Combating anti-gun arguments. Statistics regarding "violent crime rates"

K

Kimio

New member
A common argument that I see from both sides is the comparison between heavily anti gun countries and the US in regards to their violent crime statistics.

I remember my brother stating thar if we're comparing violent crimes (which include all other weaponry) America is still higher than comparable 1st world countries, and that gun related crime is much higher here than it is in countries like the UK and Australia.

When I'd argue against that, he would say we're not comparing violent crime rates, we're comparing strictly gun related crimes. I'm not quite sure how to go about combating this argument.

Naturally, seeing as we have more firearms here in the states, we would have an increase in firearms related deaths and crimes. However our rates regarding knife crimes are lower or comparable to other countries if I'm not mistaken.

What other points can I bring to bear when confronted with this talking point regarding gun control?
 
Well, one thing you might research (so you will have some facts to argue with) is how other nations report their crimes.

Several sources have reported how England has, in the last few years "fudged" their figures to deliberately under report the increase in gun crime that has occurred since they effectively banned legal self defense and gun ownership.

On the other side of the world, in Japan, it has been widely known for some time, but never officially acknowledged that a certain category of crime wasn't even listed as a crime until very recently. Essentially due to the stresses of their society, a man flipping out and killing his family, and then himself (with a knife or sword) was such a common thing, culturally, that it wasn't even put in the statistics until fairly recently, and I don't know if they list it as murder, even today.

What I am saying is that the "statistics" about other countries can be as flawed as the BS crap the anti gunners use for statistics from the US.

And, why bother to limit things to the "first world"? Gun crime in the Middle East appears to be a national pastime, when they aren't using swords to behead people, or burn them alive.

If you look at their actual LAWS, gun ownership in those nations is much more legally restricted than it is in the USA. But their level of violence is much higher, with, and without guns. One might also look at Mexican gun laws, and the peaceful stable society they have there....

Its about a lot more than just guns, or gun control laws. A lot more.


These are just a couple things, there are lots of others.
 
Many times they are comparing "countries" that aren't as large as some of our states

While some crime rates may seem "high" they all tend to be lower than they were in the past, even though there are now far more guns.

If guns were the cause, that couldn't be true
 
Well, one thing you might research (so you will have some facts to argue with) is how other nations report their crimes.
Click to expand...

Reporting is always an issue, and there is some evidence that some UK and US departments systematically underreport because there is political pressure to show a reduction in crime.

I like to try to get a picture of the whole elephant rather than its isolated parts. That can be particularly difficult where the presented stats aren't intended to give a full picture.

Two countries that are most often compared for this purpose are Canada and the UK. A striking aspect of those stats are the quite high assault and occupied home invasion rates.

With the exception of the Atlantic region, no other region of Canada has burglary rates as low as the US as a whole. In some regions (Ontario, Prairies and BC) burglary looks to be almost twice the US rate.

http://champpenal.revues.org/448

These are the sorts of crimes in which one might be more likely to engage if he believes that his target is not efficiently armed or well defended.

Are there more firearms deaths in the US on a per capita basis? Apparently. Are the US figures disaggregated by firearms uses not prosecuted, and those that are criminal? If you shoot someone who enters your home while you and your family are in it, and your shooting is included as a homicide, then the US report of homocides by firearm will reflect both a social problem and a social benefit.

The number itself isn't tremendously informative.
 
Last edited:
I've found it difficult to debate this with most, as most people in the Antigun crowd just resort to name calling and insults... Lol, usually I sign that they can't counter your argument... Most now just use the "tin foil hat" as a counter measure against freedom loving individuals... Or terrorist... Or constitutionalist...


Ok back to the matter at hand.
It is very common for under reporting of crime to happen in the US, especially on the local level... Lower crime means better place to live and spend money, generate tax revenue and such... Keep property values high... Make the city look like Mayberry
Also crime is under reported for political reasons...
Also it's rare that the defensive use of a firearm gets reported at all, especially in the media.

But I've talked to many officers that will tell citizens to arm themselves. Funny thing is; I've never solicited this response from any officer. Any time I've heard this from an officer, it was their suggestion and not because anything I've asked...
I've also had them thank me for carrying a handgun.

Now, when someone makes a stupid mistake whith a firearm... The media will ride that pony till it dies from old age
 
I've found it difficult to debate this with most, as most people in the Antigun crowd just resort to name calling and insults.
Click to expand...
They don't want a debate. They run the risk of losing face. There's no point to engaging them directly.

The people we need to engage are those who are undecided or on the fence.
 
There are fun things to do.

Let's say, for purposes of discussion, that all reporting and statistical processes applied to reported data are equally good.

Let's play with WISQARS, http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/dataRestriction_inj.html

WISQARS tells us that, for 2013, there were 16,121 homicides in the US, for about 316 million people, giving a rate of 5.10 / 100,000 people. (Note that US usage is to report rates per hundred thousand population while European practice usually is to report rates per one thousand population.)

Let's have WISQARS split that by firearm/non-firearm

Firearm rate: 3.55/100,000
Non-firearm rate: 1.55/100,000

Now, when the 'gun violence' assertion is made, compare our 1.55/100,000 non-firearm murder rate to whatever country's firearm murder or total murder rate - and point out that the US rate without firearms is still greater.

That's nothing to be proud of, of course, but it demonstrates that 'guns' are not the problem.

And, before you engage in such conversations, please set your own expectations - please read More Statistics, Less Persuasion: A Cultural Theory of Gun-Risk Perceptions, which you can download here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=286205.

Short summary - you're probably wasting your time with most people.
 
Librarian said:
...when the 'gun violence' assertion is made, compare our 1.55/100,000 non-firearm murder rate to whatever country's firearm murder or total murder rate - and point out that the US rate without firearms is still greater.

That's nothing to be proud of, of course, but it demonstrates that 'guns' are not the problem.
Click to expand...
This hits the nail on the head. Additionally, IMHO it's important to stress three inexorably related points:
  • Close examination of U.S. violent crime rates (as opposed to purely technical and statutory 'gun crimes', e.g. simple possession by a felon) suggests that the country does not have a society-wide gun crime problem or even a violent crime problem; the U.S.A. more specifically has a problem with members of certain demographic groups committing violent acts, mostly against members of their own group, at appallingly high rates. This suggests that the root cause is more closely related to social inequality rather than comparatively lax firearms laws.
  • An often implicit (sometimes explicit) assumption behind U.S. gun control efforts is that overall violent crime will drop if strict gun laws are enacted. (Take the WISQARS stats; the rosy assumption is that the murders in the "Gun" column will magically not happen at all.) However, when and where strict gun control has been tried, evidence that a reduction in crime has actually taken place has been ambiguous to nonexistent. Violent criminals have switched to nongun methods, ignored the laws, and/or switched to other types of violent crime less likely to result in firearms charges.
  • Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the U.S.A. has a culture of gun ownership. Compliance with a widespread European-style ban will be low, and the law(s) will be seen as illegitimate by a substantial percentage of the population. Consequently, it will take decades, if not generations, to actually lower firearms ownership rates to European-like levels, if it happens at all. In the meantime, violent gun crime rates will likely remain high, and statutory violations will almost certainly increase sharply.
 
Here is something I put together a few years back, it has plenty of links that can aid in getting current numbers. Typically when you start putting out these types of hard factual numbers they don't like to play anymore. And just for fun you could probably find the corresponding results of all listed causes of death below in the UK for some real comparison.

What the left does not want you to know about gun deaths

Number of deaths for leading causes of death per CDC 2010
1 Heart disease: 597,689
2 Cancer: 574,743
3 Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
4 Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
5 Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
6 Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
7 Diabetes: 69,071
8 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
9 Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
10 Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm
Note: Firearm related deaths are not in the top ten.

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
• Number of deaths: 33,687
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 31,672 .0105% of the population died from a firearm in 2010 this includes homicide, suicide and accidental
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

All homicides
• Number of deaths per CDC: 16,259
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
• Number of deaths per FBI UCR 13,164
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8


Firearm homicides
• Number of deaths per CDC: 11,078
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
• Number of deaths per FBI UCR: 8,874
• Rifle 367
• Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) 549
• Almost 1.5 times more likely to be killed by blunt object than a rifle
• Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet) 769
• 2 times more likely to be killed by personal weapons than a rifle
• Knives 1,732
• 4.7 times more likely to be killed by a knife than a rifle
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Unintentional fall deaths
• Number of deaths: 26,009
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/acc-inj.htm

Poisoning deaths
All poisoning deaths
• Number of deaths: 42,917

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Unintentional poisoning deaths
• Number of deaths: 33,041
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/acc-inj.htm

Comparisons

• You are almost 3 times more likely to die by an unintentional fall than be murdered by a firearm.
o Prevention: 40 hour safety class for ladder use certification with a mandatory 10 hour annual refresher class.
• You are 3.7 times more likely to die by unintentional poisoning than be murdered by a firearm
• You are 5.6 times more likely to die by Influenza and Pneumonia than be murdered by a firearm.
o Prevention: Everyone should be mandated to get annual Flue shots or be subject to fines.
• You are 13.6 times more likely to die by unintentional injuries than be murdered by a firearm.
o Prevention: If you are a person who is accident prone all activities should require government oversight and permission.
• You are more than 67 times more likely to die of heart disease than be murdered by a firearm.
o Prevention: 10 day waiting period on all fast food after a complete physical proving you are in sound physical shape.
o Also glucose level must be checked at point of sale for purchase of any sugary drink or food.
o Any person deemed obese will be charged criminally.


Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
Murder Victims
by Weapon, 2007–2011
see link below

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
 
Last edited:
I would avoid stats where possible. I find them less than useful.

For a start, any scientist will tell you the fundamental principle of a good experiment is repeatability with identical conditions where only your parameter of interest is the variable.
None of that exists when comparing different countries, even if they seem outwardly the same. Different, culture, socio-economic problems, demographics, history, population density, political system, legal system, crime reporting rates. The list goes on and they can all affect the outcome.

Secondly, statistics saying that you are less likely to suffer a home invasion in your country than another are not much comfort when they kick your door down.

In that respect, opting for the stats argument will always fail the pro-gun perspective because people carry guns for precisely when the stats are not on their side and they one of the unlucky "6.8 per 100,000" for that year.

Better to give them real world scenarios that they can relate to: they're walking home at night, or stopped at the lights, or locking up from work.

They are approached by a pair, their girlfriend/child/relative is with them etc. they can run and abandon their company or stay and see what happens. They give the aggressors what they want, but....

Do the thugs want more? Are they in control of their faculties, or high? Do they have a tendency for sex-crimes? Are they drunk?

Then tell the person you are debating that they are not the person they are but a lightly built young woman, or a person in a wheelchair, or someone with a dodgy lower back (like me this week).
Ask them, given these people have no qualms about stealing your belongings and hurting you to get them, whether they'd feel confident trusting in these muggers' sense of right and wrong in order to escape the encounter intact and healthy.

All these things put doubt in a person's mind (as indeed they should) that they could manage a situation as they'd like to imagine and they they often start to realise that having a gun would be a mighty big comfort and could level that very uneven field.

I once was chatting to a state prosecutor and this topic came up. With scenarios that I described these immortal words passed her lips: "Hmmm, that's true. I hadn't thought of that!"
:D
 
Last edited:
DPI7800 said:
Here is something I put together a few years back, it has plenty of links that can aid in getting current numbers. Typically when you start putting out these types of hard factual numbers they don't like to play anymore.
...
• Number of [firearms] deaths per CDC: 11,078
• Number of [firearms] deaths per FBI UCR: 8,874
...
Comparisons

• You are almost 3 times more likely to die by an unintentional fall than be murdered by a firearm.
o Prevention: 40 hour safety class for ladder use certification with a mandatory 10 hour annual refresher class.
Click to expand...
The underlying problem with the "number crunching" approach is that it's dependent on the personal morals and values of the person examining the data. Life is inherently dangerous, and people constantly make conscious or unconscious risk assessments during their daily routines, from driving, climbing ladders, using chainsaws, to handling potentially dangerous household chemicals. However, a car, a motorcycle, a chainsaw, or a bottle of bleach has obvious utility, and people make a value-based judgment that the dangers associated with using the item are outweighed by the utility of traveling to work or school quickly, cutting away excess brush, or cleaning the laundry.

The issue is that firearms are inherently and unavoidably dangerous, and have limited utility for tasks outside of killing things. ("Sporting" use, namely punching paper or breaking clays, is inexorably tied to training for more efficient lethal use.) Furthermore, even speaking from the perspective of someone who heartily believes that civilian ownership and defensive use of firearms is justified, IMHO 8,000-11,000 annual firearms deaths is far too many, and I wish there were an easy way to lower that figure. OTOH if someone believes that using firearms is NOT justifiable, the figure is outrageous, irregardless of the fact that more people may be killed each year by bathtubs!

This is the reason I feel that it's more productive to explain WHY I feel that personal defensive firearms ownership is justified, rather than trying to bludgeon people with statistics showing that firearms aren't that dangerous- just "kinda" dangerous. (+1 James Pond, BTW.) I find the number-crunching approach to be disingenuous and overly subjective.
 
I have also always liked the basic question, WHY DO WE HAVE POLICE?

(hint, its not just to give out parking tickets)

No matter how they frame the answer, it has to include the admission that there is evil in the world. (Evil being defined as someone who will hurt/kill you because they want to. )

WHY DO THEY CALL THE POLICE?

Quite simply, the police have guns! (and if they want to point out that the famous British "Bobbies" don't have guns, point out that yes, in fact they do, and while I a "kinder gentler age" they didn't carry them walking their beats, today, they do.)

There are also the various slogans, choose wisely, some are less than "politically correct".

One I always liked is "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".

Ask them a how their mother is. As them how she would deal with a 19yr old (or a 17yr old "child") 240lb who thinks the "funnest thing is to give them a beat down." OR rape them. Mom might not choose to have a gun, it's her choice. But she should HAVE that choice, not have it made for her by a law.
 
I have a story that I won't tell..

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".
Click to expand...

.... I know from experience that a touch screen phone will not work when covered in your own blood... You can't dial 911 believe me

I have ceased anti-gun arguments with that one.
 
The first step in any scientic experiement is to "isolate the variables".

You cannot compare crime rates from one country to another, or one location to another unless the number of guns is the ONLY difference between the two.

Most crime rate comparisons that like to focus on guns, totally ignore all the factors that make people in one location more likely to commit gun crimes than people in another location as though guns are the only variable that is different.

If you compare US cities, the stats would indicate that overall, the areas with the highest gun crimes, have the strictest gun laws. Does this mean that gun laws cause gun violence, does it mean places with higher crime enact stricter gun laws, or does it mean that cultures that favor gun control are more violent?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top