Here's a link providing a nice compilation of per capita gun ownership around the world.
A few high gun-crime countries have high rates of private gun ownership (like the US), but many low-gun crime countries have high rates of private ownership (Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Germany, Iceland, Oman, Bahrain, New Zealand, ...). It's noteworthy that in many of the very high gun-ownership countries with low gun-crime rates most of the guns privately owned are rifles-- almost certainly largely of the semi-automatic type, which are very common hunting and sporting rifles. The widespread availability of semi-automatic rifles in these low gun-nations (in Switzerland all able-bodied males are required to have assault rifles in their homes) refutes the gun control lobby's claim that the availability of such weapons is a major cause of gun crime.
Two clear trends emerge from the data.
First, most of the 'gun control utopias' cited by gun control advocates (e.g Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, etc) actually have very high private gun ownership rates-- in the top 10% of the world.
Because those countries also have substantial gun control of pistols, most of their privately held guns are rifles, many of which would be semi-automatic.
Second, it seems to me that a glance at the top 10% of private gun ownership and the bottom 10% of gun ownership show a rather significant disparity in political freedom. There is a clear trend: more private gun ownership, more political freedom.
So when you look at the data, instead of the moral preening, private gun ownership doesn't seem to correlate with gun violence, but does correlate with political freedom.
Consider:
Mexico has perhaps the most stringent gun control laws in the world-- all private sales of guns are banned. Its rate of private gun ownership is one-sixth that of the US, and is one half that of Finland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Austria, and Germany.
Is gun crime a problem in Mexico?
A few high gun-crime countries have high rates of private gun ownership (like the US), but many low-gun crime countries have high rates of private ownership (Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Germany, Iceland, Oman, Bahrain, New Zealand, ...). It's noteworthy that in many of the very high gun-ownership countries with low gun-crime rates most of the guns privately owned are rifles-- almost certainly largely of the semi-automatic type, which are very common hunting and sporting rifles. The widespread availability of semi-automatic rifles in these low gun-nations (in Switzerland all able-bodied males are required to have assault rifles in their homes) refutes the gun control lobby's claim that the availability of such weapons is a major cause of gun crime.
Two clear trends emerge from the data.
First, most of the 'gun control utopias' cited by gun control advocates (e.g Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, etc) actually have very high private gun ownership rates-- in the top 10% of the world.
Because those countries also have substantial gun control of pistols, most of their privately held guns are rifles, many of which would be semi-automatic.
Second, it seems to me that a glance at the top 10% of private gun ownership and the bottom 10% of gun ownership show a rather significant disparity in political freedom. There is a clear trend: more private gun ownership, more political freedom.
So when you look at the data, instead of the moral preening, private gun ownership doesn't seem to correlate with gun violence, but does correlate with political freedom.
Consider:
Mexico has perhaps the most stringent gun control laws in the world-- all private sales of guns are banned. Its rate of private gun ownership is one-sixth that of the US, and is one half that of Finland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Austria, and Germany.
Is gun crime a problem in Mexico?
I love when gun advocates bring up Switzerland. Yes, Switzerland has a high rate of gun ownership, but gun advocates forget some very critical factors:
ReplyDelete1. The guns are issued, but ammunition is not. The sale of ammunition is highly regulated. It is available for purchase at shooting ranges, but it must be used on site and may not be taken home.
2. The guns must be kept properly stored and are regularly inspected in homes to make sure that no unauthorized use has taken place.
3. To carry guns anywhere, one must have a proper permit. Members of the service can carry their service guns to and from their barracks and shooting ranges. Other than that, a permit showing a need to carry a gun must be acquired.
And so on. What gun advocates leave out of their "everybody in Switzerland has a gun" arguments is that those guns are heavily regulated, and their use is heavily restricted. If the U.S. had similar restrictions on the use of its guns, I don't think gun control advocates would have a problem with gun ownership, but gun advocates would scream about their rights being infringed.
So regulating the sale of ammo is highly effective in stopping gun violence, even if every home has a fully automatic military assault rifle?
DeleteWhy then do you advocate for gun control, rather than ammo control?
I mean it's almost like you want to make a pointless preening gesture, rather than do something that you honestly believe works?
And you didn't address the point of my post. Why is it that private gun ownership has no real correlation with gun violence?
DeleteWhy is it that the nations that gun-phobics cite for low gun crime tend to cluster in the top 10% of per-capita private gun ownership rates in the world?
Dr. Egnor,
DeleteAre you really that dumb or do you merely pretend not to understand that an assault rifle without ammunition is not all that effective?
Hoo
So regulating the sale of ammo is highly effective in stopping gun violence, even if every home has a fully automatic military assault rifle?
DeleteFirst off, once again you display your complete lack of actual knowledge concerning Swiss gun ownership. Not every home has a "fully automatic military rifle". Only those homes occupied by males between the ages of 20 and 30 who are fulfilling their military service do.
Other homes, in which a male military member has completed his service requirement may keep the rifle, but it must first be handed over to be converted to semi-automatic use only.
And in either case, the weapons are regularly inspected by the government. Answer me this: if we had a rule that said that all guns must be regularly inspected in their owner's homes by a government agent, would you support that? Because if you don't then your comparison to Switzerland is entirely inapt.
The Swiss not only restrict the sale of ammunition, they restrict when and where someone can carry their weapons. You can't take them with you unless you are going directly to a shooting range or barracks. You can only have them otherwise if you have a permit in which you justify owning a gun as part of your job. And so on.
@Hoo:
ReplyDelete[Are you really that dumb or do you merely pretend not to understand that an assault rifle without ammunition is not all that effective? ]
Right. Just like you, without facts, aren't all that effective.
So why demand gun control, when you believe that ammo control is more effective?
Why do your policies have so little to do with reason?
I am not against ammunition control. You are. The shoe is on the wrong foot.
DeleteHoo
Let me explain for you Hoo. I'll type slowly so you can understand.
DeleteThe commentor made the point that in Switzerland the widespread ownership of fully automatic military assault rifles did not cause gun crime, in significant part because of ammo control.
I pointed out that the commentor was inconsistent, because while he/she argued that Switzerland demonstrates that ammo control, and not gun control, is prevents gun crime, he/she did not argue against gun control and for ammo control in the US.
My point is that you guys can't even keep your arguments straight.
Now answer this: why are high gun ownership countries like Canada, Sweden, Finland low gun-crime countries, if high private ownership of guns is a major contributor to gun crime?
Did I type slowly enough for you?
Dr. Egnor,
DeleteThere is no need to type slowly. I have no reading comprehension problem. You have a problem of misunderstanding my position. Typing slowly will not solve that.
I am not against ammo control. I am for controlling both guns and ammo.
Did I make myself clear? Let me know if you would like me to expand on that.
Best,
Hoo
Hoo:
DeleteWere you that anonymous commentor (#1 above)?
I wasn't.
DeleteHoo
So you disagree with the commentor, who said that the ubiquitous ownership of fully automatic assault weapons in Switzerland was made harmless by ammo control?
DeleteIf you disagree, then why is it that ubiquitous ownership of fully automatic assault weapons in Switzerland doesn't cause horrendous gun crime, if it is not the unavailability of ammo?
And if the unavailability of ammo is what makes Switzerland safe despite everyone owning an assault rifle, then why do you advocate for making guns, rather than ammo, unavailable, when you admit that Switzerland shows that the guns are irrelevant if you restrict ammo.
Try... try to make a coherent argument.
Dr. Egnor,
DeleteDon't try to guess my position. It was stated quite clearly here and here. You have no excuse for not understanding it.
Also please note that my position is not at odds with what the other anonymous commentator wrote. Don't invent a controversy where there is none.
The main point of the other commentator stands: the situation with firearms in Switzerland is very different from that in the US. Guns are available and even obligatory, but ammunition is strictly controlled. Let us know if you would approve of a similar system in the US. My guess is not, but I do not want to put words in your mouth.
Hoo
There are huge regional differences in gun crime that should be controlled for. If you combine your link with this one, then you'll find that within Europe there is a highly significant correlation between number of firearms and the firearm-related death rate (n=38, r=0.47, p=0.0028).
ReplyDeleteNation by nation, private gun ownership does not correlate with gun violence.
DeleteI've looked at that link. The 11 countries that have higher rates of gun violence than the US all have lower rates of personal gun ownership than the US.
In the US, inner cities have lower rates of gun ownership than rural areas. Inner cities have much higher rates of gun violence than rural areas.
You are a jerk. (n=1, r=.05, p=.000032)
Nation by nation, private gun ownership does not correlate with gun violence.
DeleteWell, it does within Europe. More private gun ownership strongly correlated with gun violence.
I've looked at that link. The 11 countries that have higher rates of gun violence than the US all have lower rates of personal gun ownership than the US.
A very sophisticated analysis. I guess we can chalk up statistical analysis to the long list of things that you suck at.
My data set is bigger than your data set. In the 178 nations of the world, gun violence does not correlate with gun violence.
DeleteEven within Europe, relatively gun-safe countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany,...) are in the top 10% of the world in per capita gun ownership.
My N is bigger than your N.
You embarrass yourself even further. If you combine the table of gun ownership with the table of gun-related death rates, only 74 countries are left. Within that data set, there are 38 European countries. Conditioning on Europe, there is highly significant positive correlation, whether you like it or not.
DeleteEgnorance and statistics don't mix.
DeleteHoo
You can cherry pick any subset of data, and find trends to buttress your (disintegrating) story.
DeleteMany of the safest countries on earth are in the top 10% of per capita of gun ownership.
The reasons are obvious: there are many factors affecting gun crime, and gun ownership is not one of the important ones.
The most important factor is probably drug abuse and societal disintegration.
In the US, societal disintegration is a Liberal speciality. All of the warzones in the US are governed by liberals.
And the violence associated with drug abuse is largely associated with prohibition of drugs-- precisely the approach you want to take with guns.
Gun control is irrelevant to gun crime, except that gun-free zones attract mass shooters.
Get a clue.
Gun control is irrelevant to gun crime, except that gun-free zones attract mass shooters.
DeleteExcept in places like Canada, where every mall, school, theater, and public area is effective a "gun free zone". But that won't stop you from making grandiose claims about what "gun free zones" do or do not do, because facts don't really matter to you anyway.
You can cherry pick any subset of data, and find trends to buttress your (disintegrating) story.
DeleteOh, the irony - it's delicious. Just the other day you were picking a small subset (n=16) of a long time series of global temperature data, and you concluded that the warming is over. Anyone with some education in statistics would laugh at your 'analysis'.
Come to Holland in June and you can participate for free in my statistics course. You wouldn't be the first medical professor to join in. It's fun and you can bring your own data. I could also arrange for you to give a public lecture on intelligent design. I'm even willing to pay for your travel costs (economy class only).
I did not conclude that global warming is "over". The earth will continue to warm, and cool, for billions of years, as it has for billions of years.
DeleteI made the obvious point that there has been no statistically significant warming (outside of error bars) for 16 years, and this coincides with a period of marked increase in atmospheric CO2 that should have caused warming if AGW models were reliable.
This shows the models are not reliable, counts against the theory of AGW in a substantial way.
I'd love to attend your statistics course (I'd love to visit Holland-- never been). I''d rather not lecture on ID-- sounds like a lecture on logic is what you need. Glad to oblige.
Of course gun ownership does not equate with gun crime!
ReplyDeleteMost guns used in crimes are black market guns.
You note that Canada gun ownership is low.
You're sources are wrong, Mike. We are mid-high level. Level 3 of 6. We are neither sublime or ridiculous when it comes to owning fire arms.
Think about it 30-50% of our population owns firearms, according to the UN (low estimates). That may be a poor count, but is not a low count.
When we take the rural/urban split on this - the numbers are even more clear. 70% of the folks who do not dwell in large cities own a firearm of some sort. That's most of the people and the vast majority of the landmass of this nation, carrying.
It is also a very stable number for us.
We have been reduced drastically like Australia or the UK. Nor has there been a pre-control jitters BOOM like there is in the USA today.
That is probably due to the ease of getting a licence to acquire firearms (a written test and one time fee) up here, and the relative low cost of the weapons and ammunition here (many being manufactured here or right next door in the USA).
The big difference between us and the states is that we own LESS firearms per person than you folks do. We also make it a lot more complicated and expensive to buy pistols, high calibre semi-automatics, and any sort of banned (Geneva) or HE ammunition. Not impossible, mind you, but a real project. Unless you're a cop or military, most people would not be bothered.
Most gun owners in Canada are people who own a rifle or shotgun or two.
The Militias in Canada are 'Crown Militias'.
They are locally run, but are treated like your reservists by law. There is a military oversight. They have legal regiment numbers and they get a pay check (small)from the crown; and, as volunteers, they can resign during a time of peace.
So these guys generally keep their restricted weapons (which they may well own) at their barracks store/battery.
They do not have some DHS like organization investigating them, and so do not require the same type of private stores/stashes of weapons your militias do.
Militia members (and military and police) may, if they wish, buy weapons on the 'restricted' list to store at home - as they have the license. Many even have a concealed permit (I do).
Many do carry. Many more do not feel the need to. It really depends on their job.
I would say a slim majority will keep their tools at the job site, as it where.
But my point is that Canada is not a low gun nation. We are in the same bracket as Switzerland and Norway. We own more weapons than the Russians, and are only beaten by the USA and Oman in terms of ownership.
We do get the occasional maniac (we just memorialised the Polytech shootings in Montreal, for example). I honestly see no real way of stopping evil people like those in question.
Certainly controlling weapons does not do it.
Ok, maybe things aren't entirely hopeless in this screwed-up country.
ReplyDeleteJoe Manchin, the pro-gun-rights West Virginia senator who drew attention in 2010 after running an ad that showed him firing a rifle at an environmental bill, said on Monday that “everything should be on the table” as gun control is debated in the coming weeks and months.
Mr. Manchin, an avid hunter with an A rating from the National Rifle Association, indicated that he supported re-evaluating laws that permit people to have clips that hold dozens of rounds of ammunition and to own assault rifles.
“I don’t know anybody in the sporting or hunting arena that goes out with an assault rifle,” Mr. Manchin said, speaking on the MSNBC program “Morning Joe.”
“I don’t know anybody who needs 30 rounds in a clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about,” he added.
many low-gun crime countries have high rates of private ownership (Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Germany, Iceland, Oman, Bahrain, New Zealand, ...).
ReplyDeleteWait, what? I don't know about other countries, but France? I live in France and I don't know anyone who has a gun. If I wanted a gun, I don't even know where I could buy it, what kind of license I would need and how I could get it.
What are your sources?
You don't sound too competent. To go to the sources, go to the l.i.n.k.s (the little different colored thing on the word in the post) and click that mouse thing attached by the little string to your computer. Then read the words that come up on your screen. Get a grown up to read it, if you have trouble.
DeleteHow are your public schools in France?
I have relatives who live in the French countryside. In some local store they easily bought a shotgun and rubber buckshot shells for self defense (at a time when burglars in the area had gruesomely butchered some house owners). They only needed to show an ID. I think you do need a license to buy proper cartridges.
DeleteHow are your public schools in France?
DeleteNot so bad. At least they don't teach creationism.
Now the air rifle uses much useful work. This weapons ensures your safety. If you visit jungle you provide your safety by air rifles. For that you will use the best air rifle.
ReplyDelete