Yes, gun ownership does increase the homicide rate.

[DanTex]

One result that has been found repeatedly in the peer reviewed literature is that gun ownership is correlated with a higher homicide rate. It happens internationally. It happens among US states. And it has also been found in detailed multivariate statistical studies that track changes in gun ownership at the county level, and control for potential confounding socioeconomic factors. Here are a few links to the literature.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf

Of course, correlation alone doesn't prove causation -- in fact, in theory, it is impossible to draw causal conclusions from observation alone. But, in practice, by combining statistical evidence with domain knowledge, one can in fact, draw reliable causal conclusions. And this is one of those examples. First, we have a clear mechanism. Gun assaults are far more likely to result in death than non-gun assaults, so the presence of a gun during a crime or a fight will significantly increase the odds that a homicide results. Second, the alternate hypotheses explaining the link between guns and homicide don't hold up to the data. For example, it is not true that the US is "uniquely violent" -- our violent crime rate is not significantly higher than the rest of the first world. The other studies come to the same finding: gun ownership correlates specifically to increased homicide -- and all of the difference is due to gun homicide -- but it does not correlate to higher rates of crime overall, a pretty good indication that the link is causal.

Anyway, from time to time, some right-wing blogger comes up with some pseudoscientific homebrew statistical analysis claiming to refute all the peer-reviewed science, and of course the DU gun fanatics seize upon this as some kind of "proof" that really the NRA is right about everything. The most recent episode comes from this OP, which cites a blog entry by a guy named Alex Berezow, who coincidentally is also author of a book on the "anti-scientific left".

OK, so buckle up, it's time for some pseudoscience! So to start, the standard way to do an international comparison on something like gun violence is to select a group of similar nations. So, for example, to get a meaningful comparison, you want to compare the US to places like France and England and Canada, and not to places like Somalia and El Salvador.

Basically, we want "first-world nations". For example, during the healthcare debate, it was often pointed out that the US was the only first-world nation without some kind of universal healthcare, and we also lagged behind in statistics like infant mortality and life expectancy despite spending more per capita on healthcare. If someone had come back by pointing out that Russia has single payer, and their life expectancy is less than 70 years, we would know there was a right-wing troll in our midst.

So how to decide which countries are "first-world"? Well, probably the most common criteria for this is the Human Development Index. So if we pick, say, the top 30 countries by HDI, and correlate the homicide rate with the number of guns per capita, we find a correlation coefficient of 0.5 and statistical significance at p=.007. In other words, more guns, more homicide. And there's nothing magic about 30 countries -- if you're playing along at home, try the top 20 or the top 40, and you'll get similar results.

Of course, this is not the result that the right-wingers want, so they need to tweak it a little. There do, of course, exist countries that have few guns and high homicide rates, higher than the US, but these aren't stable first-world democracies. These are places like Mexico, which is overrun with drug gang warfare, or Russia, which is basically a lawless hellhole. If you can manage to slip places like Mexico, Russia, and say Brazil (which ranks 85th in HDI) into the mix, than these datapoints will obscure what is otherwise a statistically significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide.

So, be on the lookout! Next time some NRA propagandist tells you that there is no link between gun ownership and homicide among first-world democracies, the first question to ask, is "are you including Mexico and Russia in your dataset"?

[liberal N proud]

1. K&R

[sigmasix]

2. right wing "science" is anything but

Irresponsibility seems to be the only lesson being taught by the NRA and other right wing domestic terror organizations.

[geckosfeet]

3. I don't find this surprising. In a room with 100 guns and 100 people

someone is eventually going to get shot. In a room with only 100 people, someone may eventually be beaten or strangled to death.

I guess the question is, where do you go from here? And how do you keep people from being shot, beaten and strangled - given that you can't get rid of the guns?

[Robb]

4. "Given that you can't get rid of the guns."

(facepalm)

[geckosfeet]

49. You can't. So forget about it.

How do you control violence given that.

[baldguy]

5. They did it in the UK. They did it in Australia.

And nobody is talking about eliminating guns entirely anyway. (Except for the less well intentioned RW lunatic gun nut extremists trying to generate fear among average gun owners - who are prone to fear to begin with.)

What we should be doing is making sure the people that own handguns actually need the, and try to get rid of assault weapons which have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people very quickly.

[hack89]

8. So you will ban some guns to save 200 lives but not ban other types of guns to save 30,000?

that is some interesting logic there. If it is all about saving lives and bans are an effective way to do that, why not ban the guns that kill the most people?

[baldguy]

16. OK.

Since you only seem to be reading the subject lines and not the actual post, I'll let you know that's a little farther than I suggested on going. But, if you think you can pull it off without having the gun worshiping dufuses on the Right whine & cry about losing Their Precious - go for it! I'd like to hear your proposal.

[hack89]

22. You specifically said you were not going to ban handguns but wanted to ban assault weapons.

if means other than banning will reduce gun deaths from handguns, why won't they do the same for assault weapons? What makes semiautomatic rifles so unique that they have to regulated in a different way even though they kill so few people?

[Boudica the Lyoness]

38. They also banned PIT BULLS in the UK..because they are dangerous.

The UK never was a gun culture. It cannot be compared to the US.

[baldguy]

41. Non sequiturs don't help your argument.

And if you want to display your malicious ignorance about Pit Bulls then start a new thread.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

56. Ignorance of pit bulls?

No I did some research and it was through that research I came to that conclusion. I will be starting a thread about them. Hold on to your hat!

BTW; In my post above I was stating that it was the UK that decided that pit bulls were dangerous..therefore banishing them from the land, forever. But I do happen to agree, after looking into them.

[Mojorabbit]

51. Yes, it is a different culture. nt

[Kolesar]

6. gun buybacks in the communities where people are nettlesome

People buy guns without needing them and without securing them. The guns end up in the hands of young men with scant wisdom who then use them to murder rivals or rob other people.

I gave you a serious answer. If you respond, please avoid using talking points and flawed distractions as an answer. thanks

[geckosfeet]

48. Sorry - been at work all day. But here is a serious answer to your question.

Serious answer? I don't really care about buy backs, never really considered them effective.

Any fully functional used modern firearm is probably worth $200 to $400 absolute minimum. Anyone who knows anything about firearms would not be willing to trade it for a $50 - $100 Best Buy gift card. Anybody who wants and values their gun isn't going to sell it for that much under market value. I also don't see criminals or gang members participating in buybacks, although buybacks may encourage them to steal guns to sell at a buyback.

I suppose there is also the matter of what happens to the guns that are bought back. You do realize that working guns are often sold to local gun dealers and put back into circulation.

My guess is that people who sell to buybacks don't know anything about guns. They have something they just want to get rid of whether it is theirs or not. It may be something they inherited. They may have found it. Maybe they just don't want it anymore. A lot of buyback guns don't even function properly. So it may be a good thing to get rid of it if it's not safe and it's just an accident waiting to happen. But none of these people are likely to commit a crime.

Again, I do not see criminals, thugs or gang bangers using a buyback program. I wouldn't use one - and I am not even a criminal.

[Kolesar]

70. ^rambling speculations

although buybacks may encourage them to steal guns to sell at a buyback.
I suppose
My guess is that people who sell to buybacks
Again, I do not see criminals, thugs or gang bangers

I am glad that law enforcement and local government are studying the issue, instead of relying on speculative thought trails like yours

[geckosfeet]

71. Guess I am just a rambler. Thanks for taking my views seriously.

[snooper2]

42. Well, if you look at the stats 2/3rds of the deaths would be self inflicted

[geckosfeet]

50. Yes. Suicide or negligence. Both preventable with training and/or health care in most cases.

[hack89]

7. America has cut it's homicide rate in half in the past 30 years

even as gun ownership skyrocketed.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

1994 - 16,305 murders with guns

2010 - 8,775 murders with guns

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1995/95sec5.pdf

What you are in essence are complaining about is that our murder rate is not falling fast enough. Even though it is steadily falling and is now the lowest it has been in 60 years.

[Hoyt]

9. With less guns - and more importantly, less folks attracted to guns - rate would be even less. n/t

[NickB79]

58. That doesn't alter the reality hack89 pointed out

The rate of ownership of guns has stayed relatively stable, and the absolute number of guns has increased dramatically, particularly the high-capacity style weapons.

In the same time, the murder rate has dropped by half.

Clearly, the OP's statement that gun ownership INCREASES homicide rates cannot be supported by the evidence, and your statement doesn't change that.

[Robb]

67. hack89, again, is fond of the death statistics, but ignores the reality of bullets and hospitals.

We've gotten better at keeping GSW victims alive, that's about it.

The common focus on gun deaths as a marker to illustrate America’s “gun problem” obscures an alarming trend. The number of persons who suffer nonfatal gunshot injuries―that is, who are shot but do not die―has risen over the same period. As graphically demonstrated by the chart below, this means simply that more people are being shot by guns every year. In other words, America’s gun problem is getting worse, not better.

[DanTex]

10. Gun ownership has actually dropped significantly in the last 20 years.

The big drop occurred during the 90s, at the same time as the big drop in homicide. Still, this is mostly irrelevant to the discussion, which is about the correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates. The big drop in crime in the 90s had very little to do with guns.

We still have by far the largest homicide rate in the first world. And during the 2000s, the drop in homicide was very small, and entirely accounted for by improvements in emergency medicine. The rate of injuries due to gun assaults has actually been increasing, but the survival rate has been increasing also:

[hack89]

12. But our non-gun homicide rate is higher too

which tells us that there are other factors that could be addressed, such as: rational drug laws, less wealth disparity, universal healthcare, robust safety needs.

All those first world countries you are comparing America to have all of those as well as different gun laws. Since you are not going to get European gun laws how about we work together to get European social policies?

[DanTex]

14. No it isn't.

It may be slightly higher than average, but it is not way out of like our overall homicide rate. Like I said in the OP, our overall rates of violent crime for everything except for gun homicide are not abnormal for first-world democracies. It is only in homicide, and gun homicide specifically, where we stick out like a sore thumb.

If it were truly the case that social policies were the whole difference, then we would have much higher rates of rape, robbery, etc. But we don't. It's the guns.

I agree that we have a long way to go in social policy, but let's not pretend that places like France and Germany don't have their own social problems, and let's also not pretend that guns don't account for a large portion of the homicide differential.

[Kolesar]

11. "our murder rate is not falling fast enough"

I'm down with that.

[hack89]

13. Considering our suicide rate is twice that of our murder rate

and is not falling like the murder rate, that is what I would concentrate on.

There are two gun suicides for every gun murder.

Take the issue outside the emotion of the gun control debate, focus purely on mental health care reform and national suicide prevention programs, and you will save thousands of lives and significantly reduce gun deaths.

Just a suggestion - does it make sense to you? Is there any common ground between us?

[DanTex]

15. Everyone here I think will agree that we have a long way to go with mental health policy.

But the two are not mutually exclusive. We can improve health policy and gun policy at the same time.

[hack89]

19. But there is more support for mental health policy

and it will save more lives. That is why given a choice between the two, I would pick mental health.

As a personal note, my personal life has impacted a lot more by mental health and addiction issues among my extended family than by gun violence.

[DanTex]

25. I don't know about more support.

If you're talking about single payer, that's not very likely.

Will it save more lives? Maybe, though it depends what policies we are comparing. But better mental health care will improve things way beyond just reducing the suicide rate -- it is also a quality of life issue. And also, mental health problems can cause other health issues and reduce life expectancy in other ways besides suicide. So, overall, I would agree that mental health, and healthcare in general, can yield greater benefits to society than gun control.

I saw one estimate that gun violence reduces life expectancy of an average American by something like 100 days. That's a lot, but we lag behind other first-world nations by several years, so guns are only a small part of the difference, and healthcare is bigger for sure.

The basic issue here, though, is that you don't need to be against gun control in order to be in favor of mental health reforms.

[hack89]

26. But I am not against gun control

despite what you might think.

I support all existing and proposed laws with the exception of the AWB and registration.

You and I have more in common then you are willing to admit.

[DanTex]

28. Yes, but you keep chiming in about how gun violence is "really not that bad".

We have far more homicide and gun violence than any other first-world democracy, and yet your first comment is that it's lower than it used to be, so it's really not a big deal.

Guess what? Life expectancy in the US has also increased over the least twenty years. Does that mean we don't need healthcare reform after all, simply because things aren't as bad as they used to be? No. We still lag way behind where we should be, which is the rest of the industrialized world, which provides universal coverage to their people.

[hack89]

29. Don't put words in my mouth

I understand that gun violence is a complex and nuanced issue. Two thirds of gun deaths are suicides. The remainder is criminal violence that is very geographically limited. The vast majority of Americans live in areas that are just as safe as any European country.

So I understand that the causes and potential solutions to gun violence are many. Because I do not accept a cartoonish "gunz are evil" outlook on life does not mean I am minimizing gun violence. I simple disagree with some of your solutions.

[DanTex]

30. That gun violence is concentrated among the urban poor doesn't make it any less of a problem.

You know what else only affects a small fraction of Americans? Racism. And poverty. And homelessness. And so on.

Also, it's not true that the vast majority of Americans live in areas that are just as safe as any European country. Yes, most gun violence occurs in cities, but most people live in cities also.

[hack89]

31. So lets focus our solutions on racism, poverty, homelessness

Here is a interactive murder map of Boston. Note how even in a large city, murders are concentrated in the same few neighborhoods.

Does that mean that there are no guns in all those other neighborhoods? Or is it that there are plenty of guns but no one is killing anyone?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2011_murders_in_boston/

Here is a homicide tracker for Chicago - same thing.

https://www.google.com/search?q=chicago+murder+spike+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a

[DanTex]

32. And on guns.

[hack89]

33. Sure

with the exception of an AWB and national registration, I am with you.

[baldguy]

17. .

Clearly.

[hack89]

20. I don't believe that more guns resulted in fewer murders.

murder is a complex social phenomena.

[ThoughtCriminal]

44. Number of Guns vs Gun Ownership

The number of guns has increased, but the percentage of households that have a gun has declined.

That's an important difference. The growth in gun sales seems to be to a shrinking number of people who think they need mini arsenals to feel safe.

[hack89]

46. But the number of households has also increased

so are there more households with guns then there were 30 years ago? I would guess yes.

[ThoughtCriminal]

52. Nope

Not just ownership rate, but number of households with guns has declined:

"The data, collected by the Injury Prevention Journal, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the General Social Survey and population figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, found that the number of U.S. households with guns has declined, but current gun owners are gathering more guns."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining

[hack89]

54. Ok - interesting stuff. nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

45. You've got to factor in advances in medical technology.

And things such as trauma centers.

More people are surviving what would previously be fatal gunshot wounds.

It's not just homicides, either. The death toll in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were far lower than Vietnam in part because battlefield medical technology has advanced to the point where more people are surviving their injuries.

[hack89]

47. Look at my first link - look at aggravated assaults

when you shoot someone and they survive, the crime is aggravated assault.

The aggravated assault rate has fallen from 433 to 252.

We are simply a less violent society.

[Recursion]

18. You admitted gun ownership decreased homicide in the G20

But, yes: if you leave out all the countries with low firearms ownership and high homicide, your correlation stands. All that surprises me is that you feel honest posting this.

[DanTex]

21. We've been over this. The G20 does not select for high human development or per capita GDP.

The G20 includes China, Russia, Saudia Arabia, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Indonesia. Do you honestly think these are good points of comparison? I doubt it.

The G20 is a measure of overall economic power, which is partly based on population size. This is why social scientists don't use the G20 as a criterion for "first world democracies". If you think that economic strength is more important than overall HDI, then at least select based on per capita GDP.

Here's a basic honesty test. Suppose the topic were universal healthcare, rather than guns. Would you be comfortable using countries like Russia, China, and Brazil as points of comparison to the US in healthcare policy versus outcomes? Of course not. And I don't even think that the right-wing think tanks bothered trying this, since it's so transparently absurd.

Again, this is why the peer reviewed literature differs from the gun blogs. You're not going to get a paper published in a reputable journal if you try to claim that comparing the US to Russia, China, Brazil, and Indonesia gives a fair analysis of the effect of gun ownership on homicide.

[Recursion]

24. You have ignored the countries with low firearms ownership and high homicides

Obviously, when you do that, your spurious correlation appears.

[DanTex]

27. I have ignored countries that are not first-world democracies.

I selected by Human Development Index, a well-established and frequently cited criterion in social sciences. I didn't exclude any country based on gun ownership or homicide.

Please, make an argument as to why the G20 is a better selection criterion than HDI or per capita GDP. I want to hear this. Should be good. LOL.



Please explain why Russia, China, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia are better points of comparison than Netherlands, New Zealand, Ireland, Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.

And after that, explain whether you think that Russia and Brazil also prove that universal healthcare results in reduced life expectancy and increased infant mortality. After all, among first-world democracies, the US, with it's lack of universal coverage, lags behind in key demographic statistics. But if you start throwing in countries riddled with poverty and social instability, you can probably get that result to disappear also.

[Robb]

35. I can hear the crickets from here.

[DanTex]

36. I don't know about you, but the first thing that comes to mind for an international comparison

with the US for me is Saudi Arabia. And then Russia. And Mexico, of course. Not to mention Turkey and South Africa and China!

I mean, every expert I know on education policy is closely examining the schools in Russia and Saudi Arabia to figure out how we can improve things here in the US!

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. Ouch...that's going to leave a mark

[BlueCaliDem]

23. K&R

Thanks for the info, DanTex.

[TreasonousBastard]

34. The homicide rate is one thing, but...

isn't homicide defined by a dead victim? Has anyone checked to see if the survival rate from gunshots has increased in over time?

Also, in a country as diverse as the US, shouldn't there be some breakdown by region and population that would help make more sense out of it all?

As a matter of fact, there are lots of such breakdowns, which ask more questions than they answer. Here's one from the DPIC, and while I don't want to derail the conversation to the DP they are simple charts that don't take much time to absorb.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

Why is Louisiana such an outlier with that 11.2% rate, when states like Minnesota and New Hampshire are well under 2%?

And, well, what does that mean in the overall gun debate?

[DanTex]

37. Yes, the survival rate has increased over time

In fact, the rate of injury due to gun assault has been increasing, even while the gun homicide rate has been slowly decreasing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022745525#post10

[TreasonousBastard]

39. A-ha! Missed that in maze of stuff in the thread...

but it does reinforce the idea that the rates of gun assaults should be looked at, even though not as spectacular as gun deaths.

[rrneck]

43. Very interesting.

Do let us know when you are prepared to actually address the problem, won't you?

[LAGC]

53. Indeed. It's easy to identify the problem.

But when it comes to actually fixing it, there are no good solutions.

[XRubicon]

55. I have one, and it doesn't involve registration, magazine sizes or assault weapons bans

That is, add a very large tax on all new guns. Track new guns like we track alcohol production and collect the tax from the gun manufacturer or importer - not the buyer.

You can keep all the guns you have now and buy more if you can afford it.

The result, new guns and guns on the street become much more expensive which will cut demand and over time reduce the total numbers - which means fewer gun deaths.

[gejohnston]

57. actually, we have been since the

1930s. The 11 percent tax has been in place since 1919, and have been ear marked for wildlife habitat restoration etc. since 1937.

[XRubicon]

59. A high tax, like 75 to 100%

Maybe a flat rate per gun, say $500.

[hack89]

60. It would be unconstitutional

if the expressed purpose of the tax would be to reduce gun ownership by making them too expensive.

This is basic constitutional law.

[XRubicon]

61. Nope sorry they did it in 1939 for automatic weapons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

That basic constitutional law thing sounded good though... Nice try.

[hack89]

62. Handguns are specifically protected

read Heller - constitutional law has changed in the past 80 laws. You have a constitutionally protected right to self.defense with a hand gun.

[XRubicon]

63. I think you are confusing rights and taxes...

The constitution doesn't say right to affordable guns.

[hack89]

64. Look up poll taxes.

the law is clear - taxes specifically intended to restrict the exercise of a civil right are unconstitutional.

You can tax guns and ammo - in fact they already are. You cannot tax handguns at an onerous rate specifically to make them unaffordable to the average man.

[XRubicon]

65. Your opinion is not constitutional law

Guns can be and have been in the past taxed to reduce sales.

[hack89]

66. ok nt

[gejohnston]

68. rather classist isn't it?

do you have a problem with middle and working class people sport shooting?

[XRubicon]

69. I have a problem with the number of guns

More guns means more gun deaths.

Get a new hobby...