Hacker News Reader

Comment by kstenerud | Hacker News Reader

Brazil has a homicide rate of 26.74 per 100,000, of which 19.99 are from firearms.

The USA has a homicide rate of 4.88 per 100,000. of which 3.60 are from firearms.

It's also interesting to note that the USA has the highest homicide rate of all "first world" nations, trailing close behind wonderful places like Kyrgyzstan and Somalia. The next highest "first world" nation, Canada, is 1.68 (1/3 of the USA), of which 0.38 are from firearms.

The USA has the most lax firearm laws of the three I mentioned, and also has a high proportion of homicides perpetrated using firearms. Canada has somewhat stricter laws and a considerably lower rate from firearms. Brazil has extreme gun control, but still a very high rate from firearms.

The link between gun control and violence seems inconclusive to me. However, the base propensity for violence is definitely tied to the culture.

View on HN

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/ "Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11130511 "Across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides."

The executive summary doesn't make sense:

"Two common proxies for gun availability are used, the percentage of suicides with a firearm, and the"Cook index," the average of the percentage of suicides with a firearm and the percentage of homicides with a firearm."

"In simple regressions (no control variables) across 26 high-income nations, there is a strong and statistically significant association between gun availability and homicide rates."

So, if I'm reading this correctly, gun availability is calculated by percentage of deaths by firearm, and using that info they determine that gun availability leads to a higher homicide rate? Also no control variables? Why?

Using such source numbers, it's a foregone conclusion. If you use percentage of firearm deaths as a proxy for gun ownership, you will by definition have a strong correlation between gun ownership and deaths.

"Tighter gun controls" doesn't always lead to "harder access to guns". How strong is the black market in Brazil (for everything, not only guns). How strong it is in the USA? How easy is to access otherwise prohibited goods in general?

The point is that gun control is not proven to reduce violent deaths. Gun ownership just doesn't correlate to violent deaths. People want it to because guns are instruments of violence and "it just stands to reason", but the numbers don't bear this out.

The USA has 101 guns per 100 residents and a homicide rate of 15.696 per 100,000.

The Bahamas has 5.3 per 100 residents and a homicide rate of 29.81.

Canada has 30.8 per 100 residents and a homicide rate of 1.68.

Norway has 31.3 per 100 resdents and a homicide rate of 0.56.

Finland has 34.2 per 100 residents and a homicide rate of 1.60

Serbia has 58.21 per 100 residents and a homicide rate of 1.13

In other words, it's all over the map.

What's even more telling is the downvotes to my previous comment. Am I going against the community standards in how I'm going about supporting a position? Is the data I posted so sinful that you feel compelled to punish me for posting it? Is the data wrong? Is the conclusion wrong such that you can articulate why, and where exactly the logic breaks down?

Or is it just that gun control, like drug legalization, is an emotional topic and not a rational one?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com