NationStates Jolt Archive

http://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/5357.html

Abstract

The positive correlation between gun prevalence and homicide rates has been widely documented. But does this correlation reflect a causal relationship? This study seeks to answer the question of whether more guns cause more crime, and unlike nearly all previous such studies, we properly account for the endogeneity of gun ownership levels. We discuss the three main sources of endogeneity bias - reverse causality (higher crime rates lead people to acquire guns for self-protection), mismeasurement of gun levels, and omitted/confounding variables - and show how the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) can provide an empirical researcher with both a clear modeling framework and a set of estimation and specification testing procedures that can address these problems. A county level cross-sectional analysis was performed using data on every US county with a population of at least 25,000 in 1990; the sample covers over 90% of the US population in that year. Gun ownership levels were measured using the percent of suicides committed with guns, which recent research indicates is the best measure of gun levels for cross-sectional research. We apply our procedures to these data, and find strong evidence of the existence of endogeneity problems. When the problem is ignored, gun levels are associated with higher rates of gun homicide; when the problem is addressed, this association disappears or reverses. Our results indicate that gun prevalence has no significant net positive effect on homicide rates: ceteris paribus, more guns do not mean more crime.


Heh heh heh. You've got to love studies whose information is completely open and therefore can be checked for procedural bias and also so you can't say they fudged numbers. Wonder what HCI will say about this.

Errrrr..... rather than your assertion reagrding this in any way relating to an issue of gun CONTROL, if you actually read the text it states:

When the problem is ignored, gun levels are associated with higher rates of gun homicide; when the problem is addressed, this association disappears or reverses. Our results indicate that gun prevalence has no significant net positive effect on homicide rates: ceteris paribus, more guns do not mean more crime.

Gun ownership rates have no revelence to gun control as it speaks nothing towards weapon availability to a person who decides to commit violence. Further, this study only looks at the United States, and as such represents a study of a fairly homogeneous set of regions in matters of gun control legislation.

Indeed, arguably the gun prevalence within the US is immaterial if the central issue you want to discuss is whether changes to gun CONTROL legislation would help keep weapons out of the hands of that cross-section of society who are likely to use them. i.e. - criminals.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/5357.html

Abstract

The positive correlation between gun prevalence and homicide rates has been widely documented. But does this correlation reflect a causal relationship? This study seeks to answer the question of whether more guns cause more crime, and unlike nearly all previous such studies, we properly account for the endogeneity of gun ownership levels. We discuss the three main sources of endogeneity bias - reverse causality (higher crime rates lead people to acquire guns for self-protection), mismeasurement of gun levels, and omitted/confounding variables - and show how the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) can provide an empirical researcher with both a clear modeling framework and a set of estimation and specification testing procedures that can address these problems. A county level cross-sectional analysis was performed using data on every US county with a population of at least 25,000 in 1990; the sample covers over 90% of the US population in that year. Gun ownership levels were measured using the percent of suicides committed with guns, which recent research indicates is the best measure of gun levels for cross-sectional research. We apply our procedures to these data, and find strong evidence of the existence of endogeneity problems. When the problem is ignored, gun levels are associated with higher rates of gun homicide; when the problem is addressed, this association disappears or reverses. Our results indicate that gun prevalence has no significant net positive effect on homicide rates: ceteris paribus, more guns do not mean more crime.

For the kids out there who don't know this, correlations can NEVER prove anything causally. NEVER. If you're of the opinion that they can, you're wrong. Sorry... I never tell people they're wrong, but this is one case in which you would be if you thought this... correlations just don't give you the ability to say A causes B, because it could be the other way around. You need a real experiment (randomized groups with controls, etc, etc) to determine cause. Correlations are just interesting first steps to see where there are relationships.

all i know is that in places like florida, less control is reducing crime, and violent crime has gone up in the UK after heavier handgun laws

i htink it's much closer related to poverty and standar of living then gun control. the motivation i smuch more important than the ability.

The study is automatically biased. By measuring gun ownership rates by suicide rates, it guarantees that every gun it measures was used to commit a violent crime, thus meaning that no matter what its data proves the opposite point it claims it does.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap

Hmm. Can anyone find a similar statistic showing the rate of firearm ownership per head of population? I couldn't find one on that site.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap

Hmm. Can anyone find a similar statistic showing the rate of firearm ownership per head of population? I couldn't find one on that site.

That's an interesting graph.
And before any Americans say, "See? We're not the worst!"
I say, I look at the countries that are worse off, and I wouldn't want to live in any of them, either! :p

The study is automatically biased. By measuring gun ownership rates by suicide rates, it guarantees that every gun it measures was used to commit a violent crime, thus meaning that no matter what its data proves the opposite point it claims it does.
Suicides aren't considered violent crimes, at least not with the statistics used. The reason that the rate of gun usage for suicides in a given area is important is because the gun availability does not change the rate of suicide. People would still kill themselves without the access to the gun. Therefore the percentage of guns used in suicides is a quite accurate measure of general gun availability.

That's an interesting graph.
And before any Americans say, "See? We're not the worst!"
I say, I look at the countries that are worse off, and I wouldn't want to live in any of them, either! :p

Haha, yeah.

This is also an interesting one...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_percap

Gun ownership rates have no revelence to gun control as it speaks nothing towards weapon availability to a person who decides to commit violence. Further, this study only looks at the United States, and as such represents a study of a fairly homogeneous set of regions in matters of gun control legislation.
?...???? Have you actually looked at the variance of gun control legislation in the US, or are you talking out your ass? I'm betting the latter given that gun control in the US goes from outright banning(DC) to a simple felony check(Vermont)

For that matter, did you even comprehend the abstract?

?...???? Have you actually looked at the variance of gun control legislation in the US, or are you talking out your ass? I'm betting the latter given that gun control in the US goes from outright banning(DC) to a simple felony check(Vermont)

For that matter, did you even comprehend the abstract?


Yes. It clearly states that it is attempting to correlate gun OWNERSHIP rates to crime rates, which has little to do with the specifics of most gun CONTROL legislation. Changes to wait times, TYPES of weapons, background checks, etc. are beyond the scope of the study and yet are major parts of most gun control legislations. Further, it only breaks down regions by population and not things like population density (urban vs rural). And finally, by only correlating across the US, your notions as to differences in legislation is largely specious. After all, if you live in a more restictive area you can generally get to a less restrictive state with an hour's drive, and no border controls to get back with your weapon.

But hey, if you think that trying to trend crime stats by equivalencing the number of rifles owned by farmers in Montana for purposes of pest control with the number of automatic handguns in Detroit - and that yu will et a meaningful causal relationship - then go right ahead.

Frankly, I think that most would question the relevance though.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/5357.html




Heh heh heh. You've got to love studies whose information is completely open and therefore can be checked for procedural bias and also so you can't say they fudged numbers. Wonder what HCI will say about this.

And yet, I still wouldn't feel safe if I had to suspect that my neighbour might own one...

Doesn't surprise me. High levels of drug control don't reduce drug abuse. High levels of sex control don't reduce rates of STDs or pregnancy. Prohibition doesn't work, and people who still continue to push such methods ought to read a fucking book for a change.

If you want people to stop killing each other, don't waste your time trying to take away guns or knives or cars or whatever tools they're using to do the killing. Focus on the demand, not the supply.

all i know is that in places like florida, less control is reducing crime, and violent crime has gone up in the UK after heavier handgun laws


Gun laws in the UK havn't changed significently in a very long time. Recent rises in crime have occured as a result of an increase in smuglling.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_percap

Both of those use figures that are eight years old.

Yes. It clearly states that it is attempting to correlate gun OWNERSHIP rates to crime rates, which has little to do with the specifics of most gun CONTROL legislation. Changes to wait times, TYPES of weapons, background checks, etc. are beyond the scope of the study and yet are major parts of most gun control legislations. Further, it only breaks down regions by population and not things like population density (urban vs rural). And finally, by only correlating across the US, your notions as to differences in legislation is largely specious. After all, if you live in a more restictive area you can generally get to a less restrictive state with an hour's drive, and no border controls to get back with your weapon.

But hey, if you think that trying to trend crime stats by equivalencing the number of rifles owned by farmers in Montana for purposes of pest control with the number of automatic handguns in Detroit - and that yu will et a meaningful causal relationship - then go right ahead.

Frankly, I think that most would question the relevance though.

As I thought, there is a reading comprehension problem.

The positive correlation between gun prevalence and homicide rates has been widely documented. But does this correlation reflect a causal relationship?

Not gun ownership. Gun prevalence. Biiiig difference. That's why they used the suicide w/guns percentage to determine how many guns were in an area.

The real reason for falling crime rates is because of Roe vs Wade. The people that would have been contributing to the huge rise in crime were just never born.

One thing you have to adjust for is improvements in medical technology, and in urban areas, paramedic response time. You would expect a gunshot victim's probability of survival to have greatly improved even in the last 15 years.

So looking at murders is insufficient, you have to look at trends in woundings too.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/5357.html




Heh heh heh. You've got to love studies whose information is completely open and therefore can be checked for procedural bias and also so you can't say they fudged numbers. Wonder what HCI will say about this.

Here's a casual relationship:

UK: Loads of gun control, little gun crime.
USA: Little gun control, loads of gun crime.

I struggle to believe that Americans are inately more violent.

Here's a casual relationship:

UK: Loads of gun control, little gun crime.
USA: Little gun control, loads of gun crime.

I struggle to believe that Americans are inately more violent.

Or more accurately:

UK: Loads of gun control, increasing gun crime.
USA: Little gun control (in some areas, draconian in others), decreasing gun crime.

Still want to claim causality?

I struggle to believe that Americans are inately more violent.
They are.

There are widely varying degrees of gun control in other European countries, in some gun ownership is part of a citizen's military obligations. The gun violence statistics are negligible compared to those in the US, or to use another example, South Africa.

Empirical evidence appears to suggest that some cultures are intrinsically more violent.

Or more accurately:

UK: Loads of gun control, increasing gun crime.
USA: Little gun control (in some areas, draconian in others), decreasing gun crime.

Still want to claim causality?
Actually, the increase in UK gun crime can be traced back to the collapse of illegal gun prices (roughly by a factor of 3) in the aftermath of the liberation of Kosovo. Most illegal guns on the streets of the UK are sourced through the Balkans, particularly Croatia, and the 1999 war opened the doors to a new set of operators.

In the US, as I already stated, if looking at gun deaths alone, you have to consider improvements in medical provision.

Or more accurately:

UK: Loads of gun control, increasing gun crime.
USA: Little gun control (in some areas, draconian in others), decreasing gun crime.

Still want to claim causality?

That isnt more accurate

The UK gun laws have not changed signifiently for a very long time. We havent been able to own firearms in public for far far longer than the recent increasing gun crime. The US still has 70% of its homicides gun caused, the UK has 6% and the US has a 14 times higher murder rate than the UK per 1000

And despite the police's inefficiency to do anything about those murders...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_bel_in_pol_eff

89%? Where did all the conspiracy theorists go?

For the kids out there who don't know this, correlations can NEVER prove anything causally. NEVER. If you're of the opinion that they can, you're wrong. Sorry... I never tell people they're wrong, but this is one case in which you would be if you thought this... correlations just don't give you the ability to say A causes B, because it could be the other way around. You need a real experiment (randomized groups with controls, etc, etc) to determine cause. Correlations are just interesting first steps to see where there are relationships.

You are correct in saying that correlation does not imply causation. You can infer causation within specific parameters using further statistical analysis(such as ANOVA). Also, you do not need an experiment to find causation if, as in the case of this study, you use data from an entire population rather than just a random sample. Such large studies are often impractical, but when considering suicide rates by cause of death and their relation to homicide rates by cause of death, you can reasonably perform a good metanalysis.

That isnt more accurate

The UK gun laws have not changed signifiently for a very long time. We havent been able to own firearms in public for far far longer than the recent increasing gun crime. The US still has 70% of its homicides gun caused, the UK has 6% and the US has a 14 times higher murder rate than the UK per 1000

It's not more accurate? So you're saying that UK gun crime is decreasing? or that the US's is increasing?

Actually, the increase in UK gun crime can be traced back to the collapse of illegal gun prices (roughly by a factor of 3) in the aftermath of the liberation of Kosovo. Most illegal guns on the streets of the UK are sourced through the Balkans, particularly Croatia, and the 1999 war opened the doors to a new set of operators.

In the US, as I already stated, if looking at gun deaths alone, you have to consider improvements in medical provision.

I know, I'm not claiming causality, just showing how making the claim can be shown false fairly easily.

As I thought, there is a reading comprehension problem.



Not gun ownership. Gun prevalence. Biiiig difference. That's why they used the suicide w/guns percentage to determine how many guns were in an area.


That is a very interesting semantic hair you are trying to split given that gun prevalence equates to gun ownership (or - if you prefer - possession), except that it includes those weapons owned (or possessed) in contravention of statute.

So, using this odd notion, you are already including those weapons obtained in contravention of gun control legislation (which I mentioned was too damned easy in the US anyway) and thus completely dissassociates this study from ANY correlation to gun CONTROL.

Because as much as you state that this is what the study is about, there is still no mention of gun control legislation in the study. Only prevalence - which is a far more drastic semantic distance from control than it is from ownership.

Now, if they put together an international study using this methodology they might be able to derive some trend with merit that might be used to develop crime-prevention strategies. As it is, it is far too simplistic to be meaningful. Even most gun control advocates don't assume that single-subject focused legislation will change things on it's own, but rather must be part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce crime. Indeed, looking at any one single factor and assuming that it will be a simple and autonomous solution is specious to anyone with half a brain, which is why studies such as this are generally useless.

gun prevalence is not the only determining factor.

Duh.

However your extrapolation that this somehow demonstrates that enhanced security of the gun market wouldn't help when used in concert with other initiatives is a lousy application of logic also.

However your extrapolation that this somehow demonstrates that enhanced security of the gun market wouldn't help when used in concert with other initiatives is a lousy application of logic also.As has been noted earlier, prohibition DOES NOT WORK. You are claiming it does. Point out to me a single instance in history when it wasn't in a totalitarian state that prohibition of ANYTHING that is cheap and relatively easy to make/aquire elsewhere in the world and also rather small worked. Hell, it didn't even work in most totalitarian states. Your logic is the one that is highly flawed. We can't even secure our borders against shipments of people, how the hell are we supposed to stop the flow of guns? How are we supposed to collect all of the legal and illegal guns again? It's impossible. Hell, even if we had a police state like in V for Vendetta as large as the US it would be impossible. Quit bitching about my logic until you can come up with backing for your own.

As has been noted earlier, prohibition DOES NOT WORK. You are claiming it does. Point out to me a single instance in history when it wasn't in a totalitarian state that prohibition of ANYTHING that is cheap and relatively easy to make/aquire elsewhere in the world and also rather small worked. Hell, it didn't even work in most totalitarian states. Your logic is the one that is highly flawed. We can't even secure our borders against shipments of people, how the hell are we supposed to stop the flow of guns? How are we supposed to collect all of the legal and illegal guns again? It's impossible. Hell, even if we had a police state like in V for Vendetta as large as the US it would be impossible. Quit bitching about my logic until you can come up with backing for your own.


Here's a better idea.

How about you point to where I said that prohibition would work!

You seem to be going to great lengths to expound on a supposed position of mine, which is all well and good except that I have never stated it to be my position. A misdirected rant if you will.

All I have said is that your assertion that a domestic study of gun PREVALENCE as it relates to crimecan be extrapolated as being somehow indicitive that gun CONTROL has no bearing on crime is a totally unsupported statement.

Gun control is, after all, not mentioned in the study.


For example, one state may have more exhaustive background checks as part of their legislation than another. However due to an existing gang problem in the more restrictive state (which was why the legislation was enacted), many law-abiding citizens are willing to go through that check as they feel the need to protect themselves. Meanwhile the laxer state has a pre-existing lower crime rate and so fewer people feel the need for self-protection. Under this simple scenario there might very well be identical gun prevalence levels between the two, and yet a reasonable person would assume that the gun control legislation in and of itself would not have cured the gang problem - as such we do not expect the crime rates to suddenly be the same between them.

A very simple scenario where your assertion that prevalence equates to control as a meaningful measure falls flat on it's ass.

Doesn't surprise me. High levels of drug control don't reduce drug abuse. High levels of sex control don't reduce rates of STDs or pregnancy. Prohibition doesn't work, and people who still continue to push such methods ought to read a fucking book for a change.

If you want people to stop killing each other, don't waste your time trying to take away guns or knives or cars or whatever tools they're using to do the killing. Focus on the criminal demand, not the supply.
YAY! Cookie for Bottle!

I have quite a bit of demand for guns... more than my budget can handle - even though I just bought $900 worth of rifles today... Oh well. Could be worse. I could have a Corvette fetish...

Not gun ownership. Gun prevalence. Biiiig difference. That's why they used the suicide w/guns percentage to determine how many guns were in an area.
If anything, guns are LESS prevelant than they were 50-80 years ago. Hell, before Urban Renewal, I would venture to guess that the ratio of gun owners was 2-3 times what it is now. (digging for data...)

For example, one state may have more exhaustive background checks as part of their legislation than another. However due to an existing gang problem in the more restrictive state (which was why the legislation was enacted), many law-abiding citizens are willing to go through that check as they feel the need to protect themselves. Meanwhile the laxer state has a pre-existing lower crime rate and so fewer people feel the need for self-protection. Under this simple scenario there might very well be identical gun prevalence levels between the two, and yet a reasonable person would assume that the gun control legislation in and of itself would not have cured the gang problem - as such we do not expect the crime rates to suddenly be the same between them.

A very simple scenario where your assertion that prevalence equates to control as a meaningful measure falls flat on it's ass.Except in the study that was done, the reverse causality of people aquiring guns strictly for defense was taken into account and compensated for. There still wasn't any causality between higher gun prevalence and higher homicide rates.

If anything, guns are LESS prevelant than they were 50-80 years ago. Hell, before Urban Renewal, I would venture to guess that the ratio of gun owners was 2-3 times what it is now. (digging for data...)
Look for stats concerning mainly handguns and i doubt that's the case. Longarms maybe, but probably not handguns.

Look for stats concerning mainly handguns and i doubt that's the case. Longarms maybe, but probably not handguns.
Ah. True. I remember the era where if you didn't have at least a .30-30 Lever or at a double shotgun people began looking for your dancing slippers... ;)

Both of those use figures that are eight years old.

Even so, I doubt that the murder rate in the UK (for example) has tripled in that time. I'd try and find more up to date figures, but...i'm lazy. :p

It's not more accurate? So you're saying that UK gun crime is decreasing? or that the US's is increasing?

The UK's gun crime is increasing, but not as a result of gun laws changing. Since the gun laws have not changed significently in a rather long time. Gun crime has been rising recently due to smugling. And in any case, while it is increasing, this should be put in perspective with the ammount of gun crime the US has, compared to the UK. The fact is that per 1000 people, we still have far less.

Doesn't surprise me. High levels of drug control don't reduce drug abuse. High levels of sex control don't reduce rates of STDs or pregnancy. Prohibition doesn't work, and people who still continue to push such methods ought to read a fucking book for a change.

If you want people to stop killing each other, don't waste your time trying to take away guns or knives or cars or whatever tools they're using to do the killing. Focus on the demand, not the supply.


Exactly, all you are doing is taking caugh syrup for the flu.

Nothing ever does.

However, you realize that the same arguments being made against prohibition, which essentially boil down to "People are gonna do it anyway" can be applied to absolutely anything?

Why prohibit rape? It's not like the laws will stop it.
Why prohibit murder? Criminals will still murder.
Why prohbit speeding? Just about everybody still does.

You do not prohibit something to cure the social ill, only an naive idiot would assume that's possible, and only somebody with an axe to grind would assume that's what a prohibitionist is assuming.

You prohibit something to reflect that it is not socially acceptable, and those doing it do so at the risk of suffering the punishment that society deems appropriate.

The prohibition of alchohol didn't work at all because drinking actually was socially acceptable, it was just a very loud lobby group that convinced the government that it wasn't.

When prohibition is a reflection of the general feelings of society, it tends to work.

Nothing ever does.

However, you realize that the same arguments being made against prohibition, which essentially boil down to "People are gonna do it anyway" can be applied to absolutely anything?

Why prohibit rape? It's not like the laws will stop it.
Why prohibit murder? Criminals will still murder.
Why prohbit speeding? Just about everybody still does.

You do not prohibit something to cure the social ill, only an naive idiot would assume that's possible, and only somebody with an axe to grind would assume that's what a prohibitionist is assuming.

You prohibit something to reflect that it is not socially acceptable, and those doing it do so at the risk of suffering the punishment that society deems appropriate.

The prohibition of alchohol didn't work at all because drinking actually was socially acceptable, it was just a very loud lobby group that convinced the government that it wasn't.

When prohibition is a reflection of the general feelings of society, it tends to work.


Psst. Murder and rape harm people. Owning a gun does not. The cost of a draconian gun ban in freedoms far outweighs any benefit reaped from it.

I wanted to comment a little on the abstract that started off this discussion. First, it is hard to draw conclusions from an abstract. I once read an abstract that claimed that the authors had produced cold fusion. It wasn't until the rest of the world tried to replicate the experiment, that it was discovered to be an error. But the interesting thing in this abstract aren't the unsupported conclusions. It's the GMM method of statistical modeling.

I didn't read a whole lot about GMM, but it seems that the authors are mainly trying to make the case that it works to eliminate endogeneity in large amounts of empirical data. Maybe so, maybe not. It's not something that can be determined from the abstract alone. From what I can remember about the terms endogeneity and sample bias, they seem interchangeable, but are not. It's all about how you view the problem.

It seems like the only clear conclusion one can draw from the abstract is that these guys think endogeneity is a problem that biases studies on numbers of guns in the population and how that relates to the number of homicides.

In other words, this is just a bunch more drivel from some economists that need to publish to make their department heads happy.

all i know is that in places like florida, less control is reducing crime, and violent crime has gone up in the UK after heavier handgun laws

i htink it's much closer related to poverty and standar of living then gun control. the motivation i smuch more important than the ability.

Whilst i do agree with your second paragraph, i think it would be foolish to claim that heavier handgun laws have increased violent crime in the UK. Simple point - when there's a drive-by shooting in the UK, it's national news (the last i can remember, the whole "Burger Bar Boys" fracas in Birmingham last year). In the states, it's barely local news. Just because the states is bigger? Nah. It's national news BECAUSE IT'S SO RARE.

Gun control works.

Whilst i do agree with your second paragraph, i think it would be foolish to claim that heavier handgun laws have increased violent crime in the UK. Simple point - when there's a drive-by shooting in the UK, it's national news (the last i can remember, the whole "Burger Bar Boys" fracas in Birmingham last year). In the states, it's barely local news. Just because the states is bigger? Nah. It's national news BECAUSE IT'S SO RARE.

Gun control works.

That's funny, it is not how the BBC has put it.

That's funny, it is not how the BBC has put it.

Ok, quote me the gun related crime stats for the US and the UK over the past 10 years, or over the past 20, or over the past 30. I'd be surprised if - yanno, per head rather than just number - the US isn't vastly ahead, even after 30 years of social divisiveness and deliberate impoverishment in the UK.

That's funny, it is not how the BBC has put it.

Oh, I figure you will be asking me about sources.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4204843.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3737662.stm
Alittle dated but:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm


The thing is, it is unfortunate that you have these issues with guns. However, when you do have a ban as in the UK the criminals do have guns and do use them. Even to disregard the protection arguement, I feel for those who keep them to collect and target shoot with them. They just had a hobby taken away all over public fear.

Ok, quote me the gun related crime stats for the US and the UK over the past 10 years, or over the past 20, or over the past 30. I'd be surprised if - yanno, per head rather than just number - the US isn't vastly ahead, even after 30 years of social divisiveness and deliberate impoverishment in the UK.
Do general violence levels over the past 300 and you'll find that the US has continually had a generally higher violence level than the UK. Guns don't even enter the picture. The difference is that Britain is fast becoming more violent than the US in many places. Not in homicides perhaps, but you are more likely to be mugged in London than in Chicago or New York.

Ok, quote me the gun related crime stats for the US and the UK over the past 10 years, or over the past 20, or over the past 30. I'd be surprised if - yanno, per head rather than just number - the US isn't vastly ahead, even after 30 years of social divisiveness and deliberate impoverishment in the UK.

I was replying to your statement that gun crimes in the UK was rare sence they have been increasing. Give me a few minutes and I will have some numbers for you.

I was replying to your statement that gun crimes in the UK was rare sence they have been increasing. Give me a few minutes and I will have some numbers for you.

Yeah, well, 10 a year to 100 a year is a shocking increase...

but it's still only 100 a year.

See my point?

Well, I gotta head to work...

The preliminary numbers I have are...

UK pop:
60,441,457

UK gun murders: 852

US pop:
295,734,134

US homicides: 10,000

One challenge that I have ran into was the UK uses a different system to number this. I'll come back to it when I get time after work tonight.

Oh, the sources for this came from the BBC page I had perviously posted...
US homicide rate sence 1960.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm

Homicide by weapon in US:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

For the record, the Aussies are knocking us to the dirt on this one. Before thier ban they had around 400 homicides/yr and that dropped 50 when they put the ban in place.