17 Apr Firearm Mortality and Lethality Rates Across the World
In the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting, (the second worst shooting spree in world history) there has been a tremendous outpouring of criticism in the world press, particularly European press, against the United States regarding our gun control laws (or lack thereof). I am quite sympathetic to those arguments.
But just to put matters in perspective, I did a little research today that is quite illuminating on the subject of gun violence in the United States as compared to other regions of the world. This is not to defend our current approach to gun control, but simply provide a factual baseline for comparison and reflection in the wake of this tragedy, something that seems to be missing in the global mass media today.
According to the gun violence chapter in the Small Arms Survey 2004 (full chapter here and summary here) there are at least 200,000 non-conflict-related firearm deaths that occur globally each year. According to Figure 6.3 in the report, (available here) the global firearm homicide rate is 3.1 per 100,000. This compares to a rate of 15.5 in Latin America and the Caribbean, 5.9 in Africa, 3.5 in North America, 3.1 in Central and Eastern Europe, 1.8 in the Middle East, 1.5 in South-East Asia, 0.5 in Asia Pacific, and 0.4 in Western Europe. What is particularly noteworthy is that the North American firearm homicide rate is not far from the global rate.
The report also suggests that there is not a direct correlation between the availability of guns and the rate of homicides. Indeed, the report notes (p. 175) that Latin America and the Caribbean are a contradiction because the region carries 36 percent of the global burden of firearm deaths, but has only a relatively modest number of weapons in circulation. According to Table 2.4 (available here), a comparison of homicides per 100,000 guns (the “lethality rate”) is quite revealing. The United States has an average of 4 homicides per 100,000 guns in circulation, compared with a lethality rate of 260-660 in Ecuador, 302 in South Africa, 220-550 in Colombia, 90-450 in Venezuela, 85-128 in Brazil, 17-23 in Argentina, 5 in Chile, 2 in Canada, and less than 1 homicide per 100,000 guns in Germany. In other words, the likelihood that a typical gun in the United States will be used to kill is extremely low by comparison to the other countries surveyed.
Here is the conclusion of the report on gun violence (p. 199): “Used in almost 40 percent of all homicides, but also in assaults, threats, robberies, sexual offences, and suicides, firearms are clearly a common tool for perpetrating societal violence. Whether gun accessibility affects overall levels of violence is, however, more difficult to assess. The lethality of guns increases the risk of injury and death and raises perceptions of threat, but firearm ownership by law-abiding citizens can also contribute to deterring crime. The balance between these two effects is the subject of ongoing debate.”
Statistics aside, I think the reaction from various European nations, Canada, Australia, and others is focused on the conduct of a presumably civilized society that becomes very fragile when firearms are available to almost anyone.
Very recent stories in on-line newspapers from various cities in England, Scotland, and Canada have presented stories of significant violence wherein firearms are used. Canada is now debating the re-evaluation of existing firearms ownership laws and the event at Virginia Tech is probably going to have some influence on the debate.
I own a small collection of US military rifles, certain of which I had to register when I was a resident of California many years ago. Registering certain rifles did not present me with any qualms at that time and would not now.
In so many words, I view debate about gun control laws as no different than debates about abortion; there are two extremes and no middle ground. The use of statistics to demonstrate deaths by gunfire in the presumably civil world is a nice touch but I think there is a greater moral quandry at play here that is not going to be resolved by statistics.
Roger –
These are very interesting statistics and suggest the debate should be a lot more nuanced than it is now (fat chance!). But I hope gun control advocates don’t claim that the availibility of guns is absolutely correlated with homicides or gun violence more generally. That’s because all of the states you cite has having substantially higher lethality rates than the US are horribly polarized economically, riven with poverty and have substantial public corruption problems. All these factors make them inappropriate comparisons with the United States. The Western European countries with much lower lethality rates are more appropriate comparisons. Greg Fox
wjneill,
I think you are misreading my post. I said I was quite sympathetic to gun control laws. I am offering some factual comparisons of mortality and lethality rates to facilitate reflection on the connection between the availability of guns and the rates of homicide in the United States and elsewhere. The post does not speak to any number of issues regarding gun control laws, such as gun registration or the banning of certain types of weapons, measures that make perfect sense to me.
Roger Alford
Greg,
Great points. I think that the social context of these countries is extraordinarily important. Obviously there are numerous factors that impact the lethality rate, and the availability of guns is only one of those factors. I was tempted in my original post to add a sentence addressing the lethality rates among highly developed countries, but I searched in vain in the reports and could not find information on that issue. I would love to know what our lethality rate is compared to other developed countries.
Roger Alford
Further to Greg’s post, comparisons between the United States and far less developed, post-conflict, countries such as South Africa and Colombia are so stretched as to be meaningless. Studies of developed countries, such as this, show the United States to be markedly higher and, perhaps most pointedly at this time, show that restrictions on private handgun ownership strongly correlate with low gun crime rates.
how that restrictions on private handgun ownership strongly correlate with low gun crime rates.
Unsurprising, the problem is that they do not correlate with low crime rates in general. Gun control laws have been remarkably uniform in that they don’t appear to have any meaningful effect on crime.
I would argue the most meaningful factor in crime rates tends to be age and gender demographics.
Roger
Interesting post. For better or worse, I’m not sure if I’d trust the accuracy of the Australian website that you linked to. For instance, they completely missed a shooting at Simon’s Rock College (affiliated with Bard College) in December 2002 where my Spanish professor, Nacunan, and my friend, Galen, were also killed. Death toll 2 – injured 4 – 1 person held hostage – and right before the holidays. In a campus of around 300 people, let’s just say it had high impact value.
What came of that was Ted Kennedy speaking at graduation that year and even more restrictive gun control laws in Massachusetts. It also spawned a rather wonderful book by Galen’s father – Goneboy – that describes the experience of at least one grieving father.
Good idea to start with a factual baseline. I’m confused though, North America comprises at least the U.S.A. &Canada, if I remember correctly. How can those numbers tell us anything specific about the U.S.A.?
My mistake. I didn’t read carefully.