When comparing the ratio of guns to murders the data looks very interesting

Status
Not open for further replies.

hso

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
65,968
Location
0 hrs east of TN
Does the data more accurately reflect our situation? I think it does.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/03/gun-control-reduce-murder-lets-run-numbers-across-world/

Watching the recent emotional speeches and marches supporting gun control, I can’t shake a question that nags me: Would we be safer with fewer guns?

Gun control advocates have an intuitive argument. Guns are an efficient way to commit murder. If we reduce the number of guns in society, we axiomatically will reduce murders.


Reducing gun violence is a desirable goal, particularly when one sees shooters mowing down children. After I thought about it, I realized the question of whether reducing guns in a society will lead to fewer murders is a testable hypothesis. You can measure gun ownership and murder rates. No two countries have the same gun laws or the same murder rates.

So I jumped on Wikipedia to answer a question: Do countries with higher murder rates have more guns, and vice versa?

This question can be evaluated in a ratio: the number of legally owned guns per 100,000 versus the number of murders per 100,000. According to the theory, the ratio should be relatively stable. So countries with fewer guns will have fewer murders (a small number divided by a small number) and a country with more guns should have more murders (a big number divided by a big number).

I took the countries with the 100 highest murder rates. I added to the sample countries that compare to the United States culturally such as European countries, Australia, Japan, etc. I deleted countries for which I could find no gun ownership stats or countries that were small or obscure. My profile looked at 98 countries, or a pretty solid slice of all the countries in the world.


America is by far the country that owns the most guns per 100,000. In America, there are actually more guns than people. Our murder rate is much higher than that of our European counterparts. So far, the gun control hypothesis seems to be holding up.

But guns in America are very unlikely to be involved in murders. Our ratio of guns to murders is 20,696 guns privately and legally owned for every murder. Not every murder involves a gun. But the gun-control hypothesis suggests guns still make murder easier and more common.

The murder capital of the world is El Salvador. El Salvador has done a relatively good job rounding up legal guns. There are only 5,800 guns per 100,000 residents (compared to over 101,000 in America), yet El Salvador’s ratio of guns to murders is a staggering 53. Every year, there’s a murder for every 53rd gun in El Salvador. ...
 
It's a fact that when we look at homicide rates in the US, not firearm related deaths (suicides) the numbers don't indicate that firearms are used in most homicides. The FBI keeps those stats and they are available to anyone who wants the truth. We don't have anywhere near the homicide rate that Mexico does even though Mexico has stringent gun control. Mexico is our neighbor to the south so we don't have to go to another continent to compare. Here's some numbers.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

Note that Mexico is 21st on this list and the US is 83rd. All that tells me is people are going to kill other people no matter what the tools available.
 
Last edited:
RPZ, NYC's gun laws are not much better than all of Britain's.
In NYC only the wealthy well connected get a gun permit.
 
Another thing the libs like to do is lump all gun deaths togeather to give them bigger numbers. A large precentage of those numbers are justifiable homicides which really should be separated but that wouldn't play into the mentally ill libs agenda.
 
RPZ, NYC's gun laws are not much better than all of Britain's.
In NYC only the wealthy well connected get a gun permit.
That may be true, but anyone can drive, walk, bus or train into town with a gun, knife, machete crowbar et al. Same as London in that regard too. And Britain has plenty of black market guns.
 
Another thing the libs like to do is lump all gun deaths togeather to give them bigger numbers. A large precentage of those numbers are justifiable homicides which really should be separated but that wouldn't play into the mentally ill libs agenda.

Justifiable homicides are a very small percent of total gun-related deaths. The big thing is that the total numbers include suicides, which in recent years have been roughly half of gun deaths.
 
The changes in crime or suicide rates due to gun control do not answer the fundamental philosophical question: Do free people have the right to keep and bear arms? Our Founding Fathers apparently thought so.

The right of self-preservation and self-protection is inherent in all persons, communities and societies, which is why we fiercely defend the indispensable provisions of our Second Amendment. Liberty cannot be protected if the people have been stripped of the physical means of doing so.

“Gun violence” should be called human violence, leaving us at least the dignity of being responsible for our own sins.
 
the numbers don't indicate that firearms are used in most homicides


The numbers do indicate that firearms are the primary means of homicides, but the firearms used driving those numbers are handguns and not rifles. Rifles fall below knives, clubs or even hands and feet for cause of homicide so any attempt to restrict rifles, any not just semiauto magazine fed rifles, is wasted as knives, clubs and just beating someone to death is the greater risk .
 
The numbers do indicate that firearms are the primary means of homicides, but the firearms used driving those numbers are handguns and not rifles. Rifles fall below knives, clubs or even hands and feet for cause of homicide so any attempt to restrict rifles, any not just semiauto magazine fed rifles, is wasted as knives, clubs and just beating someone to death is the greater risk .

I was going on memory and obviously that failed.:D Glad you pointed that out. I like the facts to speak for themselves.

Your point goes right to the heart of the discussion. Those calling for AWB2 are barking up the wrong tree. They should in fact be calling for a handgun ban but that has an even less chance of going anywhere. They lost that fight back in the 90's.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...arkland-school-shooting-control-a8289156.html

Because this is UK media reporting on something in the US some of the comments are hilarious.
 
I was going on memory and obviously that failed.:D Glad you pointed that out. I like the facts to speak for themselves.

Your point goes right to the heart of the discussion. Those calling for AWB2 are barking up the wrong tree. They should in fact be calling for a handgun ban but that has an even less chance of going anywhere. They lost that fight back in the 90's.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...arkland-school-shooting-control-a8289156.html

Because this is UK media reporting on something in the US some of the comments are hilarious.
In the UK semi auto rifles and shotguns were the first to go - in the wake of the shooting in Hungerford by Michael Ryan using an AK-47 in 1987. The media campaign by the BBC etc was very finely crafted, and the legislature moved quickly.

Over here they are trying for the same thing, knowing that the "bad" black rifle image, and dead children are their best and surest route.

Handguns were the target right after the Dunblane shooting by Thomas Hamilton in 1996.
 
Last edited:
Looking at the violent crime stats for countries that have fewer *legal* guns the answer is a hands down NO.

London just over overtook NYC for the number of murders this year.

Yes and that was for stabbings !
 
  • Like
Reactions: RPZ
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top