.S., meaning that the majority will get through our borders. Only half will be caught, ever, and that's mostly poor undocumented immigrants, rather than hardcore gun smugglers. [1] Given the ease of travel, the potential for gun smuggling is obviously huge, and already very prevalent. Although exact numbers are unknown, it's not unreasonable to think that the majority of illegal weapons used come from illegal smuggling.
Illegal manufacturing is also fairly easy. While "ghost guns" are a popular idea in the public mind, illegal manufacturing of gun has been occurring for decades, and with relative ease. There are no special machines designed to make guns, guns are made from the same machinery widely used by other industries, such as care manufacturing or machine shops. All that's needed is a mill, lathe or steel stamping device, and a polymer mold or wood carving device to make the accessories. It's actually not uncommon for people to make guns off the books just for fun, rather than any nefarious purpose, and this culture has allowed many darker elements to copy their methods in making their own guns. While home made guns may vary in quality, in general they are good enough to commit a crime, which only requires a handful of rounds and are mostly used at close range and for intimidation, rather than pushed to the limits typical factory made guns are. Criminals generally tend to prefer cheap, disposable guns over expensive guns that will last a lifetime, as evidence of a crime remaining for a lifetime is incriminating, rather than beneficial. Thus these untraceable, off-the-books guns made with no-one the wiser are preferred by criminals, which the statistics tend to show. Whatever percent do use legal guns likely would just switch over to illegal guns. And even if we somehow prevented all of these murders, whatever that small percentage of guns that are legally obtained by criminals, it would need to offset the number of cases where guns are used in self defense, which is nearly as common as violent crimes with guns themselves, or 300,000 cases a year, according to the CDC. [1][2] Saving "just 1 life" doesn't cut it if thousands of more lives are taken in return. Seatbelts kill a few hundred people everywhere as do vaccines, but this pails in comparison to the thousands saved. Saving "just one life" isn't worth it if far more lives are taken as a result of the new action. Because guns have a purpose for saving lives as well, you'd likely do more harm than good with gun control, assuming it worked to take guns out of the hands of criminals. Guns are used for self defense the majority of the time without anyone even getting killed, as merely brandishing a firearm or pointing it at someone is useful enough to stop a violent crime. So, the amount of defensive uses with guns in this country out numbers the violent crimes, and not every state has loose gun control or widely available guns (such as California or New York). So, guns do more good than harm, which is far more than the percentage of legal guns doing harm in any case.
But what if we could save just one life?
A common argument by gun control advocates is the notions that if removing our rights to own a gun could save "just one life!", it would be worth it. While for aforementioned reasons this won't be the case as said above as you'd need to save thousands of lives, what if you could save just one life by banning guns? Would it be worth sacrificing our freedoms for 1 life, or 100 lives, or 500? While I certainly enjoy the sentiment and find it very sad and tragic, the obvious answer is, well, no. Scissors kill approximately 100 people per year, are we going to ban scissors? Alcohol kills some 88,000 a year according to the CDC, mostly other people in car accidents, and it has no use to society. Literally none what so ever, that is drinkable ethanol. Are you willing to ban alcohol? If we want to legalize something that has no purpose to society, and that might create a black market, why does the logic make sense with guns, which kills less people, 10,000 homicides or less a year, and perhaps 20,000 suicides if we choose to include it. [1] For those that want to legalize pot or other drugs, how do you contend with the damage caused by it, in relation to value of these drugs which is functionally nothing to society other than instant gratification? Unlike cars or stairs, they serve no tangible benefit and the thousands of car accidents or falling deaths a year can't be justified for economic or practical reasons. It just makes your life more comfortable to have it.
In the name of freedom, most Americans are willing to take some risk. Slavery and oppression didn't kill people, but isn't it worth fighting for your rights even if it means you might die? Rape is rarely fatal, but shouldn't a woman be allowed to use lethal force to fight it? Alcohol kills way more than guns, and guns can be used in self defense, where as alcohol has no purpose, but alcohol should be legal where as guns are not? Where does the reasoning come from? No, I put it to you that few sane people would ever argue that "just one life" is worth our freedoms. While sad, even if you could save just a handful of people, isn't freedom worth it? The argument that something far deadlier shouldn't be banned for the sake of freedom but something less deadly should makes no sense. Unless you're willing to give up all your other freedoms which kill more people every year, pain medications and alcohol and the like, you are nothing more than a self righteous hypocrite grasping at the last straw you can because your argument lacks any real substance. It's an argument made from pure bias and hypocrisy that giving up a right you don't use at the expense of the another is okay to save a few people, but not your own freedoms that you exercise. While not my favorite subject, if it comes down to it, yes, civilians should be allowed to own guns. Unless it's been demonstrated to be so deadly that society cannot make it with guns, than they shouldn't be banned. And seeing all the far more deadly things that we allow in our society, that serve no purpose other than recreation, I don't see why guns shouldn't be allowed either.
Suicides
Some have argued that the suicide rate goes up with gun ownership. While the evidence is hard to dig through in general, for the most part, guns do not cause suicides, deeply seeded psychological issues do. It's not any harder to jump off of a bridge, swallow poison or asphyxiate yourself, and yet somehow guns are always targeted for this. In an international comparison with U.N. data, Countries with the lowest amount of suicides tended to have more guns, and countries with the highest amount of suicides tend to have less guns. With countries that had the highest suicide rates in the world, only 3 out of 25 (12%) had an above average rate for gun ownership, where as 1 out of 25 (4%) had an above average rate for gun ownership. Comparatively, countries with the lowest suicide rates tended to have more guns, 12 out of 25 (48%) had an above average gun ownership rate, 4 out of 25 (16%) had a gun ownership rate far above average (15.0), and 2 out of 25 (8%) had a gun ownership rate extremely above average (30.0). While this is a simple correlation argument, it does show that suicides as a whole is not correlated at all with more guns. In Australia for example after massive gun buy-back programs were implemented that dropped gun ownership rates from 54 per 100 people to around 15 per 100 people, the suicide rates by asphyxiation and hanging went up by an equal amount. Getting rid of guns didn't remove people's mental illnesses and depression, and thus their desire to commit suicide. As has been established there are other just as deadly methods to kill someone, including yourself, as guns. People when they have access to guns are more likely to use them to commit suicide since it is often perceived to be faster, but suicidal people will not choose to not commit suicide if guns are not available. The deeply seeded psychological issues need to be addressed, rather than the banning of firearms.
International Comparisons
While arguably the hardest and most intricate nature of gun control, that is comparing the entire world, it becomes very difficult to even be able to do such a comparison on an apples-to-apples basis. As stated before, poverty, education, law enforcement effectiveness, organized crime and even a sense of randomness all contribute to violence rates, and thus trying to determine if any one factor is really the major factor is difficult to consider. For instance, people are more likely to kill others when it's hot, meaning that climate is a literal factor when determining homicide and literally warmer countries will have more murders. [1][2] This is an uncontrollable factor that can't be tamed; where as Africa and South America have the highest murder rates in the world, Europe and Asia have the lowest, and their temperatures reflect that. One cannot simply control with laws how much crime will happen. Germany killed more people than will ever die from gun violence in America in 1,000 years in just 10 (10 million+ compared to 10,000 a year), but Germany is not a naturally violent place, only having gone through it's massive waves of genocide for a brief period. Crime and especially violence is dependent on a lot of factors, and so pretending you can control them all is rather ridiculous. Certainly, poverty, education and drug use are big factors, but even these cannot be remedied just by flicking a switch.
Even so, direct comparison with United Nations data, comparing countries with their self-reported homicide rates, compared to the gun ownership rate, in an apples-to-oranges comparison, still shows no correlation that more guns is equivalent to more crime. Not only does the U.S. not have the highest homicide rate (with over 100 countries with a higher homicide rate), but countries with the lowest homicide rates, owned more guns on average than the world average. If we compare the world average of gun ownership (8.9 guns per 100 people) [1] to each country and assess their homicide rates, 20 out of the 25 (80%) of countries with the lowest homicide rates in the world had a higher gun ownership rate higher than the world average. Of these, 15 had a gun ownership rate higher than 15 per person (60%), and 7 (28%) have a firearm ownership rate of 30 per 100. For country's with the highest homicide rates, 8 out of 25 (32%) had higher gun ownership rate than the world average. Only 2 out of 25 (8%) had a rate at or above 15.0, and zero had a rate higher than 30.0. Essentially, 80% of country's had more than the world average for gun ownership, and 60% had significantly more than the world average, compared to 32% and 8% for high homicides. This means that, country's with high homicides tend to have less guns, and country's with low homicides tend to have more guns, implying a positive benefit for owning more guns. While more guns likely won't reduce the homicide rate by themselves, it does show that focusing on people, rather than guns, likely has a positive benefit. Dumping 1,000 guns in to a field in Pennsylvania won't lower the murder rate, nor would giving those 1,000 guns to gang members. The social impact, where the guns go and what we do about violence in general, is likely more important than the type of gun, or guns in general.
In conclusion, gun control laws would have a marginal, if any impact on violent crime or homicides. The people need to be at the forefront of the violence equation, not guns. A maniac with a bomb is no less deadly than a maniac with a gun. And therefore, in order to solve the problems, we need to focus on the people, mental health, poverty, and addiction.
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
Monday, October 24, 2016
Global Suicide Rate compared to Gun Ownership
Global Suicide Rate compared to Gun Ownership
Global Correlation of Gun ownership and suicide rate
The following is a list of the country's with the highest suicide rates in the world, between 44.2 and 16.6 (compared to 12.1 for the U.S.) Compared to the average gun ownership rate of 8.9 per 100 people, how many of these country's have above average world gun ownership rates?
3 out of 25 (12%) had an above average rate for gun ownership. 1 out of 25 (4%) had an above average rate for gun ownership. 0 out of 25 had a significantly above average gun ownership rate. Country's above average are bolded, where country's above 15.0 are in red. Countries above 30.0 would be in green.
1 Guyana - 14.6
2 South Korea - 1.1
3 Sri Lanka - 1.5
4 Lithuania - .7
5 Suriname - 13.4
6 Mozambique - 5.1
7 Tanzania - 1.4
8. Nepal - .8
9 Kazakhstan - 1.3
10 Burundi- 1.2
11 India - 4.2
12 South Sudan - 5.5
13 Turkmenistan- 3.8
14 Russia - 8.9
15. Uganda - 1.4
16 Hungary- 5.5
17 Japan - .6
18 Belarus - 7.3
19 Zimbabwe - 4.6
20 Bhutan - 3.5
21 Sudan - 5.5
22 Comoros - 1.8
23 Ukraine - 6.6
24 Poland - 1.3
25. Equatorial Guinea - 19.9
Global Correlation of Gun ownership and suicide rate
The following is a list of the country's with the highest suicide rates in the world, between 44.2 and 16.6 (compared to 12.1 for the U.S.) Compared to the average gun ownership rate of 8.9 per 100 people, how many of these country's have above average world gun ownership rates?
3 out of 25 (12%) had an above average rate for gun ownership. 1 out of 25 (4%) had an above average rate for gun ownership. 0 out of 25 had a significantly above average gun ownership rate. Country's above average are bolded, where country's above 15.0 are in red. Countries above 30.0 would be in green.
1 Guyana - 14.6
2 South Korea - 1.1
3 Sri Lanka - 1.5
4 Lithuania - .7
5 Suriname - 13.4
6 Mozambique - 5.1
7 Tanzania - 1.4
8. Nepal - .8
9 Kazakhstan - 1.3
10 Burundi- 1.2
11 India - 4.2
12 South Sudan - 5.5
13 Turkmenistan- 3.8
14 Russia - 8.9
15. Uganda - 1.4
16 Hungary- 5.5
17 Japan - .6
18 Belarus - 7.3
19 Zimbabwe - 4.6
20 Bhutan - 3.5
21 Sudan - 5.5
22 Comoros - 1.8
23 Ukraine - 6.6
24 Poland - 1.3
25. Equatorial Guinea - 19.9
Country's with the lowest Suicide rates, compared to average gun ownership rate
The following is a list of the country's with the lowest rates of suicide in the world, between .4 and 3.5 (compared to 12.1 for the U.S.) Compared to the average gun ownership rate of 8.9 per 100 people, how many of these country's have above average world gun ownership rates? 12 out of 25 (48%) had an above average gun ownership rate. 4 out of 25 (16%) had a gun ownership rate far above average (15.0), and 2 out of 25 (8%) had a gun ownership rate extremely above average (30.0). It seems like there's very little chance that more guns = more suicides, at least according to the data at face value. 1. Syria - 3.9 2. Saudi Arabia - 35 3. Lebanon - 21 4. Kuwait- 24.8 5. Oman - 25.5 6. Jamaica - 8.1 7. Egypt - 3.5 8. Azerbaijan - 3.5 9. Iraq - 34.2 10. Libya - 15.5 11. Algeria - 7.6 12. Jordan - 11.5 13. Barbados - 7.8 14. Bahamas - 5.3 15. Tunisia - .1 16. Belize - 10 17. Venezuela- 10.7 18. Namibia- 12.6 19. Haiti - .6 20. Armenia - 12.5 21. Philippines - 4.7 22. Mauritania - 1.6 23. South Africa - 12.7 24. Malaysia - 1.5 25. Ghana - .4 |
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Did gun control really "work" in Australia and Britain?
Did gun control really "work" in Australia and Britain?
A common thing I hear when discussing gun control is that it has "worked" in certain countries. The argument people present is that, "obviously", if it worked in one country, it must be able to work in another. While this is debatable in it's own right, given the myriad of potential factors for crime including economics, poverty, culture, law enforcement effectiveness, technological development, and the general presence of organized crime, it nonetheless is an argument that I feel needs to be addressed. For all intents and purposes, for gun control to have "worked" in these country's, we would expect the homicide rate to go down after a major gun ban, at least initially. Instead in both country's the homicide rate spiked soon after and didn't come down until at least a decade later, of which during this time crime was falling in the U.S. despite lacking the supposed gun ban. It's difficult than to say that Australia or the UK's gun control measures had a positive impact on lowering crime, since soon after crime spiked. While they may still be lower than the U.S., this does not mean that their gun control measures are responsible for why. They were lower than the U.S. before and after, and for all intents and purposes their numbers went up afterwards. To attribute the lower homicide rate with gun control is obviously a logical fallacy.
It's important to remember that correlation does not imply causation; just because violence decreased or increased after a particular gun control measure, it does not necessarily mean that gun control was responsible. For instance, homosexuality acceptance was linked to a hurricane by some, but it would be unreasonable to assume that the hurricane was magically created due to the acceptance of gays. One thing does not always lead to another; coincidences do exist. It's unreasonable to think that, despite the thousands of other laws, eventualities and millions of people living in a country, that one single set of laws could possibly be responsible, in it's own right, for the reduction of all crime. Clearly, there are a number of factors at play; some poor countries have low crime due to the fact that the people live peacefully, such as in tribal societies. Other poor societies have high crime due to their inability to police it. Some rich societies have low crime due to their ability to fund law enforcement efforts, while others have high crime due to being targets due to that wealth. It's impossible for any single factor to explain why crime happens, in the largest part due to the unpredictability of human nature in general. Solving crime then takes working on a wide spectrum of issues, rather than any single factor.
When we compare most countries across the world, we don't actually find that high of a correlation between violence and homicide in general, and gun control or the total presence of firearms tends to be, at the very most, a fairly minor issue to determining total violence figures. Gun violence is but one form of violence, and one form of homicide; without them, individuals can still hurt others, and will in time learn to use alternatives that tend to be more effective. For instance in Japan, the Yakuza notoriously use swords and other weapons to commit their crimes, to much the same effect that a gun would; especially with the right training, it's easy to imagine someone being just as deadly with a sword or knife, as with a gun. While I have written another piece on this entirely, the question at hand in this particular conversation is, what was it's impact in the UK and Australia?
The Actual Figures
Despite all these precursory arguments, the meat of the conversation rests solely on the shifting of crime figures, and in particular homicide, of Australia and the UK. While commonly cited for reasons why the U.S. should change it's gun control measures, there's often not clear evidence provided for it. If we take a look at the statistics at face value (as in, assume that the definition for homicide is the same for both countries, that one doesn't have more manslaughter than murder charges etc.), we do see that both the UK and Australia have a lower homicide rate than the U.S., and stricter gun control. To many, this is already the nail in the coffin; after all, if they have strict gun control and lower homicide rates, it must be because of the gun control, right? There's no other possible alternatives that could exist. I however, like to dig deeper. For it to really be proof that gun control worked, we would need to see crime rates go down significantly after gun control measures are passed. After all, if a country had lower crime than the U.S. BEFORE gun control measures were passed, surely we can't attribute all of it's low crime to gun control in it's entirety? A law passed in the future couldn't possibly have retroactively made crime lower in the past.
Because gun control is not an exact value, determining the exact date when gun control became "strict" is obviously more an art, than a science. While more or less gun control laws varies by country, the impact of these laws vary considerably, such as 50 laws governing minute details on a gun such as the way it can be held or length of the barrel, and one single that law that might for instance say "all guns are banned". Because the impact and strictness and value all vary considerably, it's difficult to say within any degree of certainty if strict gun control measures "worked". What is much easier to measure however is the dates when gun control occurred, particularly in response to certain forms of violence. After several key violent incidents, both Australia and the UK banned certain forms of firearms, or made them harder to obtain.
The Charts
As a response to a single mass shooting event, the Hungerford massacre, In 1988, the UK banned semiautomatic weapons, as well as a host of other weaponry, and almost completely banned handguns in 1997. Pushing them to the prohibited category, these types of guns, semiautomatic, so-called "assault weapons" and the like, were made illegal or incredibly difficult to get ahold of. Australia did the same, after the Porth Arthur Massacre in 1996, Australia implemented harsh gun controls, banning the equivalent and more of assault weapons.
The population of the UK has increased marginally since the 1980's, from 56 million to 62 million. In the UK, the number of homicides, pre-gun ban, in 1983, was 550. By 2010, it was 619, which puts it at roughly the same rate (murder per capita) as it was in 1983, before gun control was enacted. So, gun control, at best, seems to in 27 years, have not changed the end result of crime all that much. However, there was a peak of 1047 in 2003. So, after gun control, murder was actually higher for nearly every single year after until 2010. It's hard to say that gun control then had a positive impact. As of 2017, the Homicide rate was back up to 736, mitigating this slight drop entirely.
The population of Australia has also remained relatively constant since 1993, going from 18 million to 21 million from 1993 to 2007. [1] In Australia, there were about 300 homicides in 1993, and by 2007, there were 260. It's natural for a countries crime rates to fall as development increases, so a marginal decrease eventually is to be expected. In 1996, Australia implemented it's harsh gun control, and immediately following this crime spiked, reaching a peak of 350 in 1999, and it did not dip below 300 (the 1993 level) again until 2003, nearly a decade later. Homicide only fell about 15% in their country as of 2007, after initially spiking. Looking past the chart, in 2012, it's back up to about 300 per year or, 297, which completely mitigates it's benefit.
But, as many will be quick to point out, crime is finally lower than it was those 30 years ago, so, isn't that proof that it worked to some extent? Even though it initially spiked for 30 years?! It's hard to say that, gun control was responsible for the reduction of crime so many more decades later. A country's crime rate is expected to fall consistently along with it's technological and societal development, and it only seemed to increase until about 2003 in both countries, when it finally started to drop. In the U.S., during the same time frame, they had a peak of 24,530 murders in 1993, and fell to 14,249 in 2014, or the homicide number dropped well over 40%, compared to about 10% or so in Australia and the UK. Given the significant change in population, however (260 million to 320 million), the murder rate has fallen from 9.5 to 4.5, or by over half, or nearly 200%. So, in the same time, the U.S.'s murder rate fell by half, where as in both Australia and the UK after a major crime event involving firearms they enacted strict gun control laws, their crime went up and has only recently fallen to back where it was. Comparatively, the U.S.'s crime rates have fallen more than the UK and Australia in the same time frame's.
Now, many more after this will still stick their guns and proclaim, the UK and Australia, despite their sudden spikes in crime, still had a lower total homicide rate than the U.S. And that is where the meat of the issue lies; even if accept the figures at face value, that the statistics aren't different or how we record "murder" and the like (as in, not a disproportionate amount of manslaughter to compensate or the like), the UK and Australia both had the same gun homicide rate before and after gun control, meaning that both countries had a lower homicide rate than the U.S. without gun control ever being enacted; in fact for all intents and purposes, it's almost equal now. In fact, if the results of the policy are to be considered from a purely correlative perspective, in the UK homicides were higher for 27 years, and they were higher for 14 years in Australia, before getting back to their levels BEFORE gun control, despite most industrialized countries falling in crime at the same time's. If that's the case, than how we can suggest that gun laws were responsible for their lower crime rate in comparison? They were lower before and after the gun laws and if anything, crime went up immediately following the gun laws. The Australia homicide rate was about 1.0 before and after gun control, and the UK homicide rate was about 1.2, but the U.S. fell from 9.5 to 4.5. When we look at how much we have improved, the U.S. seems to have faired better.
A common thing I hear when discussing gun control is that it has "worked" in certain countries. The argument people present is that, "obviously", if it worked in one country, it must be able to work in another. While this is debatable in it's own right, given the myriad of potential factors for crime including economics, poverty, culture, law enforcement effectiveness, technological development, and the general presence of organized crime, it nonetheless is an argument that I feel needs to be addressed. For all intents and purposes, for gun control to have "worked" in these country's, we would expect the homicide rate to go down after a major gun ban, at least initially. Instead in both country's the homicide rate spiked soon after and didn't come down until at least a decade later, of which during this time crime was falling in the U.S. despite lacking the supposed gun ban. It's difficult than to say that Australia or the UK's gun control measures had a positive impact on lowering crime, since soon after crime spiked. While they may still be lower than the U.S., this does not mean that their gun control measures are responsible for why. They were lower than the U.S. before and after, and for all intents and purposes their numbers went up afterwards. To attribute the lower homicide rate with gun control is obviously a logical fallacy.
It's important to remember that correlation does not imply causation; just because violence decreased or increased after a particular gun control measure, it does not necessarily mean that gun control was responsible. For instance, homosexuality acceptance was linked to a hurricane by some, but it would be unreasonable to assume that the hurricane was magically created due to the acceptance of gays. One thing does not always lead to another; coincidences do exist. It's unreasonable to think that, despite the thousands of other laws, eventualities and millions of people living in a country, that one single set of laws could possibly be responsible, in it's own right, for the reduction of all crime. Clearly, there are a number of factors at play; some poor countries have low crime due to the fact that the people live peacefully, such as in tribal societies. Other poor societies have high crime due to their inability to police it. Some rich societies have low crime due to their ability to fund law enforcement efforts, while others have high crime due to being targets due to that wealth. It's impossible for any single factor to explain why crime happens, in the largest part due to the unpredictability of human nature in general. Solving crime then takes working on a wide spectrum of issues, rather than any single factor.
When we compare most countries across the world, we don't actually find that high of a correlation between violence and homicide in general, and gun control or the total presence of firearms tends to be, at the very most, a fairly minor issue to determining total violence figures. Gun violence is but one form of violence, and one form of homicide; without them, individuals can still hurt others, and will in time learn to use alternatives that tend to be more effective. For instance in Japan, the Yakuza notoriously use swords and other weapons to commit their crimes, to much the same effect that a gun would; especially with the right training, it's easy to imagine someone being just as deadly with a sword or knife, as with a gun. While I have written another piece on this entirely, the question at hand in this particular conversation is, what was it's impact in the UK and Australia?
The Actual Figures
Despite all these precursory arguments, the meat of the conversation rests solely on the shifting of crime figures, and in particular homicide, of Australia and the UK. While commonly cited for reasons why the U.S. should change it's gun control measures, there's often not clear evidence provided for it. If we take a look at the statistics at face value (as in, assume that the definition for homicide is the same for both countries, that one doesn't have more manslaughter than murder charges etc.), we do see that both the UK and Australia have a lower homicide rate than the U.S., and stricter gun control. To many, this is already the nail in the coffin; after all, if they have strict gun control and lower homicide rates, it must be because of the gun control, right? There's no other possible alternatives that could exist. I however, like to dig deeper. For it to really be proof that gun control worked, we would need to see crime rates go down significantly after gun control measures are passed. After all, if a country had lower crime than the U.S. BEFORE gun control measures were passed, surely we can't attribute all of it's low crime to gun control in it's entirety? A law passed in the future couldn't possibly have retroactively made crime lower in the past.
Because gun control is not an exact value, determining the exact date when gun control became "strict" is obviously more an art, than a science. While more or less gun control laws varies by country, the impact of these laws vary considerably, such as 50 laws governing minute details on a gun such as the way it can be held or length of the barrel, and one single that law that might for instance say "all guns are banned". Because the impact and strictness and value all vary considerably, it's difficult to say within any degree of certainty if strict gun control measures "worked". What is much easier to measure however is the dates when gun control occurred, particularly in response to certain forms of violence. After several key violent incidents, both Australia and the UK banned certain forms of firearms, or made them harder to obtain.
The Charts
As a response to a single mass shooting event, the Hungerford massacre, In 1988, the UK banned semiautomatic weapons, as well as a host of other weaponry, and almost completely banned handguns in 1997. Pushing them to the prohibited category, these types of guns, semiautomatic, so-called "assault weapons" and the like, were made illegal or incredibly difficult to get ahold of. Australia did the same, after the Porth Arthur Massacre in 1996, Australia implemented harsh gun controls, banning the equivalent and more of assault weapons.
The population of the UK has increased marginally since the 1980's, from 56 million to 62 million. In the UK, the number of homicides, pre-gun ban, in 1983, was 550. By 2010, it was 619, which puts it at roughly the same rate (murder per capita) as it was in 1983, before gun control was enacted. So, gun control, at best, seems to in 27 years, have not changed the end result of crime all that much. However, there was a peak of 1047 in 2003. So, after gun control, murder was actually higher for nearly every single year after until 2010. It's hard to say that gun control then had a positive impact. As of 2017, the Homicide rate was back up to 736, mitigating this slight drop entirely.
The population of Australia has also remained relatively constant since 1993, going from 18 million to 21 million from 1993 to 2007. [1] In Australia, there were about 300 homicides in 1993, and by 2007, there were 260. It's natural for a countries crime rates to fall as development increases, so a marginal decrease eventually is to be expected. In 1996, Australia implemented it's harsh gun control, and immediately following this crime spiked, reaching a peak of 350 in 1999, and it did not dip below 300 (the 1993 level) again until 2003, nearly a decade later. Homicide only fell about 15% in their country as of 2007, after initially spiking. Looking past the chart, in 2012, it's back up to about 300 per year or, 297, which completely mitigates it's benefit.
But, as many will be quick to point out, crime is finally lower than it was those 30 years ago, so, isn't that proof that it worked to some extent? Even though it initially spiked for 30 years?! It's hard to say that, gun control was responsible for the reduction of crime so many more decades later. A country's crime rate is expected to fall consistently along with it's technological and societal development, and it only seemed to increase until about 2003 in both countries, when it finally started to drop. In the U.S., during the same time frame, they had a peak of 24,530 murders in 1993, and fell to 14,249 in 2014, or the homicide number dropped well over 40%, compared to about 10% or so in Australia and the UK. Given the significant change in population, however (260 million to 320 million), the murder rate has fallen from 9.5 to 4.5, or by over half, or nearly 200%. So, in the same time, the U.S.'s murder rate fell by half, where as in both Australia and the UK after a major crime event involving firearms they enacted strict gun control laws, their crime went up and has only recently fallen to back where it was. Comparatively, the U.S.'s crime rates have fallen more than the UK and Australia in the same time frame's.
Now, many more after this will still stick their guns and proclaim, the UK and Australia, despite their sudden spikes in crime, still had a lower total homicide rate than the U.S. And that is where the meat of the issue lies; even if accept the figures at face value, that the statistics aren't different or how we record "murder" and the like (as in, not a disproportionate amount of manslaughter to compensate or the like), the UK and Australia both had the same gun homicide rate before and after gun control, meaning that both countries had a lower homicide rate than the U.S. without gun control ever being enacted; in fact for all intents and purposes, it's almost equal now. In fact, if the results of the policy are to be considered from a purely correlative perspective, in the UK homicides were higher for 27 years, and they were higher for 14 years in Australia, before getting back to their levels BEFORE gun control, despite most industrialized countries falling in crime at the same time's. If that's the case, than how we can suggest that gun laws were responsible for their lower crime rate in comparison? They were lower before and after the gun laws and if anything, crime went up immediately following the gun laws. The Australia homicide rate was about 1.0 before and after gun control, and the UK homicide rate was about 1.2, but the U.S. fell from 9.5 to 4.5. When we look at how much we have improved, the U.S. seems to have faired better.
Global Correlation of the Homicide Rate, Compared to Gun Ownership
Global correlation of gun control and Homicide Rates
Technically there is always a correlation of some kind in statistics, but not one that implies a positive trend, or in this case that more guns equates to more violence. There is a common argument presented by many gun control proponents, that the lowest homicide countries all have low volumes of guns, so therefore, doesn't that mean that civilian ownership of guns increases violence, or at the very least, homicides? The chief principle of the argument is that less guns available to the general civilian populace, or stricter gun control, of which would likely result in less guns in the hands of civilians, would result in less crime, or at least murders.
The problem, other than the lack of a causative link, is that there is no such association. For the sake of brevity and to target the issue directly, I'll take a look at the top 25 countries with the lowest homicide rates (of whom possess reliable information regarding their total firearm ownership and gun laws), whom possess information regarding their total civilian firearm ownership, and compare that to the world average. *Note: Other sources have also done the same. According to the United Nation's small arms survey, there are approximately 875 million firearms total in the world, and 650 million in civilian hands (Page 1). The world population on July 15th 2015, according to the Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, was approximately 7.3 billion. Doing simple math, that means there are approximately 8.9 guns per 100 people in the world on average, in civilians hands.
The U.S. possess a third to a half of these firearms, creating a world average excluding the U.S. of approximately 5 guns per 100 people (350 million out of 7 billion), and countries such as Switzerland or Israel have fully automatic, military weapons in the homes of civilians, given to them by the state, which offsets this figure somewhat (as the guns are not recorded as "civilian" firearms, despite being inside their homes and practically available to civilians). Nonetheless, this gives us a rough baseline of the world average of guns. How high is the gun ownership rate in the the countries with the top lowest homicide rates?
20 out of the 25 (80%) have a higher gun ownership rate higher than the world average, or 8.9 guns per 100 people. Of these, 15 have a gun ownership rate higher than 15 per person (60%), and 7 (28%) have a firearm ownership rate of 30 per 100. Another particularly interesting statistic is that the U.S. and Europe's homicides rate are roughly on par. While Europe does in fact have countries with lower homicide rates than the U.S., the average is about 3.0, while it was about 3.9 in the U.S. suggesting very little difference, comparatively, Russia had a homicide rate of 13, Greenland 19.4, Brazil 25.2, Venezuela 48, and El Salvador 65, making the difference of 1.5 fairly small in global terms.
The following is a comprehensive list of the UNODOC's self reported homicide and civilian firearms ownership rate, by country. *Note: The figures from wikipedia are no longer valid as of 2017, as the data for this comparison is from the 2011 Small Arms Survey, and 2013 homicide data. It's important to remember the difference between causation and correlation; despite the statistics revealing that murder rates are actually lower in country's with more guns, this does not necessarily mean that more guns will result in less murders. A 1,000 guns dumped in to a grass field is in effect, worthless and a 1,000 guns in the hands of terrorists is obviously going to have a negative effect. The solution is not more or less guns, but rather laws aimed at focusing on criminals, rather than punishing civilians. A false sense of security, combined with a waste of resources policing otherwise innocent people, as well as the mindset to control things, instead of people, is likely what contributes to the higher murder rates. Despite this, the argument that their is a correlation in favor of gun control or, less guns, seems to be false.
20 out of the 25 (80%) of countries with the lowest homicide rates in the world had a higher gun ownership rate higher than the world average. Of these, 15 had a gun ownership rate higher than 15 per person (60%), and 7 (28%) have a firearm ownership rate of 30 per 100. For country's with the highest homicide rates, 8 out of 25 (32%) had higher gun ownership rate than the world average. Only 2 out of 25 (8%) had a rate at or above 15.0, and zero had a rate higher than 30.0. Essentially, 80% of country's had more than the world average for gun ownership, and 60% had significantly more than the world average, compared to 32% and 8% for high homicides. This means that, country's with high homicides tend to have less guns, and country's with low homicides tend to have more guns, implying a positive benefit for owning more guns (according to a correlation).
The Chart
20 out of the 25 (80%) of countries with the lowest homicide rates in the world had a higher gun ownership rate higher than the world average, or higher than 8.9 guns per 100 people. Of these, 15 had a gun ownership rate higher than 15 per person (60%), and 7 (28%) had a firearm ownership rate of 30 per 100.
Monaco, Palau, Hong Kong, French Polynesia, Guam, Macau, Vanuatu, Federated States of Micronesia are not on the list of recorded guns per capita by country. So technically, this is the top 25 countries with the lowest homicide rate with information regarding their civilian ownership of guns. The lowest homicide rate listed is for Japan at 0.3 per 100,000 individuals, and the highest is 1.1 for Australia.
Bolded countries have higher than the world average, or 8.9 guns per 100 people. Red countries have the same or higher than 15 guns per 100 people. Green countries have the same or higher than 30 guns per 100 people. Excluding the U.S. from the world average, the average gun ownership rates drop to 5.0, and thus show an even greater disparity.
1. Japan is .6
2. Singapore is at .5
3. Iceland is at 30.3
4. Brunei is at 1.4
5. Bahrain is at 24.8
6. Austria is at 30.4
7. Luxembourg is at 15.3
8. Oman is 25.5
9. Slovenia is 13.5
10. Switzerland is at 45.7
11. United Arab Emirates is at 22.1
12. Czech Republic is at 16.3
13. Spain is at 10.4
14. Germany is at 30.3
15. Qatar is at 19.2
16. Denmark is at 12
17. Norway is at 31.3
18. Italy is 11.9
19. New Zealand is at 22.6
20. China is at 4.9
21. Bhutan is at 3.5
22. Saudi Arabia is at 35
23. Sweden is at 31.6
24. Malta is at 11.9
25. Australia is at 15.
Countries with highest Homicide Rate - In descending order
What happens if we do the reverse, and look at gun ownership rates in high-homicide countries? The following list is that of countries with the highest 25 homicide rates, in order, comparing total gun ownership rates to the world average, or 8.9 guns per 100 people. Territories such as Puerto Rico or Montserrat are removed, and these are the countries for which information about civilian gun ownership is known. The gun ownership rate is listed next to each country. Countries bolded are above the world average, countries in red have 15.0 or greater, countries in green have 30.0 or greater.
Of these countries, 8 out of 25 (32%) had higher than the world average. Only 2 out of 25 (8%) had a rate at or above 15.0, and zero had a rate higher than 30.0. Of these, very few made it slightly above the 8.9 figure. As it seems, countries with higher homicide rates had significantly lower rates than the world average.
1. Honduras - 6.2
2. El Salvador - 5.8
3. Venezuela - 10.74.
4. Lesotho - 2.7
5. Jamaica - 8.1
6. Belize - 10
7. South Africa - 12.7
8. Guatemala - 13.1
9. Bahamas - 5.3
10. Colombia - 5.9
11. Trinidad and Tobago - 1.6
12. Brazil - 8
13. Swaziland - 6.4
14. Dominican Republic - 5.1
15. Namibia - 12.6
16. Panama - 21.7
17. Guyana - 14.6
18. Mexico - 15
19. Botswana - 4.9
20. Myanmar - 4
21. South Sudan - 5.5
22. Central African Republic - 1
23. Democratic Republic of the Congo 1.4
24. Turkmenistan 3.8
25. Ivory Coast 2.4
Technically there is always a correlation of some kind in statistics, but not one that implies a positive trend, or in this case that more guns equates to more violence. There is a common argument presented by many gun control proponents, that the lowest homicide countries all have low volumes of guns, so therefore, doesn't that mean that civilian ownership of guns increases violence, or at the very least, homicides? The chief principle of the argument is that less guns available to the general civilian populace, or stricter gun control, of which would likely result in less guns in the hands of civilians, would result in less crime, or at least murders.
The problem, other than the lack of a causative link, is that there is no such association. For the sake of brevity and to target the issue directly, I'll take a look at the top 25 countries with the lowest homicide rates (of whom possess reliable information regarding their total firearm ownership and gun laws), whom possess information regarding their total civilian firearm ownership, and compare that to the world average. *Note: Other sources have also done the same. According to the United Nation's small arms survey, there are approximately 875 million firearms total in the world, and 650 million in civilian hands (Page 1). The world population on July 15th 2015, according to the Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, was approximately 7.3 billion. Doing simple math, that means there are approximately 8.9 guns per 100 people in the world on average, in civilians hands.
The U.S. possess a third to a half of these firearms, creating a world average excluding the U.S. of approximately 5 guns per 100 people (350 million out of 7 billion), and countries such as Switzerland or Israel have fully automatic, military weapons in the homes of civilians, given to them by the state, which offsets this figure somewhat (as the guns are not recorded as "civilian" firearms, despite being inside their homes and practically available to civilians). Nonetheless, this gives us a rough baseline of the world average of guns. How high is the gun ownership rate in the the countries with the top lowest homicide rates?
20 out of the 25 (80%) have a higher gun ownership rate higher than the world average, or 8.9 guns per 100 people. Of these, 15 have a gun ownership rate higher than 15 per person (60%), and 7 (28%) have a firearm ownership rate of 30 per 100. Another particularly interesting statistic is that the U.S. and Europe's homicides rate are roughly on par. While Europe does in fact have countries with lower homicide rates than the U.S., the average is about 3.0, while it was about 3.9 in the U.S. suggesting very little difference, comparatively, Russia had a homicide rate of 13, Greenland 19.4, Brazil 25.2, Venezuela 48, and El Salvador 65, making the difference of 1.5 fairly small in global terms.
The following is a comprehensive list of the UNODOC's self reported homicide and civilian firearms ownership rate, by country. *Note: The figures from wikipedia are no longer valid as of 2017, as the data for this comparison is from the 2011 Small Arms Survey, and 2013 homicide data. It's important to remember the difference between causation and correlation; despite the statistics revealing that murder rates are actually lower in country's with more guns, this does not necessarily mean that more guns will result in less murders. A 1,000 guns dumped in to a grass field is in effect, worthless and a 1,000 guns in the hands of terrorists is obviously going to have a negative effect. The solution is not more or less guns, but rather laws aimed at focusing on criminals, rather than punishing civilians. A false sense of security, combined with a waste of resources policing otherwise innocent people, as well as the mindset to control things, instead of people, is likely what contributes to the higher murder rates. Despite this, the argument that their is a correlation in favor of gun control or, less guns, seems to be false.
20 out of the 25 (80%) of countries with the lowest homicide rates in the world had a higher gun ownership rate higher than the world average. Of these, 15 had a gun ownership rate higher than 15 per person (60%), and 7 (28%) have a firearm ownership rate of 30 per 100. For country's with the highest homicide rates, 8 out of 25 (32%) had higher gun ownership rate than the world average. Only 2 out of 25 (8%) had a rate at or above 15.0, and zero had a rate higher than 30.0. Essentially, 80% of country's had more than the world average for gun ownership, and 60% had significantly more than the world average, compared to 32% and 8% for high homicides. This means that, country's with high homicides tend to have less guns, and country's with low homicides tend to have more guns, implying a positive benefit for owning more guns (according to a correlation).
The Chart
20 out of the 25 (80%) of countries with the lowest homicide rates in the world had a higher gun ownership rate higher than the world average, or higher than 8.9 guns per 100 people. Of these, 15 had a gun ownership rate higher than 15 per person (60%), and 7 (28%) had a firearm ownership rate of 30 per 100.
Monaco, Palau, Hong Kong, French Polynesia, Guam, Macau, Vanuatu, Federated States of Micronesia are not on the list of recorded guns per capita by country. So technically, this is the top 25 countries with the lowest homicide rate with information regarding their civilian ownership of guns. The lowest homicide rate listed is for Japan at 0.3 per 100,000 individuals, and the highest is 1.1 for Australia.
Bolded countries have higher than the world average, or 8.9 guns per 100 people. Red countries have the same or higher than 15 guns per 100 people. Green countries have the same or higher than 30 guns per 100 people. Excluding the U.S. from the world average, the average gun ownership rates drop to 5.0, and thus show an even greater disparity.
1. Japan is .6
2. Singapore is at .5
3. Iceland is at 30.3
4. Brunei is at 1.4
5. Bahrain is at 24.8
6. Austria is at 30.4
7. Luxembourg is at 15.3
8. Oman is 25.5
9. Slovenia is 13.5
10. Switzerland is at 45.7
11. United Arab Emirates is at 22.1
12. Czech Republic is at 16.3
13. Spain is at 10.4
14. Germany is at 30.3
15. Qatar is at 19.2
16. Denmark is at 12
17. Norway is at 31.3
18. Italy is 11.9
19. New Zealand is at 22.6
20. China is at 4.9
21. Bhutan is at 3.5
22. Saudi Arabia is at 35
23. Sweden is at 31.6
24. Malta is at 11.9
25. Australia is at 15.
Countries with highest Homicide Rate - In descending order
What happens if we do the reverse, and look at gun ownership rates in high-homicide countries? The following list is that of countries with the highest 25 homicide rates, in order, comparing total gun ownership rates to the world average, or 8.9 guns per 100 people. Territories such as Puerto Rico or Montserrat are removed, and these are the countries for which information about civilian gun ownership is known. The gun ownership rate is listed next to each country. Countries bolded are above the world average, countries in red have 15.0 or greater, countries in green have 30.0 or greater.
Of these countries, 8 out of 25 (32%) had higher than the world average. Only 2 out of 25 (8%) had a rate at or above 15.0, and zero had a rate higher than 30.0. Of these, very few made it slightly above the 8.9 figure. As it seems, countries with higher homicide rates had significantly lower rates than the world average.
1. Honduras - 6.2
2. El Salvador - 5.8
3. Venezuela - 10.74.
4. Lesotho - 2.7
5. Jamaica - 8.1
6. Belize - 10
7. South Africa - 12.7
8. Guatemala - 13.1
9. Bahamas - 5.3
10. Colombia - 5.9
11. Trinidad and Tobago - 1.6
12. Brazil - 8
13. Swaziland - 6.4
14. Dominican Republic - 5.1
15. Namibia - 12.6
16. Panama - 21.7
17. Guyana - 14.6
18. Mexico - 15
19. Botswana - 4.9
20. Myanmar - 4
21. South Sudan - 5.5
22. Central African Republic - 1
23. Democratic Republic of the Congo 1.4
24. Turkmenistan 3.8
25. Ivory Coast 2.4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)