From: [k--po--n] at [delphi.com]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: GUN Statistics (Found on the cutting room floor at CBS,NBC,ABC)
Date: Sun, 1 May 94 22:45:58 -0500
An answer by J. Neil Schulman to the statement, "The availability of guns
increases the crime rate".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I do not admit that guns increase the crime rate. Your opinion is
not in accordance with known facts.
Switzerland and Israel have two of the most heavily armed civilian
populations on Earth. Both have an extremely low rate of violent crime
and homicide -- some of the lowest anywhere.
According to \The Jewish Week\ for Dec. 11-17, 1992, the Israeli
homicide rate for 1992 was 1.96 per 100,000 persons. One in ten Israeli
civilians is armed.
In Switzerland, every male between 20 and 50 is required to keep
a fully-automatic assault rifle in his home, and the Swiss regularly
carry these full-auto rifles to ranges on public transportation and on
bicycles for practice. There are 4 million weapons in private hands
including 220,000 pistols which gives Switzerland about 3,400 pistols/
100,000 Swiss citizens, which works out to about 220,000 pistols in a
nation of 6.5 million people; and there are 4 million weapons in private
hands, for a ratio slightly less than the ratio in the United States
(61,500/100,000 in Switzerland compared to 83,300/100,000 in the US).
I don't have the overall Swiss homicide rate handy, but they had 91
handgun murders in 1990 -- for a population of 6.8 million, this works
out to a Swiss handgun-related homicide rate of .00014%.
Let's look at the British now. Great Britain has had almost a complete
gun ban in effect for most of this century. This is reflected in their
extremely low gun homicide rate: Great Britain had 22 handgun homicides
in 1990. But that figure tells only part of the story. Here are the
British overall homicide rates:
HOMICIDES IN GREAT BRITAIN, 1987-1988
(Source: Interpol)
1987 1988
England & Wales:
Population: 49,923,500 50,424,900
Homicides: 981 992
Homicide Rate: 2 per 100K 1.97 per 100K
Scotland
Population: 5,112,129 5,094,001
Homicides: 508 510*
Homicide Rate: 9.9 per 100K 10.0 per 100K
*excludes Pan Am 103 bombing
Northern Ireland
Population: 1,500,000 1,575,200
Homicides: 401 563
Homicide Rate: 26.7 per 100K 35.7 per 100K
Evidently, British gun control doesn't seem to work at keeping down
the overall homicide rate either in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
COMPARING BRITISH AND AMERICAN HOMICIDE RATES
(Source: FBI Unified Crime Reports)
For comparison, the United States Homicide Rate in
1987: 8.3 per 100K (compare to 9.9 for Scotland, 26.7 for
Northern Ireland); and in 1988: 8.4 per 100K (compare to
10.0 per 100K in Scotland and 35.7 per 100K in Northern
Ireland).
Which refutes the claim that British-style gun control
produces a national homicide rate which is lower than
the United States.
Now, let's compare these homicide rates with the U.S., by
city (1990):
Washington D.C.: 78 per 100K
Miami: 39 per 100K
Houston: 35 per 100K
New York City: 31 per 100K
Los Angeles: 28 per 100K
Denver: 14 per 100K
Phoenix: 13 per 100K
Seattle: 10 per 100K
El Paso: 7 per 100K
Colorado Springs: 3 per 100K
And, U.S. by state (1990):
New York: 14.5 per 100K
Pennsylvania: 6.7 per 100K
Montana: 4.9 per 100K
Minnesota: 2.7 per 100K
South Dakota: 2.0 per 100K
New Hampshire: 1.9 per 100K
Iowa: 1.7 per 100K
North Dakota: .08 per 100K
Several things become immediately obvious. First, Northern
Ireland as a whole has a 1987-1988 murder rate less than
half of Washington D.C., less than Miami or Houston, and
about equivalent to New York City. Washington, D.C. and
New York have extremely strict gun laws; Houston and Miami
less so. Gun control doesn't seem to be a factor. Also,
the rural areas of the United States have a homicide rate
low enough to make our national homicide rate lower than
Scotland's, and much lower than Northern Ireland's.
Second, there are areas of the United States with a lower
homicide rate than England's, and these areas have little
or no gun control.
Third, Colorado Springs, Colorado, with one of the lowest
homicide rates of any major U.S. city has virtually no
gun control laws; yet its homicide rate is only slightly
higher than England's, which has a virtual gun ban.
Fourth, laws -- not just gun control laws, but all laws --
are not a controlling element in the homicide rate, period.
Houston and El Paso both are subject to the same Texas
laws; yet Houston has five times as many murders per
100,000 residents as El Paso. Denver, Colorado has 4.7
times as many murders per 100,000 residents as Colorado
Springs, which has the same laws.
Perhaps looking at the United States homicide rate for this
century will also be useful:
Murder Statistics from
Statistical Abstract of the United States,
U.S. Department of Commerce
The murder rate from 1870 to 1905 was slightly
under/over 1 per 100,000. Except for New York City's
Sullivan Law and Reconstruction-era laws against blacks
carrying guns without permission, U.S. has virtually no
gun laws.
1900: 1.2
1901: 1.2 Sept. 6: President McKinley shot; dies 9/14.
1902: 1.2 Theodore Roosevelt elected president.
1903: 1.1
1904: 1.3 Upward trend in homicide rate begins.
1905: 2.1
1906: 3.9 T. Roosevelt reelected.
1907: 4.9
1908: 4.8
1909: 4.2 William H. Taft assumes presidency.
1910: 4.6
1911: 5.5
1912: 5.4
1913: 6.1 Woodrow Wilson assumes presidency.
1914: 6.2 World War I begins in Europe.
1915: 5.9
1916: 6.3
1917: 6.9 April 6: US enters World War I
1918: 6.5 WWI ends; troops return; influenza epidemic.
1919: 7.2
1920: 6.8 Prohibition starts.
1921: 8.1 Harding presidency begins.
1922: 8.0
1923: 7.8 Harding dies; Coolidge becomes president.
1924: 8.1
1925: 8.3
1926: 8.4
1927: 8.4
1928: 8.6 Herbert Hoover elected president.
1929: 8.4 Oct. 29: Stock market crash
1930: 8.8 Beginning of Great Depression
1931: 9.2
1932: 9.0 FDR elected first time
1933: 9.7 Prohibition repealed.
1934: 9.5 National Firearms Act restricts machine guns
1935: 8.3
1936: 8.0
1937: 7.6
1938: 6.8
1939: 6.4 World War II begins in Europe
1940: 6.3
1941: 6.0 December 8: US enters WW II
1942: 5.9
1943: 5.1
1944: 5.0
1945: 5.7 WW2 ends; troops return home, many w/ weapons.
1946: 6.4 Beginning of baby boom.
1947: 6.1
1948: 5.9
1949: 5.4
1950: 5.3 June 25: Korean War begins.
1951: 4.9
1952: 5.2
1953: 4.8 July: Korean Armistice; troops return home.
1954: 4.8
1955: 4.5
1956: 4.6
1957: 4.5
1958: 4.5
1959: 4.6
1960: 4.7
1961: 4.7
1962: 4.8 October: Cuban missile crisis
1963: 4.9 Nov. 22: JFK assassinated; LBJ takes office.
1964: 5.1 Gulf of Tonkin resolution; LBJ elected.
1965: 5.5 November: Great blackout in Northeast
1966: 5.9 Vietnam War escalates; anti-war demonstrations
1967: 6.8
1968: 7.3 Nixon wins; King & RFK murd'd; 1968 GCA passed
1969: 7.7 Jan. 20: Nixon takes office.
1970: 8.3
1971: 8.6
1972: 9.0 Nixon reelected
1973: 9.4 Watergate scandal; US troops pull out of Vietnam.
1974: 9.8 Nixon resigns; Ford assumes presidency.
1975: 9.6 April: fall of Saigon to Communists
1976: 8.8
1977: 8.8 Jan. 20: Carter takes office
1978: 9.0
1979: 9.7
1980: 10.2 Reagan elected. Dec. 8: John Lennon murdered.
1981: 9.8 Reagan takes office Jan 20; shot by Hinckley 3/20
1982: 9.1
1983: 8.3
1984: 7.9 Reagan re-elected
1985: 7.9
1986: 8.6 McClure-Volkmer Gun Act passes, easing gun laws.
1987: 8.3
1988: 8.4 Bush elected
1989: 8.7 Jan. 20: Bush takes office
1990: 9.4
1991: 9.8
1992: ? Apr 29: widespread riots. Nov: Clinton elected.
Analysis: It's hard to draw specific conclusions on the
causes of the increases and decreases in homicide. It's
tempting to blame an increase on the passage of Prohibition
or World War I, except the upward homicide trend begins in
1904, before either event. The repeal of Prohibition in
1933, however, does seem to begin a gradual lowering in
homicide rates (one can't attribute it to the 1934 National
Firearms Act because that law focuses only on machine-guns,
a minor part of the body count), until the period beginning
in 1963-64 with the JFK assassination and the escalation of
the Vietnam War, when rates start sharply upward again. There
is a short spurt in homicides at the end of World War II which
is not repeated at the end of the Korean War. The period from
1949 to 1963 is fairly low on domestic homicide. Nor, judging
from the Great Depression, can economic reverses be used to
explain increasing homicide rates: after a brief peak in 1931,
the U.S. homicide rates falls by about a third over the
Depression decade.
The most severe federal gun control passed is the 1968 Gun
Control Act, which outlaws buying guns through the mail or
transferring them interstate without a federal dealers'
license. The law has no observable effect on increasing
homicide rates. Nor does the easing of some 1968 restrictions
by the McClure Volkmer Act in 1986, while outlawing ownership of
new full-auto weapons, seem to produce any observable impact on
the national homicide rate.
One set of comparisons are not included in the time-series
homicide rate chart and probably should have been. The
increase in domestic homicides seems to compare closely with
the increase in immigration.
Also, if you were to statistically isolate the inner-city
black population in the United States, the rest of the
homicide rate drops down to that of the low-end-homicide-
rate states. Black criminals murdering other blacks is the
largest single statistical homicide grouping in this country,
and throws all the other statistics out of whack.
As with regional comparisons of gun control, time-series
observations do not seem to offer any reason to believe that
increasing restrictions on firearms have any positive effect
on reducing homicide rates.
All in all, I'd say anyone who is trying to make a case for
or against gun control by linking availability of
firearms with homicide rates is going to find it impossible
to do so with any credibility.
Now let's get to the other side of the equation: gun defenses.
When a pharmaceutical company markets a drug, they must check to see
whether or not is is (1) safe and (2) effective. Let's apply the same
tests to firearms in the hands of the civilian population to see
whether guns are safe and effective means for private citizens to
defend themselves against crime.
Let's look at safety first.
First, what about gun accidents? Let's begin by comparing gun-related
accidental deaths with accidental deaths from other causes.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics (1991, latest
official estimates)
Motor Vehicle*.....................................47,575
Falls*.............................................12,151
Poisoning (solid, liquid, gas)*.....................6,524
Fires and Flames* ..................................4,716
Drowning (incl. water transport drownings)'.........4,716
Suffocation (mechanical, ingestion)* ...............4,491
Surgical/Medical misadventures* ....................2,850
Other Transportation (excl. drownings)* ............2,160
Natural/Environmental factors* .....................1,816
Firearms ...........................................1,489
(includes estimated 500 handgun and 200 hunting accidents)
*1989, latest official figures
In other words, firearms-related accidents are a comparatively small
cause of death as compared to most other accidental causes.
And just to put this in context, accidental death from firearms is down
40% from ten years ago, and down 80% from fifty years ago.
Now that we've established that firearms accidents aren't a
major problem, let's look at the overall safety of an armed citizenry.
Vermont in the only state in the union to allow any citizen to own
or carry a gun, concealed or unconcealed, without any sort of license or
permit. What is the homicide rate in Vermont? It's 2.3 per 100,000 --
one of the lowest in the nation.
Now let's go to a state with a high homicide rate: Florida, with a
homicide rate of 10.7 per 100,000. Florida licenses the carrying of
concealed firearms to any U.S. resident who isn't disqualified by
reason of being a convicted criminal, or a drug addict, or a mental
patient. You have to pass a fingerprint background check and show some
sort of proof that you're competent to carry a gun: any 8-hour NRA basic
firearms handling & safety course will do.
Here are the statistics on Florida's concealed-carry-weapons program:
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Jim Smith
Secretary of State
DIVISION OF LICENSING
Post Office Box 6687
Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6687
CONCEALED WEAPONS/FIREARMS LICENSE
STATISTICAL REPORT FOR
PERIOD 10/01/87 - 12/30/92
TOTAL
Applications received: 145,907
New 106,408
Renewal 39,499
Licenses Issued: 140,069
New 101,009
Renewal 39,160
Licenses valid: 80,891
Applications Denied: 837
Criminal History: 504
Incomplete Application: 333
License Revoked: 265
Clemency rule change or
Legislative change: 66
Illegible prints with No
Response 10
Crime prior to licensure 46
- Firearm Utilized: --5
Crime After Licensure 89
- Firearm Utilized --15
Other 13
Reinstated 24*
*Statistics regarding number of licenses reinstated were
not maintained prior to January, 1990
We see here that among the 101,009 persons Florida has licensed to carry
a concealed firearm, there have been only 15 cases where a licensee has
subsequently used a firearm in violation of Florida law -- and most of
those are simply carrying into prohibited places such as a bar or
airport.
We have established the safety of civilian carry of firearms beyond a
doubt. Now let's look at effectiveness of civilian carry of firearms in
fighting crime.
Gary Kleck, professor of criminology at Florida State University at
Tallahassee, has examined data from 8 separate studies, and has
concluded with a 95% certainty interval (assuming one defense per
survey respondent in the last five years -- a highly conservative
assumption) civilians in the United States use firearms over a million
times a year in defense against crime. My own analysis of data compiled
in a study by the Los Angeles Times leads me to believe that Kleck's
analysis is in fact an underestimate. My own figures show that for
every time a criminal uses a gun to commit a violent crime, there are
two uses of a firearm by a private citizen to stop, prevent, or deter a
crime.
Additionally, let's look at some comparisons between police use of
firearms and civilian use:
COMPARISONS BETWEEN CIVILIAN AND POLICE USE OF FIREARMS
(Source: Civil Rights Attorney Don Kates, St. Louis
University School of Law, in \Restricting Handguns: The Liberal
Skeptics Speak Out,\ \Firearms and Violence\, and "Gun Control
and the Subway Class." The first two are books; the last is an
article in the January 10, 1985 Wall Street Journal.)
Percentage of privately owned handguns used in crime: .004%
Number of times a year private handguns successfully used in
defense: 645,000
Percentage of times armed police have succeeded in wounding
or driving off criminals: 68%
Percentage of times armed private citizens have succeeded in
wounding or driving off criminals: 83%
Percentage persons shot by armed police who are innocent of
a crime: 11%
Percentage of persons shot by armed private citizens who are
innocent of a crime: 2%
Now, let's look a Florida's crime rate. We already know that
Florida concealed-carry-weapons licensees aren't a problem. But
is there any other change in the Florida crime statistics
since they instituted their new carry law?
Not a dramatic or conclusive one, but the crime trend in Florida
is reversing. Note the following:
CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES, the FBI's Uniform Crime Report.
MURDER AND NON-NEGLIGENT MANSLAUGHTER
Florida
____________________________________________________________
Year Total % Change Rate/100,000 % Change
____ _____ ________ ____________ ________
1990 1,379 -1.9 10.7 -3.6
1989 1,405 11.1
1989 1,405 - .8 11.1 -2.6
1988 1,416 11.4
1988 1,416 +3.3 11.4 ----
1987 1,371 11.4
1987 1,371 ---- 11.4 -2.6
1986 1,371 11.7
1986 1,371 +5.8 11.7 +2.6
1985 1,296 11.4
**********************************************************
Which shows that homicide, the most serious of the offenses,
has been in a downward trend in Florida during the period when
the number of private persons legally carrying firearms is
increasing.
HCI responded by charging that the homicide figures weren't
telling, because rape and assault were still rising.
Well, they aren't anymore. The trend has started to reverse.
VERBATIM STATISTICS ON VIOLENT CRIME IN FLORIDA, 1991:
MURDER DOWN 8%
w/Handguns DOWN 3.9%
w/firearms DOWN 15.4%
w/knives DOWN 5.2%
w/hands/fists/feet DOWN 14.1%
Other DOWN 17.9%
ROBBERY DOWN 1.7%
w/Handgun UP 0.6%
w/firearms DOWN 10.3
w/knives DOWN 6.6%
w/hands/fists/feet DOWN 0.6%
Other DOWN 4.6%
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT DOWN 1.7%
w/handgun DOWN 5.9%
w/firearms DOWN 9.4%
w/knives DOWN 3.4%
w/hands/fists/feet UP 5.5%
Other UP 1.3%
BURGLARY DOWN 3.8%
w/forced entry DOWN 2.0%
no forced entry DOWN 9.5%
Attempted entry DOWN 5.3%
PURSE SNATCHING DOWN 7.3%
Now lets look at some NON-VIOLENT CRIMES from the same 1991
Annual Report:
LARCENY UP 3.1%
Pocket Picking UP 1.0%
Shoplifting UP 4.8%
Theft from Coin Machines UP 11.4%
Motor Vehicle Theft UP 1.5%
DRUGS: Sale Overall UP 11.0%
Cocaine sale UP 11.3
Marijuana sale UP 34.3
FRAUD UP 0.7%
Credit Card/ATM UP 16.2%
Impersonation UP 9.0%
Welfare UP 45.5%
Wire (telephone fraud) UP 87.5%
Crooks in Florida do seem to be avoiding occasions where they
might run into an armed citizen. I would say that while it is
not conclusive, there is as much statistical weight at this
point to the proposition that increasing the number of firearms
being carried by the civilian population inhibits violent
crime, as there is to the statistical linkage between cigarette
smoking and heart disease or emphysema.
It is indisputable that the Florida concealed-carry firearms
law has not turned Florida into the Gunshine State, as HCI and
CBS News predicted in 1986.
It is indisputable that making ccw-licenses available to anyone
who wants one and can pass an ordinary background check showing
no criminal or psychological disqualification does not endanger
the public.
And it is getting statistically strong that increasing the
ability of the civilian population to carry firearms reverses
rising crime trends as well.
What can we conclude from all this?
1) Restricting firearms does not reduce the homicide rate. Look at
Scotland and Washington D.C.
2) Proliferating firearms does not increase the homicide rate. Look at
Switzerland, Israel, New Hampshire, and Vermont, and the concealed-
carry-weapons licensees in Florida.
3) Civilians carrying firearms are more safe and effective at deterring
crime than are professional police.
My bottom line is my tagline:
Gun Control=Victim Disarmament & Increases Violent Crime!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Neil Schulman is a novelist, screewriter and journalist living in California.