Armed with Reason
We recently discussed a YouTube video entitled, “Number One With A Bullet”
How Not To Compare International Homicide Rates
Unsurprisingly, the United States does indeed have a lower homicide
rate than countries in the middle of civil war, run by despots, or
struggling with crippling poverty. Should we really be patting ourselves
on the back though that our homicide rate just barely beats out Yemen, number 109 on the list, and the fifth most dangerous
country in the world? Should we be bragging that our country has less
per capita murder than Somalia or Zimbabwe — countries that are
literally run by warlords?
Comparing the U.S. with countries that have
nothing in common only guarantees that whatever the true relationship
between guns and homicide is, we won’t be able to find it.
Indeed, using Whittle’s methodology, you can make almost all of
America’s problems disappear overnight by simply expanding our peer
group. For example, our infant mortality rate
is the highest among industrialized nations, but if we include all of
the world’s countries in our comparison, including those where children
regularly die from diarrhea and measles within a couple months of being
born, we rank No. 34!
What A Valid Analysis Reveals
But that’s clearly not the appropriate way to think about public
health problems. Serious academics restrict their analysis to countries
that have attained a certain level of gross national income (GNI). This
is extremely important because it enables researchers to control for
confounding variables that may drive the homicide rate upwards, such as
the presence of ethnic or religious conflict, or widespread poverty. One
way to do this is by using the World Bank’s definition of a high-income
OECD country. Thirty-one countries meet the criteria of a per capita GNI $12,616.
When academics further refine this list of countries using socio-economic factors they reveal a harrowing picture. Compared
with other high-income countries, the United States has a homicide rate
6.9 times higher, a difference driven almost exclusively by firearm
homicide rates that are 19.5 times higher. The same is true for firearm
suicide and unintentional firearm death, for which the United States has
rates that are 5.8 and 5.2 times higher, respectively, than other
industrialized countries.
A 2013 study also showed that among the
highest income countries “there was a significant positive correlation
between guns per capita per country and the rate of firearm-related
deaths.” A recent study in the American Journal of Medicine also
showed that among the highest income countries, “there was a
significant positive correlation between guns per capita per country and
the rate of firearm-related deaths.” The authors concluded that: “the
current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a
nation safer.”
Research on
female homicide victimization reveals an even more startling picture:
the United States is the sole outlier in female homicide rates among
high-income countries. Even though American females represent only 32
percent of the overall female population among industrialized nations,
the United States accounts for 84 percent of all female firearm
homicides.
"One way to do this is by using the World Bank’s definition of a high-income OECD country. Thirty-one countries meet the criteria of a per capita GNI $12,616."
ReplyDeleteWhen you click on the link it takes you to a list, but seems to show countries with a GNI per capita in the $40k range. I couldn't figure out how to change the amount, so I went to a less high speed list here,
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(nominal,_Atlas_method)_per_capita
Using this list you can see our old friend Russia meets the criteria, and a few others that might bear a closer look. But to be honest, this comparison of other countries thing is getting old.
If the term "other factors" can be used when comparing states, then perhaps the term can be used in all caps when we talk of comparing countries. I recall a book titled "The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy" that gave an interesting look at other cultural variables that effect crime. Anyone else read it? I especially found the chapter on Japan interesting.
It's getting old, indeed. That's what we need to say to the gun-rights advocates who keep pushing it.
DeleteSo what came first? The arguments comparing US gun violence to places like England or Japan? Or the talk about Mexico and Russia?
DeleteWhat comes first is to cut down gun shot deaths and injuries in the US, and comparing our gun problem to any other country won't help.
DeleteI agree, it isn't really relevant. However, it seems that the gun control lobby originated it and continue to rehash it ad nauseum whenever they can get someone with a title to use it over again.
DeleteAll that needs to be done is for gun control activists to understand this and stop bringing it up. And then there won't be counter-arguments from the other side. But as you can see here, there are some who shall remain nameless, but their initials are Jadegold who still want to pursue it.
Please SS, if it's not relevant (I agree) then why jump in with your own version? Your need for the "gotcha" point is overriding your simple statement above and it's not the first time, nor the only issue you use that position.
DeletePeter, I comment on the merits of the post, or lack thereof. If it keeps getting brought up, even though it's irrevelant, what does that say about the group that seems to hope that repeating it enough will somehow make it relevant?
DeleteSo I spoke to the topic, and then commented about its irrelevancy.
Great logic SS, so you like to get the "gotcha" point even when it makes you look ridiculous and wrong. Fine, whatever. Your Tea Party credentials are secure.
DeleteThe authors concluded that: “the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer.”
ReplyDeleteIs that all they’re concluding? Fine, we’ll settle on no correlation. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.
Compared with other high-income countries, the United States has a homicide rate 6.9 times higher, a difference driven almost exclusively by firearm homicide rates that are 19.5 times higher. The same is true for firearm suicide and unintentional firearm death, for which the United States has rates that are 5.8 and 5.2 times higher, respectively, than other industrialized countries.
Notice how they mention overall homicide rate, then gun homicides, then go straight to gun suicides (skipping over total suicide rate). No need to point out anything that crushes the narrative.
What “studies” like this point out is that socioeconomics is such a massive contributor to violence that it dwarfs any possible effect from gun ownership- by their own admission. And low and behold, if we break the United States down by varying socioeconomic conditions (whether state by state, county by county, or neighborhood by neighborhood) we see that the violence follows.
TS once again defies all logic and demands we slice and dice the data to suit his own conclusions. Facts are stubborn things.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny that you accuse me of slicing and dicing while the main point of this article is how the vast majority of data needs to be discarded whole cloth.
DeleteDo you care to address any of the points I made, or are you just going with MikeB's excuse of "that which doesn't make sense to me must be wrong"?
You're being obtuse.
DeleteCase in point: "What “studies” like this point out is that socioeconomics is such a massive contributor to violence that it dwarfs any possible effect from gun ownership- by their own admission. "
This is such abject baloney, I hardly know where to start. Of course, socioeconomics (poverty, corruption, lack of civil structure, etc.) plays into gun violence. But, think about this, if the guns were to magically disappear--or even largely disappear--are you seriously saying violence and homicide and suicide would remain unchanged?
The answer, of course, is no. Yeah, there'd still be violence and suicide and homicide but its severity would be greatly diminished.
Policy and laws are not generally based on what might happen if magical solutions were possible. Come up with better hypotheticals if you want to be taken seriously Jade.
DeleteJade: "... if the guns were to magically disappear--or even largely disappear--are you seriously saying violence and homicide and suicide would remain unchanged?"
DeletePossibly. Possibly not. You naturally discount the positive affect of guns in the hands of good people. However, by asking this question you are avoiding the point of my argument. Note the key word in your hypothetical: "magic". My point is that gun control has not worked at getting guns out of the hands of bad guys. When we look at gun ownership rates, we're really looking at the ownership rate of the good people. The bad guys still have their guns. Thinking that you can keep a legal, abundant, simple to make products out of the hands of free people is a fool's errand. Even keeping illegal products out of the hands of captive people is hard enough. Think drugs in prison. Gun control is not going to magically work.
"Policy and laws are not generally based on what might happen"
DeleteSo true. And since we have proof that certain gun practices cause harm and endanger safety, that's a good foundation for laws like gun safes and the ability to track guns, stop gun theft, and other laws aimed at safety.
Whole buncha fallacies from TS:
Delete"My point is that gun control has not worked at getting guns out of the hands of bad guys."
Because gun control hasn't been tried here. In countries where there is real gun control--the gun violence numbers are extremely low.
"When we look at gun ownership rates, we're really looking at the ownership rate of the good people. "
Baloney. When we look at gun ownership rates, we see actual gun ownership has been declining for a number of decades.
And when we talk about 'good people' we're really talking about non-felons. IOW, you can have an arrest sheet a mile long--you're considered 'law-abiding.' You can be an alcoholic/drug abuser/psychotic and as long as you're not a felon--you're considered law-abiding.
"Think drugs in prison. "
Bad analogy. All guns start as legal weapons. Because there is no gun control, it is easy for any gun to end up in the hands of a criminal. Most drugs don't start out as legal products--they are generally the result of illegal manufacturing or horticulture. Do drugs get into prison? Sure. Is it widespread? Nope. Question: would the drug problem in prison be alleviated by having no prohibition against drugs?
Jadegold: “Because there is no gun control, it is easy for any gun to end up in the hands of a criminal.”
DeleteOk, let’s take a step back for a minute. I have argued on this blog for years that when we look at state level data for violence and murder, we find that there is no correlation with either gun laws (using Brady scores) or gun ownership rates. Mike doesn’t seem to be able to accept this (though he hems and haws at times as if we are going to have a breakthrough, but it doesn’t quite happen). So with your statement above, you are actually agreeing with me, correct? Nothing that we have done so far has aiding in preventing criminals from getting guns- i.e. “we have no gun control”. Is that a fair assessment of your position? This would explain why we see that murder rates don’t follow strength of gun laws or rates of household gun ownership by state. This makes sense to you, right? Mike says this does not make sense to him and should be questioned. Maybe you can help him understand.
Additionally, it would be a fair assessment of your position that in repeating any of the half-measures tried so far we would expect the same result- utter failure. If it wasn’t gun control before, then it’s still not gun control. Criminals would still get their guns. We can then conclude that the intent of repeating half-measures that aren’t real gun control is to just mess with law-abiding gun owners. So if a state were to say… pass a ban on the sale of magazines that hold over ten rounds (which has been done before so it’s not considered gun control according to you), you would agree with me that it’s another pissant policy aimed at restricting the gun culture which will have no positive affect on crime. Are we on the same page?
"Jade: "... if the guns were to magically disappear--or even largely disappear--are you seriously saying violence and homicide and suicide would remain unchanged?"
DeletePossibly. Possibly not. "
This is TS at his stubborn best. Admit nothing (except an occasional innocuous misreading of a post).
TS is playing a bit of a game here. His premise is that any gun control = total gun control. The fact is there are numerous studies that show states with lax gun laws have higher rates of gun violence.
DeleteTS wants us to ignore the very real fact that even the states with the most stringent gun laws have holes (loopholes) that make it pretty easy for anyone to get whatever gun they want. And this doesn't even account for the problem of neighboring states with more lax gun laws.
Jadegold: “TS is playing a bit of a game here. His premise is that any gun control = total gun control.”
DeleteYou said we have no gun control. Is that not what you just said? The gun control we have is so weak as to be completely ineffective making it not real gun control by your standard. Are you now changing your line from “we have no gun control in this country” to “we have some gun control in this country”? Can we expect any kind of consistency from you going forward?
Jadegold: “The fact is there are numerous studies that show states with lax gun laws have higher rates of gun violence.”
I didn’t say “gun violence”. I said “murder rates” and “violent crime rates”. Do you not know the difference by now?
Jadegold: “TS wants us to ignore the very real fact that even the states with the most stringent gun laws have holes (loopholes) that make it pretty easy for anyone to get whatever gun they want. And this doesn't even account for the problem of neighboring states with more lax gun laws.”
Now you are back to saying that the tiny winy bit of gun control we do have doesn’t work. You are back to agreeing with me that criminals have whatever they want wherever they want. You can’t even be consistent throughout one comment.
Jadegold: “TS wants us to ignore the very real fact that even the states with the most stringent gun laws have holes (loopholes) that make it pretty easy for anyone to get whatever gun they want.”
DeleteAnd what is with trying to argue against the exact opposite of my position? No, I am not ignoring the fact that criminals can easily get whatever they want even in the areas with the strictest gun control. That is my whole point- it hasn’t worked. Whatever gave you the idea that I am suddenly saying “boy, New Jersey law sure does make it hard for criminals to get guns...”?
TS, take another whack at Jade's question. If all guns disappeared, would the violent crimes including murder remain the same? "possibly, possibly not" is not an answer. Try again.
DeleteYou really want me to answer Jade’s question about magic in more detail, huh? Ok, I like to do my best to answer directed questions at me. But I do insist that you answer my question at the end. Deal?
DeleteIf all guns magically disappeared… I’ll assume edge weapons, blunt weapons, spring fired weapons, etc. remain. Knifes would become the concealable weapon of choice, with swords, axes, pole arms, etc. being good choices where being concealable isn’t a factor. Bow and arrow would become the best choice for distance which would replace rifle applications. This sounds familiar- like we’ve been here before, and it wasn’t pretty. Of course, socioeconomically we are in a much better place than medieval times, but it is not like it was particularly hard to kill people back then. At the end of the day, we are all still soft and squishy people who bleed.
Concealable distance attacks would take the biggest hit (no handguns). The sneak up on someone and shoot them in the back of the head type of murder would mostly be replaced with knifes. Throat slashes, back stabbings, etc. Some of the victims would probably survive in that multiple stabbings would take longer, there might be a struggle, etc. The cleanest examples would probably be just as effective (slash to jugular that they didn’t see coming), but yes, it will be harder to pull off. Using a bow and arrow in place of shotguns and rifles probably isn’t as big of a drop off as you think. Follow up shots would be slower, but could still be delivered around the order of two seconds. Naturally you guys would want to ban the sale of large capacity quivers, which would be even more freaking useless than your magazine bans. Arrows are routinely used to kill deer and elk with one shot. I’m not a hunter, so I’ll refer to someone else to speak of the differences between arrow wound and bullet wounds:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/killing_power_bullet_arrow.htm
Rifles gain a bigger and bigger advantage as distance increases, but extremely few murders happen over a hundred yards. I don’t have data on that off-hand, but I can’t think of any outside of the DC sniper, and even then it was pretty mild distances (I think the longest was 150 yards), and then going way back to the UT clock tower. You’ll notice that one of the differences Chuck Hawks talks about is knock down power. Arrows work by cutting and bleeding, while bullets have shock impact. There are more bleed-out shots where death is certain, but the animal has time to run (or charge). That difference is vital for self-defense. Ah, now we get to the drawbacks of this magic spell.
(cont.)
(cont.)
DeletePeople lose access to the best tool to defend themselves with. The strong can pray on the weak (grandma isn’t very adept with a bowie knife). Criminals will be more empowered to attack, to break into homes, and to fight back against cops. That’s right, the cops don’t have guns either, so they can’t protect people as effectively. Even most gun-haters think guns in the hand of cops does more good than harm- they just have a pessimistic view of society where they think most people (or 50%...) are bad people.
The reason why I said “possibly, possibly not” is because if all guns magically disappeared, things would be different (as opposed to enacting gun control laws where nothing changes). Some people would die, others would survive. To say that they would completely cancel each other out would be a guess. But if you want me to guess, I’ll say murder remains about the same, and violent crime goes up (more certainly). People don’t chose to commit violent crimes because of guns, unless you really do blame the gun because you think they whisper kill kill kill kill to anyone who gazes upon it. The people who survive because guns disappeared will more likely be gangbangers and criminals, while the people who die because of it will more likely be good people who lacked the best means to defend themselves including cops. No, that wouldn’t be good.
Now, it’s your turn, Mike. Answer me this question (which is grounded in reality and not a magical hypothetical): Does the gun control we have right now in the country work… at all? I’ve provided hard data on this, but just give me your opinion. Jadegold says “we have NO gun control”- as in none. We know that he really means “we have no [effective] gun control”, but then he contradicts that and reverses his position when I phrase that as “the gun control we have is useless”. You have also taken both these positions. So where do you really stand? If your answer is “we have some gun control that works a little bit, but we need a whole lot more for it to work a lot better”, then would you say that Jadegold is full of shit when he says “we have no gun control”?
Well, Mike? You challenged me to answer Jade's question about magical hypotheticals, which I did in detail. What is your answer to my question based on reality?
Delete" I’ve provided hard data on this, but just give me your opinion."
DeleteWhaaaat? Hard data? What you did was provide a guess, and one which you cannot possible defend. "I’ll say murder remains about the same" is ridiculous and I'll tell you why. Each of the types of murders you described, in painful detail, allowed for some decrease. But what you didn't cover is the double, triple and multiple gun murders. Clearly they would not "remain about the same." So overall there would be a big drop if all guns disappeared.
To answer your question, which seems like an attempt to put a wedge between me and my co-blogger, a gotcha in other words, I'll say this. When Jade says “we have no gun control” I think he's using a bit of hyperbole for emphasis. I don't think he's talking literally, obviously we do have some gun control laws on the books, right? I think he's saying they don't work or they don't work sufficiently, which brings us to my position. You summed it up pretty well with, If your answer is “we have some gun control that works a little bit, but we need a whole lot more for it to work a lot better.”
So, no, I don't think "Jadegold is full of shit." Pathetic try, TS.
MikeB: "Whaaaat? Hard data? What you did was provide a guess, and one which you cannot possible defend."
DeleteThe hard data I spoke of is regarding my question on if the gun control laws we have right now work. It was not in my regards to Jade's magical hypothetical. Obviously there is no hard data on spell casting.
You'll note that in my hypothetical discussion, I acknowledged that some of the gun murders wouldn't be murders when the weapon in replaced with something less efficient. It's your turn to acknowledge that there is a flip side- that some additional lives would be lost due to the removal of the best self-defense tool (both active and passive). You didn't speak at all of that. You just came back with "what of all the mass shootings?!"
Let's break this down to make it easier for you. We know you see police differently than non-police, so let's just focus on the police first. What negative effects would occur because the police don't have guns? Do you think some people would die who would not have otherwise?
And I'm glad to see you at least acknowledge that Jade's statement is hyperbole. I bet I can't get him to do that, but I'll try. But, I have to ask, don't you think you hold us to a different standard? If one of us were to say such a statement, wouldn't you call us "lying exaggerating gun fanatics"?
To reiterate, when Jade says "we have no [effective] gun control", he is taking my position. I don't think this is hyperbole. This is the point that I have been trying to get across to you for years using hard data and indisputable math. For some reason when I say it, you say I am "baffling with bullshit", but Jade is "using hyperbole for emphasis". What's real strange is this idea that agreeing with me (even when supposedly exaggerating) somehow serves your point.
Delete"It's your turn to acknowledge that there is a flip side- that some additional lives would be lost due to the removal of the best self-defense tool (both active and passive)."
DeleteYes, there would be some of that, but not nearly enough to make up for the shortfall on all the other categories, especially the double and multiple gun murders.
Bottom line: if guns disappeared, murders would go down. Can you agree with that, yes or no?
I already answered that as a "no".
DeleteA good way to summarize is that the drop-off in offensive capability is not as big as the drop-off in defensive capability. Easy of use means the weak can successfully defend themselves against the strong, and other weapons aren't as good as stopping someone immediately- even when they do result in killing.
You're so wrong, TS. You know what else would go down, the justified gun homicides. You guys claim that a man breaking into your home is fair game since the very act of breaking in is evidence of his bad intentions. But, obvioulsy not every single one of them would end up murdering the homeowner if the homeowner were unarmed. So, absent guns, there'd be a net gain. Fewer people would die.
DeleteFewer people would die.
DeleteIncluding many whose only chance of improving the universe is by departing it as quickly as possible.
Keep beating that drum that you want to see justifiable homicides reduced, Mike. Go with that.
DeleteBut, I must say, your logic has no rational basis whatsoever. Not every bulgar tries to kill the homeowners. Some justifiable homicides occur. Therefore, by Mike common sense, there would be a net savings of life if homeowners have less effective means of self defense. Oh boy. Let's just take a look at the numbers and maybe you can see where your logic stalls. There are 400,000 hot break-ins per year compared to a couple hundred justifiable homicides total (I don't know how many if those were shootings in the course of a home invasion, but something smaller than the 278 non-police justifiable homicides that the FBI recorded for 2010). One, that tells us that gun owners are not as eager to blow away any trespasser at first opportunity as you want to believe. And two, it wouldn't take a big percentage of those hundreds of thousands of hot break-ins turning violent because the homeowner was unarmed to exceed the couple hundred at best justifiable homicides you cite.