Monday, January 21, 2013

Since 1968 - More Gun Deaths than War Casualties - All the Wars



  1. How does the US really compare on firearms? The world's crime figures are collected by the UNODC through its annual crime survey. It has a special section of data on firearm homicides - and provides detailed information by size of population and compared to other crimes. It is not a perfect dataset - some key nations are missing from the data, including Russia, China and Afghanistan. But it does include the US, UK and many other developed nations.

    The Small Arms Survey is also useful - although it is from 2007, it collates civilian gun ownership rates for 178 countries around the world, and has 'normalised' the data to include a rate per 100,000 population.

    It shows that:

    With less than 5% of the world's population, the United States is home to roughly 35–50 per cent of the world's civilian-owned guns, heavily skewing the global geography of firearms and any relative comparison

    So, given those caveats, we can see which countries have the highest ownership rates for firearms - and which have the highest gun murder rates.

    The key facts are:

    • The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
    • But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
    • Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean

    The full data is below - what can you do with it?

    1. What can the gun control freak side do with that? Nothing, since it goes against their narrative that guns are the cause of evil.

    2. Greg,

      Your absurdities are not a replacement for rational thought, which you grossly underutilize. You seem like an intelligent man, so why don't you think of something better to say? You would do your cause well by endowing them with a single coherent argument FOR the armament of civilians (and not simply against their disarmament).

    3. Ian (pronounced E.N., as though that's a surprise), I've offered reasons for private ownership many times. You're like the student who asks on the day before finals if I could reteach everything we've covered the whole semester.

    4. Why do you persist in finding some "hidden meaning" in the phonetics of my name? I don't in any way advocate the tyranny that "E.N." does (assuming that it is not a troll) I do not seek to disarm the American populace. I am not a CCP agent. Saying that Mikeb or I am"E.N." would be the logical equivalent of referring to you as Fat White Man, BIGBUBBA USA, or the occasional deranged Anonymous. But such would be pointless as you unfortunately tend to bastardize yourself.

      You make few coherent arguments in support of the further proliferation of arms for civilian purposes, but prefer to hide behind entirely valid claims of civil rights.

      They hire some real nutjobs to educate/indoctrinate the young. I never thought that hippies would amount to anything, but with age you seem to have found your place before a classroom of young and impressionable bullshit receptacles. But alas, your batch of "useful idiots" doesn't look beyond the pasture.

      This is almost sad. If this continues, I may begin to argue on behalf of your side out of an act of ideological welfare.

    5. Ian, I point out the similarity in your names because you so frequently use E.N.'s ideas and his mannerisms of language. If you can't distinguish my writing style from those others that you named, perhaps you should leave the analysis of English to me, a professional. You clearly lack the talent.

      But you want an argument that citizens should have guns? Fine, I'll give you the chance:

      1. Property. I have the right to possess anything that I buy with my own money and use without harming anyone else. I have the right to be secure in my own property. I have the right to conceal my own property if I choose.

      And before you go asking me if I include nuclear bombs in this category, show me a personal use for a nuke that wouldn't harm others, and I'll consider it.

      2. Self-defense. We have a fundamental right to defend ourselves from attack. Firearms provide an excellent means of doing this.

      Note that I didn't say that we have the right to attack others. I'm talking only about defense here.

      3. Liberty. The government needs a reminder that we're citizens and not subjects. An armed populace puts that statement in bold.

      That's good enough to be going on with.

  2. Not a very accurate list. It fails to list the number of people killed by Americans. I guess those people don't count, eh, Mike?

    orlin sellers

  3. So you're comparing mostly suicides to war casualties?

    1. War casualties? No, people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc. killed by Americans with guns.

      orlin sellers