The first place I went was to the CDC. The Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System lets you query fatal and non-fatal injury statistics for almost any combination of who, what, and where. A few other sources jump out: The Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the United States is important, as is the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports search and analysis system and the General Social Survey, the latter especially to track firearms ownership trends.
For comparisons with other countries, a few sources are critical. For England: the Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence annual report from the Home Office is a good place to start. For Australia there is no authoritative substitute for The Australian Bureau of Statistics web site, although it's somewhat hard to navigate. A useful summary is always at The Australian Institute of Criminology homicide page. Authoritative statistics for Japan are particularly hard for a non-Japanese speaking gaijin. A few aggregators have to stand in the stead of official sources including the Violent Death Project and the University of Tokyo Studies on Suicide Project.
Looking over the numbers, a few conclusions came quickly, but I should state my assumptions first. First and foremost I'm not interested in talking about "Gun Deaths." A nation like Japan that has managed to almost eliminate firearms from the country will, without a doubt, have fewer "gun deaths" than a nation with firearms. The question I am interested in isn't about "gun deaths." A death is a death. I'm not horribly interested in "gun crimes" either. I feel about gun crimes much as I do about hate crimes. Beating someone up is a bad thing. Beating someone up because they're gay, or Japanese, or Baha'i, or Black or Catholic isn't worse. Beating someone up is bad whatever the reason. Similarly, robbing someone, or raping someone or kidnapping someone with a gun isn't worse than the same crime without a gun, it's still the same crime. The gun isn't what makes a crime especially bad.
Second, while the constitution of the US contains no explicitly stated right to privacy, I value privacy never-the-less. As long as I am not hurting anyone, as long as what I do is in my own home with my own things, I think it's my business. I admit to the principle that my business ends at the start of your nose, and I further admit that limitation to involve lots of non-physical things, but where possible, privacy ought to rule.
That being said, what does the data tell me?
Comparisons with England are difficult at best.
England just isn't the U.S. no matter how many anglophiles there may be. England's murder rate has always been substantially lower than the rate in the U.S., and the virtual elimination of privately owned handguns there has done little to effect the murder rate. Actually, for the first eight years following the gun ban, the murder rate in England went UP, but then, so did almost everyone else's during the 1990's. Many things are blamed for it including the international cocaine traffic, but no one actually knows. Still, for the last 20 years, the UK's murder rate has varied from 1.1 to 1.5 per 100,000 while the US rate has fallen from 9 to 5 per 100,000 during the same period.
Also, England's gun ownership rates have always been substantially lower than in the U.S.. Using Home Office statistics, the number of registered guns (mostly shotguns) in England has hovered around 1.8 million for the last 30 years, or around 3300 per 100,000 population or one gun for every 30 people. On the other hand, in the US, there are something approaching 300 million guns for the 310 million (or so) people. Around 40% to 50% of US households own guns (depending on whose surveys you believe.)
It's an interesting aside that the number of firearms certificates held in England has risen every year since 2000 and the total number is now back to it's pre-ban number fro 1996. They're just not "handguns."
Some quick look-see's:
(graphs are taken from http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/12/so-did-piers-morgan-and-christiane.html )
Number of murders in England since 1990:
Murder rate since 1990 (numbers are per million population)
So, no conclusions yet here... just some interesting data that seems to indicate that banning handguns in the UK didn't seem to effect their murder rate at all, and that since 2000, the murder rate in the US has fallen in a shape much like the fall of the rate in England even though the number of guns in the US rose substantially during that period. This starts to point to a conclusion, but we're far from there. More later.
2 comments:
OK Rick, you know I like you so don't take any of this personally but I am tired of the endless pro-gun rights screed.
If your motivation is defense of the Constitution and the bill of rights you have three distinct problems with your various arguments in favor of a hands off guns environment.
First, every close parsing of the second amendment stumbles with the issue of a well regulated militia. Bear in mind while the nature of England and its former colony may be very different today at the time of the crafting of the constitution and the bill of rights we were dealing with former English subjects. All of them were familiar with Edward III's edicts requiring that freemen become proficient with a longbow in defense of the country. The consept had little if anything to do with protection of self.
Second issue most gun rights enthusisits, and I hope not you, take exception to virtually all of the still relevant portions of the bill of rights. Separation of church and state, nope, freedom from search and seizure many of the most vocal gun rights activists argue the courts favor criminals when they protect this right, ditto the fifth and sixth amendments, eight amendment, hell many would like to bring back the stocks and public hangings, 9th and 10th, well if we read the 9th carefully it says what the people's will is should be acceptable. If the elected officials of this country are not the people's will we have bigger problems than guns. Actually looked at congress, guns are the least of our problems.
Third Issue, who gun rights activists throw under the train. People with signficant untreatable or not well treated mental health issues should not have guns. But oddly the people who scream most if we would just take guns away from the crazy people there would be no problem. Oddly many of the people who went on rampages with guns had known problems, in some cases their care givers begged for treatment, look at the young man at Va Tech, my daughter knew him his counselor begged for treatment guess what it was not acted on.
So those are the rational reasons to oppose where you seem to be, but all that said, do I oppose private ownership of guns no more than I do cars, reasonable rules for ownership and operation are actually in line with the bill of rights.
Is the constitution sacred apparently not, do you think article one, section 2 paragraph three should be still followed?
Lastly sorry Rick, you can give every argument you want about why large magazines should not be regulated. I don't know about how you would respond but if I am sitting in the theater with my glock, sig, colt or any other hand gun an someone comes in with an AR-15 with 30 or more rounds in a magazine converted back to effectively an M-16 is going to pull out my hand gun and try and take him out you really have a martyr complex and should not be allowed to have a gun. You'd wait as did the people who took on Gabby Gifford's assailant till he ran out of ammunition before you stood up and tried to stop him. Particularly if he was wearing body armor, that is unless you have a death wish and want to spray more lead into a mess.
So does this mean I favor an absolute ban, no, does it mean I favor restrictions so tall no one can have a gun. No!
I favor rules similar to those that regulate the use of another potentially leathal devise a car. Show you know how to use it, periodically demonstrate you can be willing to have your weapons inspected to make sure they have not been illegally modified, like cars and I am comfortable.
I have plinked at cans, admire the artistry of a well made weapon and have no problem with a gun. But when anyone who wants one can have one does not have any conspet how to use or care for it I am against it.
I believe in liberty not license, but some times liberty comes with a price.
Hi Marty! Your comments are almost precisely why I wanted to post this series and get my head around my thoughts on the subject. I appreciate your note. I hope that these posts don't come off as a screed, but rather as a series on how my thinking on the subject evolved.
Your thoughtful comments raise a lot of interesting points of discussion that I will be addressing later in this series, but there are some that I should jump in on right away.
It is absolutely true that every close reading of the 2nd has to deal with "a well regulated milita." I'll answer at length in a future post, but Edward III's edicts come to play. I concur that the concept had little to do with self defense, but then the establishment clause of the first amendment has changed meaning over time as well. More later.
Regarding the establishment and exercise clauses of the first amendment, recall please that I am a member of a persecuted minority religion as well. I'm super sensitive on that subject. I'll admit that is probably the primary reason I think that the incorporation doctrine using the due process clause of the 14th amendment is a good thing. :)
Freedom from search and seizure. Oh boy, one of my hot buttons. Warrantless searches suck. The various seizure laws that have been persecuting folks due to various claims on the "war on drugs" have lead to insane violations of due process. You also don't want to get me started on the 8th unless you want the long story about my various times serving on juries.
You wrote: If the elected officials of this country are not the people's will we have bigger problems than guns. very true, but I'm afraid that it's common that our elected officials act against the people's will all too often. This leads to the old joke: "How do you tell a politician is lying? His mouth is moving." Not universally true, but the concept exists for a reason.
Regarding throwing people under the train, Marty, consider how I've made my living for the last 30 years, and who I chose to serve.
The rest, especially the car analogy I will be responding to in a future post at greater length than I can in a comment.
Note however, that I have not yet actually stated what I think appropriate restrictions are. My position is complex, just as my position on the 1st amendment is complex, but as in the case of the 1st, I tend more towards freedom than towards control.
Do not forget that I live four blocks from Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. It is one of the finest things about my home town that he is still alive.
Post a Comment