When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
So, before I post this, I want to make it clear to the ultra-2nd crowd here that I am *NOT* arguing in favor of most forms of gun-control, forced disarmament, or other deprivations of liberty. I hope most folks here realize that while I often play devil's advocate, I am essentially a strict constitutionalist.
On the other hand, it's pretty silly to argue that the disproportionately high homicide rate in the US as compared to other nations of similar socioeconomic status is not at least party attributable to the disproportionately great ease of access to firearms (whether by legal purchase, theft, black-market purchase, etc.) A sufficiently large number of studies exist which demonstrate this causal relationship, and I'm not aware of any which disprove it.
But personally, I don't really care, as the sort of people who tend to be the "victims" of gun-related violence are mostly of the type whose death is of net benefit to society anyway. Things like gang violence and bar brawls serve as a convenient filter for the human genome, if only a marginally effective one.
No, what I find interesting is the denial of this relationship, either expressly or by omission, by those who are most vocal in their defense of essentially unrestricted access to firearms by private citizens. Usually, it takes the form of arguments which deny the veracity of the underlying data, but do not typically offer any actual data to refute it.
I'm trying to come up with a term for it which conveys the same basic sentiment as "climate change denial."
Oh, no doubt, the number of deaths caused by a firearm is quite small as compared to the total population. And, again, I go back to my earlier statement that most people who get murdered (regardless of the instrument) tend to deserve it.
I just find it fascinating to look at the numbers in relative terms, by comparing the number of firearm-related murders per xxx people within the US to that of other developed nations...
... and THEN look at this in the context of statements such as "The US does not have a gun problem."
Well, I guess it depends on your definition of "problem," really.
The definition of "problem" really is a problem. In most of the countries on that chart firearms are much more heavily restricted than in the US, so of course gun related homicides would occur at a higher rate.
Now our overall homicide rate is still higher than most other developed nations, roughly double from the quick scan I did on Wikipedia. However, we could cut that rate in half by incarcerating or otherwise disposing of an easily identifiable demographic subgroup that only consists of roughly 6% of our population. But the political, ethical, and constitutional issues involved make that unrealistic.
Again, relatively small in absolute numbers, but still very interesting in context:
The data above (on the right side) is not just homicides, it's all firearm-related fatalities in the US. Suicides, police shootings, accidents, etc. Here's a third-party analysis of the underlying data sources.
Can I see the same chart but with non-gun murder rates?
It's hard to find murder data with handgun crimes pre-extracted, but if you do the subtraction yourself, you can get the data from this chart:
(Canada is red because the chart was produced by a Canadian firm.)
This graphic, from the same source, is also kind of cool:
And this one illustrates the very obvious, which is that focusing attention on "assault rifles" (whatever that even means anymore) and similar large-capacity weapons is kind of stupid if your goal is to meaningfully address homicide:
But of course addressing homicide is not the goal, at least for the politicians. I'm sure many of the citizens advocating for an AWB feel like they are doing something though.
Murders with so-called assault weapons are statistically very small, but they tend to be high profile. They are what trigger the emotions, not the daily gang-on-gang, black-on-black violence in Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore.
Indeed, most countries which are effectively ruled by either mafias or guerrilla military warlords have higher murder rates than the US, and that's something we can be proud of.
Indeed, most countries which are effectively ruled by either mafias or guerrilla military warlords have higher murder rates than the US, and that's something we can be proud of.
Any time someone starts talking about international crime rate comparisons, you can be assured you are being lied to. There are enormous differences in terms of reporting methods and classifications of crimes.
For example, in the US, when police find a chopped up body in a dumpster, the murder rate immediately goes up by 1. In the UK, that death only becomes a murder if someone is apprehended and convicted of murdering the body in the dumpster. This also means that as closure rates get worse, the UKs crime statistics get better rather than worse. Any unsolved crime is simply never counted in the official statistics. Several decades ago, it used to be possible to figure out the real murder rate by looking at medical examiner statistics to see how many people got killed via foul play. It made it really easy to debunk official statistics so obviously it didn't last. . They reformed the system so that all homicides result in narrative coroner's reports instead of being classified into categories. If you look at narrative coroner's reports and count them as murders, the UKs murder rate is significantly higher than the USes. If you go off crime victimization surveys instead of official data, the UK has much higher rates of violent crime, burglary, home invasion, etc.
For another example, the Japanese have a very odd (by US standards) criminal justice system. A great deal of what the US would call murder-suicides are instead classified as suicides. So when a man has a bad day at work, comes home and kills his entire family and himself (say 5 dead plus perpetrator) it gets counted as 6 suicides. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Japan has very few official murders, but their suicide rate is higher than the US's combined murder and suicide rate.
And of course this leaves out all of the countries that have absolutely **** tier law enforcement that can't solve crimes, can't keep good records and engage in bribe taking, summary justice, etc. Who thinks the murder statistics out of China or Zimbabwe are representative of actual conditions in the same way that US murder statistics are? Many countries in the world barely have rule of law and their crime statistics are meaningless.
Also, countrywide averages ignores that the US is extremely heterogeneous, with most murders concentrated in a few urban regions. East St Louis has the same murder rate as Rwanda. If you drive a few hours away, you get a murder rate that more closely resembles Switzerland.
It's hard to find murder data with handgun crimes pre-extracted, but if you do the subtraction yourself, you can get the data from this chart:
(Canada is red because the chart was produced by a Canadian firm.)
I find this chart fairly misleading. considering US is 2x that of norway/finland/belgium/australia.
4 of the smallest nations on earth with 1/2 the homicides of US? Like comparing apples to oranges.
With 4 nations that do not have semi/automatic weapons. 99% of their homicides will be in this category. Whereas 1-5% of US will be.
Also they appear to be nordic countries. With them both lacking sun for 8 months of the year and depression and suicide being the highest in the world... Skewed results.
So what do all these stats have to do with terrorist Muslims killing gays in the name of Islam?
Uhm, nothing. Why do you ask?
This isn't the "gay Muslims killing gays in the name is Islam" thread, it's the "discuss the politics of gun ownership" thread. Posts about Omar Mateen should be in the "current events" thread.
06-15-2016, 01:10 PM
0
