Shooting down the Argument for Gun Availability: Second Amendment
Kevin Yuill has published an argument at Spiked Online in defence of the wide availability of firearms in the USA, attempting to argue from the statistics. I thought I would have a closer look at “Kevin Yuill on the Second Amendment“:
Each time the news of an American shooting, especially a school shooting, reaches across the Atlantic, the British media emit a collective high-pitched hysterical scream. The guilty parties always seem to be America’s gun culture and the Second Amendment, which allows Americans access to weapons, ‘the right to bear arms’. ‘It’s barmy’, the media sagely conclude.
Rationality is urgently needed to combat this clearly emotional outburst.
Yep. Let’s apply it to your argument.
First, cut out the fetishisation.
Say what? Aha – girls with guns. (Anyone who clicks through and then complains will not get any sympathy). Via Samizdata.
Firearms, like any other tool, are not in and of themselves dangerous. Handled responsibly,
There’s the rub. If they were not to hand, they could not be handled irresponsibily.
they are no more dangerous than many other household items, and are far less dangerous than cars.
I’ll think about that next time I kill someone with a Liquorice Allsort or assault them with a Hamster.
Let’s get guns in perspective.
Good. Let’s look at some numbers.
According to the Centers for Disease Control in the US, 11,624 homicides were committed using firearms in 2004.
Got it. 11,624 seems to be a hell of a lot.
The figure for the UK in 2004/5 (with about one fifth of the population) was .. er .. 73. The following years were 49 and 58. Small samples, so take the average and multiply it by five. if we multiply that by five, we get a comparative figure of 300.
Or to put it another way:
UK firearm homicides per person were 40 times lower than in the USA.
Compare this to deaths by unintentional poisoning (20,590), unintentional falls (18,807), or death by unintentional suffocation, drowning and fire (12,531). A Million Mom March against oysters or ladders? Not likely.
Red herring alert. We’re talking about gun murders.
If you have 20,000 people killed by poisoning and 20,000 by “unintentional falls” then you need a decent Health and Safety Executive and some people with common sense. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with gun-control or otherwise.
Are the high obesity figures in the USA a reason for keeping 200 million guns (estd) as well? What about the size of the average pizza – is that relevant as well?
Beam Me Up, Scotty
At this point we have a “beam me up Scotty” sideways teleport in the argument as the statistics switch from “firearm homicides” to “overall homicide rate“. This is significant because less than 10% of UK murders involve firearms (60 from roughly 800), while in the USA the figure is around 65-70% (2004: 11,624 from 16,137).
The switch may be because the USA has 40 times as many “firearm homicides” per person as the UK, so assuming that overall murder rate can be taken as a proxy for firearms murders makes the case for high availability of guns sound slightly more credible.
It is also a standard invalid comparison made when arguing this case.
Back to the argument.
Second, let us put to bed the myth that the number of available guns bears a direct relationship with homicide rates.
Er … yes it does:
Rates of Household Firearm Ownership and Homicide Across US Regions and States, 1988–1997
Matthew Miller, MD, MPH, ScD, Deborah Azrael, MS, PhD, and David Hemenway, PhDObjectives. In this study we explored the association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide across the United States, by age groups.
Methods. We used cross-sectional time-series data (1988–1997) to estimate the association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide.
Results. In region- and state-level analyses, a robust association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide was found. Regionally, the association exists for victims aged 5 to 14 years and those 35 years and older. At the state level, the association exists for every age group over age 5, even after controlling for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and nonlethal violent crime.
Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide.
Yes, the United States does have higher gun ownership and a higher homicide rate than the UK, but strict gun controls operate in the Philippines and Mexico and both of those countries have higher homicide rates than America.
Are you really arguing that the Philippines (which has an insurgency) and Mexico (which has a huge transit drugs trade) are comparable with the UK in Gun Law Enforcement? I see that you switch from “gun ownership” to “gun controls” in one sentence. That begs the question of better law enforcement of gun controls in the UK over the other two countries. The comparison only has validity if you can show that all three countries have comparably effective law enforcement.
Meanwhile, Israel and Switzerland have higher adult gun ownership rates than America, and far lower homicide rates.
There you go again with “homicide rates” not “firearms homicide rates”. Not having seen the detailed stats I can’t comment on the figures for these countries, but it sounds to me that it’s not Switzerland and Israel that have the problem. Perhaps if the USA somehow changed its culture the murder figures may come down to European levels – 5,000-10,000 people a year would welcome that, as they’d still be alive.
Cherry-Ripe, Cherry-Ripe
Nationally, Washington DC, which banned handguns, has a murder rate of 80 per 100,000. In Arlington, Virginia – just across the Potomac and with almost no controls on guns – the rate is 1.6 per 100,000. In Glasgow, the rate is 5.6 per 100,000.
Leaving aside that you are cherry-picking stats (which is not valid), you’re comparing overall murder rates again, as if they have the same relation to firearms both sides of the Atlantic. They DON’T. If we apply the percentages for murders done with firearms in the UK (10%) and USA (70%) – admittedly an approximation – we get:
- Washington DC Firearms murders: 56 per 100,000.
- Arlington Virginia Firearms murders: 1.12 per 100,000.
- Glasgow UK Firearms murders: 0.56 per 100,000.
The argument just evaporated, even ignoring the cherry-picking.
And Arlington is the most educated County in the USA, so you should probably be comparing it to Oxford not Glasgow. It’s saying something that the most educated County in the States has more gun murders than one of our crime hotspots (with apologies to Glaswegians).
Wrapping-Up
As a kicker, the suicide and accidental deaths in the USA account for another 16,000+ lives ended:
There are 16,000 suicides by firearm and 650 fatal accidents in an average year.
To wrap up – if the gun is not there, it really is very difficult to shoot someone (or yourself) with it.
[tags]gun control, gun statistics, spiked online, uk, usa, gun law, national rifle association[/tags]
Categories: Magazine, News - Current Affairs, Political Blogging
Well argued, Matt, particularly about fetishism. there’s a bit of a debate over my way too between Americans and one Brit. It’s a vexed issue.
Sorry you make some good points but by concentrating on the USA you’re missing the main point entirely. The problem with firearm homicide in the USA is a problem with homicide, not firearms. If you were to take away their firearms you would not find the homicide rate go down significantly. (And in fact, try it, you will probably find it goes up! Tell an American you’re going to try to pass a law to take away his gun and he’ll probably track you down and shoot you!!)
Countries like Canada, Switzerland and Isreal have similarly high levels of gun ownership to the USA but lower rates of firearm homicide than the UK, where firearms are all but completely illegal. This shows that higher levels of gun ownership DO NOT directly correlate to higher levels of gun homicide. (I’m almost certain Switzerland has a higher percentage of gun ownership than the US but virtually no gun crime).
The old classic “If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns” sounds pretty fatuous but is truthful on a simple level, and I would have thought all these kids getting shot in london, manchester, liverppool etc would demonstrate the problem with this kind of prohibition.
Ask an economist… Prohibition never really works…
Thanks for the comment – appreciated,
I think I’ve dealt with most of your points already – but I’ll revisit later if I have time.
This article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm gives you a good idea about the situation in Switzerland, which I admit is unusual…
Matt – an interesting reply but you have misunderstood the points I am making – deliberately, it seems. The main point – that there is no real correlation between overall homicide rate and the number of weapons – stands. More mothers kill their own children in the United States than do mothers in the UK – without guns.
I realise you don’t really trust countries without “effective law enforcement” (shades of Sun/Mirror attacks on Portugese police over Maddie incident?). But there are European countries (I can only guess that your line between effective and ineffective law enforcement can be roughly drawn around Europe and NA) with higher homicide rates that the United States. How about Poland, Latvia, or Lithuania?
You are right to say that the gun is much more effective in suicides. But there is a higher suicide rate, according to the WHO, in countries like France and Ireland (I hope these are civilized enough for you). These are not primarily gun suicides. Where there’s a will, there’s a way – not the other way around, please.
Regarding fetishization – the main point is that guns are not magical things that turn ordinary people into killers. You should come up with reasons why you do not trust people to operate fairly simple machinery. Or why you don’t trust people not to be responsible.
I’m new to blogging. I hope this gets posted.
Best wishes,
Kevin
Thanks for that Kevin.
i will reply in detail later.
unaddressed here is the purpose of the 2nd amedment in the first place.
it does not seem to have been designed as a tool for crime fighting; but instead a tool of revolution.
you will recall that at the time of the revolution groups of armed individuals formed themselves into militias and exercised direct control over their choice of government; and there are many in this country who view the right to bear arms as the last check and balance left to citizens in the event that revolution might again be required.
[...] Shooting down the argument for gun availability is Matt Wardman’s next goal as he takes on, section by section, an article in defence of the wide availability of firearms in the USA, from a statistical point of view. As Matt says: To wrap up – if the gun is not there, it really is very difficult to shoot someone (or yourself) with it. [...]
You know, there is something else that needs to be statistically examined: the rate of change of gun deaths.
Since the time that England banned completely banned handguns, firearms deaths have *doubled*. It’s a clear example where less (legal) guns *did not* result in less firearms deaths.
I always find it interesting how people from another country just love to get on and write about someone elses. Your in England why do you even care? How does it effect you? I agree some stuff needs to be done but its not yours to worry about, isn’t there something closer to home you should fix there? Maybe better dental?
The fact you appear to be overlooking is that Americans have a right to own and use firearms. They will not be banned and we Colonials see them as direct evidence that we are a free people and not the toadies of some form of government.
Whining about safety is fine for Girl Scouts but rejected in the main by the majority of us rough and ready Americans. More people are killed riding motorcycles without helmets than by firearms…yet again pointing to the fact we are free to make our own choices, perilous or not.
Cheers!
I am surprised by your response…
“There’s the rub. If they were not to hand, they could not be handled irresponsibily.”
Well… We might as well make the possession of ammonium nitrate, knives, cars, and other items capable of causing individual or massive damage, illegal!
You state this as well…
“This is significant because less than 10% of UK murders involve firearms (60 from roughly 800), while in the USA the figure is around 65-70% (2004: 11,624 from 16,137).”
I hate to mention it, but were all those murders in the UK from rifles? If not, it seems making handguns illegal won’t stop the murders–it just means that the average citizen can’t own a handgun. You see, the criminal doesn’t care what the law says…
What is the murder rate in the UK vs. the USA? Per population? What are the issues involved–crime, hate-group involvement, etc? You can’t simply look at specific rates. At least you focus on murder rate and don’t use the death by firearm that many use–which includes suicides…
I don’t see anyone suggesting we don’t … fly any more since September 11 just because some terrorist used a perfectly good weapon (da plane) in an irresponsible manner.
Your comment:
“I’ll think about that next time I kill someone with a Liquorice Allsort or assault them with a Hamster.”
does not address his comment. Rather than make a subjective statement, address the issue or your argument is very weak.
It would be easier to remove the ability to fly or drive as those ‘rights’ are not even listed in the Constitution.
Look at the Bill of Rights–a national expert pointed this out to me. What do those Amendments guarantee? To whom are those rights guaranteed?
You might find some way to disagree, but those amendments guarantee rights to all citizens rather than to a specific group of people. Even the criminals are entitled to those rights…
Perhaps you should realize that everyone (even the criminal) has rights even if you don’t like them. Instead of trying to remove the rights people have, try to make a solid, valuable, and constructive suggestion on how to reduce violence.
You state:
This is significant because less than 10% of UK murders involve firearms (60 from roughly 800), while in the USA the figure is around 65-70% (2004: 11,624 from 16,137).
What I’d like to see is what is the murder rate… Do you think that the murder rate would change if guns/handguns were never available or do you think that the murderer would simply choose a different … weapon? Remember, without the intent to kill with malice aforethought, there is no murder. Whether the person uses a gun, a bat, a car, or other ‘item’ is irrelevant.
Who is committing the murders? What is the breakdown of CCW permit holders vs. non-holders? What percentage or number are under-age?
You shouldn’t say “That person ate meat and he died” to support your vegan cause. People who eat plants die too. What caused the death? What was his genetic predisposition? There are MANY things that affect death, and focusing on generalities is not accurate or helpful in my opinion.
People need to be taught, starting at a young age, how to reason and identify and solve problems. Taking a position and stating that everyone else is wrong is not logical or reasonable — even if you are right (and I don’t think you are).
The difference between those who I know and you is that you appear to want everyone to be/think/live like you–everything else is wrong. I prefer to allow diversity in thought so that people have the freedom to do what they think is right for them without being limited by what I want to see/hear/etc. I don’t guess you suggest my freedom of speech should be limited because you don’t like what I am saying? I certainly support your right to have your position. I think you are mistaken that any inanimate object can be a ‘killer’ just because it is an object.
Certainly, chemicals react with air/water and may explode at a certain point with no human interaction, but I don’t think there is any ‘intent’ to kill in that instance.
What drives a person to kill? I don’t have all those answers, but research on that topic and how to limit disagreements and the feelings/emotions that lead one party or both parties to get so emotional as to feel a need to use violence to ’solve’ the problem would be much more valuable than to simply yell, “you are wrong” while providing bad data that only supports your side.
Unfortunately, nobody doing any of these discussions actually appears to look look at really good data. Do some Google/Yahoo searches for the Texas study that looked at data between CCW permit holders and the average citizen population. What was found?
How can we, as a society, allow differences that make this country great while protecting our safety? Teach psychology starting in elementary school as it deals with bullies, inadequacy, etc. so that people learn why people do what they do and to assist in everyone knowing productive ways to resolve disagreements.
You aren’t going to remove disagreements–my guess is you and your closest friends disagree on certain issues. However, I doubt you end up picking up a book and throwing it at them (or do you?). Perhaps you, like most of us, have tools at your disposal to resolve these emotional issues instead of resorting to violence.
The people we need to worry about are those people who are not capable of rationalizing behavior and a method to solve disagreements.
Funny that you don’t realize that…
If we all could rationalize appropriately so that we don’t let our emotional response get to ‘that point,’ the free availability of guns, poison, etc. wouldn’t be relevant since there would be no violence anyway.
So… What is better? Remove guns and don’t address the underlying issue as you suggest? I’d suggest we start trying to solve the problem with a solution rather than address the ‘runny nose.’ By solving the problem, we remove the deaths and much more than the runny noses…
Of course, that is just my opinion…
[...] some safety-laden handguns for her to review, and while we were looking on-line, I came upon this analysis of ‘guns vs. no [...]
Your posts made some excellent points. I don’t think it is just the UK that is bewildered. I would imagine that much of Europe is to.
However, until they are willing to change their laws I can’t see anything happening.
Just to add, I saw Lynndie England, the Army Reservist convicted of the Abu Ghraid torture being interviewed on RTE. She was probably unfairly scapegoated by her superiors and her life now seems completely miserable.
Now granted she didn’t seem especially bright, but it seemed that all she cared about was firing guns – which she can’t do with a criminal record. It appears that gun culture is powerfully ingrained in America and nothing will change in the immediate future.
.-= Joseph Condron´s last blog ..Top Gun Film Review: Can The Fascination Be Explained =-.