View Single Post
      02-12-2013, 04:01 AM   #45
scorcherjf
Captain
 
scorcherjf's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 135i
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: NJ

Posts: 767
iTrader: (2)

Garage List
2008 135i  [0.00]
The problem with looking at a statistic like homicides per firearm is the issue of people with multiple firearms. Most people I know with guns own more than one so this biases the figure downwards lessening the severity. For example if you compared two hypothetical countries each with only 2 people. Country 1 has 2 guns owned by one person and murders the other person in the country that would equate to 1 homicide per 2 guns or 0.5 homicides per gun. Country 2 has 1 gun owned by one person and murders the other person in their country which equates to 1 murder per firearm. Both countries experienced the same murder rate per capita but one has half the rate of homicides per firearm because of multiple firearm ownership. You can't just look at the firearm because someone has to use one to murder someone else but only one - you can't murder someone with more than one gun... at least statistically lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP0WER View Post
i believe you may be missing his point. Of the UK, Australia, Switzerland and Mexico; the only one close to having the same social economic deficiencies as the US, resulting in poverty and violence is mexico.

Also, it should be noted, since most who are for gun control believe less guns will result in less gun deaths. When you compare gun homicides to the number of guns in countries, the US has about 38 other countries ahead of it.

If guns are the problem and more guns equal more of a problem then looking at the data in this fashion is applicable. For the most part Homicides per gun coincides with homicides per 100,000 residents. There are some anomalies though. Take Columbia with 51.77 firearm homicides per 100k. They only have 5900 guns per 100k which totals .008775 firearm homicides per gun. Drop to Mexico with 9.88 firearm homicides per 100k. They only have 15,000 guns per 100k which totals .000659 firearm homicides per gun. Australia has the same number of guns per 100k as Mexico, but only have .44 firearm homicides per 100k which gives them only .000029 firearm homicides per gun. The US has 4.14 firearm homicides per 100k but with 88000 guns per 100k that puts us at .000047 firearm homicides per gun. As a side note, the place largely regarded to be the safest place to live in regards to gun violence, Japan only has .02 firearm homicides per 100k. Yet with only 600 guns per 100k that gives them .000033 firearm homicides per gun. Only 5 spots lower than the US.

This bit of data seems to be excluded in all gun homicide comparisons. But when you include it, and you must if your argument is more guns equal more deaths, it paints a pretty different story. Of the 38 countries that rank above the US in Homicides per gun, 23 of them have a lower homicide per 100k figure than the US.

Another interesting fact about homicides per gun is that the 22 countries ranked lower than the US on average represent 20,000 guns per 100k while the 38 countries ranked higher than the US on average only have 10,000 guns per 100k.


I'm not saying that some logical, meaningful changes won't help us get our numbers down. However, the facts seem to contradict the per capita myth that more guns = more gun homicides. And no one seems to care about the facts.
__________________
scorcherjf is offline  
0
Reply With Quote