Here’s the link. Most instructive is the chart with advanced countries, comparing gun deaths vs guns present per capita. There are a few small outliers – Argentina, Qatar, and Cyprus, for example – but in general, more guns correlates to more gun deaths.
Correlation doesn’t equal causation, of course. But is it controversial to gun-rights supporters that, for advanced countries at least, more guns means more gun deaths? This goes even for relatively anti-gun countries – in Europe, Switzerland has more guns and gun deaths than Austria, despite rather similar cultures. Luxembourg has more guns and gun deaths than the Netherlands, Belgium has more guns and gun deaths than Luxembourg, and France has more guns and gun deaths than Belgium – all countries neighboring each other, with rather similar histories and cultures.
I don’t think that “guns per 100 people” is a very good metric for these sort of comparisons. To illustrate the point with extremes, imagine two countries, each with 100 people.
Capitalism-ville has 100 guns in their country, but they are all owned by the rich banker that keeps them stored in a safe in the basement of his mansion. The other 99 citizens don’t have guns.
Socialistan has 100 guns too, but distributes things equally, so every single person in the country has their very own gun.
Both these fictitious countries would fall to the right of the United States on your chart, but would probably have very different gun problems.
Also, I think “gun deaths” is a crappy metric that conflates several separate social ills: guns used in murders, fatal gun accidents, and guns used in suicides.
Most of the slope of that line is because of the inclusion of the US. I would like to see the data run again excluding the US.
Secondly, even if there is causation it does not mean it is from guns to murders. If I lived in a high violence area I would be more likely to want to own a gun than if I lived in a low crime area.
How do you figure that? Many of the countries near the bottom line right up along the slope. I’m no big math guy but istm that taking the States out it would drop the slope slightly and run more directly through the bottom cluster.
This is kind of like saying that among ‘advanced countries’ more cars equals more car deaths. Yup…that’s certainly true and I’m not sure anyone really disputes either thing. More alcohol means more alcohol deaths, more fast food means more fast food deaths, more swimming pools means more deaths in swimming pools…and more guns in a society means more gun deaths.
You’re correct – the US is pretty close to the line, which means that the line wouldn’t change that much if the US is removed. If the US were a huge outlier, it would be quite far from the line.
Those kinds of problems are eliminated with large and diverse enough samples – countries should be big and diverse enough for this. For example – Belgium and Luxembourg are quite similar in culture, economy, demographics, and history, so it’s quite reasonable to compare them.
Posters on this board have asserted that 9/11 was a CT involving the US government, that Kennedy was killed by a cabal of Jews and the Mafia and that the pyramids were built using a huge hydrological lifting machine run on cold geysers by non-stinky footed Egyptians, so I’m unsure why it’s surprising. Perhaps they are making a more nuanced statement that there isn’t a 1 for 1 correlation to guns verse population verse the number of deaths, since that seems fairly clear from the chart posted in the OP…but the raw question of ‘more guns means more gun deaths’ seems pretty cut and dried. Just take it to the extreme end as say if there are zero guns how many deaths would there be? Zero. So, at some non-zero number of guns (i.e. ‘more’) you will get a non-zero number of deaths. Q.E.D.
Your math teacher is not very happy right now. A least square’s analysis without the US would not be significantly different since there are so many data points both above and below the line. And Argentina is the data point with the greatest influence on the positive slope of the line.
Be careful what you compare. In Switzerland, every household has a gun. Military draft is compulsory for every male citizen. And after military training you have to take to the gun home with you. Austria doesn’t have that.
No, every Swiss household does NOT have a gun; surveys suggest around a third of Swiss households have one. While military service is compulsory, keeping the gun afterwards is optional, and they’ve tightened the rules on that in recent years: the would-be purchaser must provide adequate justification to acquire the necessary permit first. Switzerland has around 45 guns per 100 residents; Austria has about 30.
The Wiki article that your link uses does say that it includes suicides. But that brings up a different problem–Japan, for example, has long had a far higher suicide rate than the US, despite having virtually no guns at all.
Really? What’s the ratio of gun-owning households in Switzerland, Belgium, France, or the UK? In USA, it’s roughly 4/10 households that have guns. That’s the point we ought to be comparing.
Luxembourg has some of the strongest gun control in the world, much stronger than its neighbors. What I expect that you’re seeing is a statistical blip when even one incident occurs in a country where the entire population is smaller than the smallest US state (20k fewer people than Wyoming).
In other words, the Vatican typically has 6 popes per square mile (maybe double if Benedict is still in town).
I don’t have that data. Maybe it exists, though a few minutes of googling couldn’t find it.
But the data in the chart is reasonable to look at. You can feel free to ignore it if you wish, but since most of the countries have a pretty good correlation to the slope of the line, I think it might be instructive.