Gun Deaths Comparison

Gun deaths per 100000 pop. in comparison to US

Country    Year  Homicide        Suicide

US         2001  3.98            5.92 

Canada     2002  0.40 10x lower  2.00 3x lower 

Australia  2001  0.24 17x lower  1.34 5x lower 

UK         2002  0.15 27x lower  0.20 30x lower

The UK has the strictest gun laws. The gun nuts have no argument. They just want to keep their guns, because the guns make them feel safer. But the gun is about 30 X more likely to be used in the home in a suicide or homicide than to defend the person. It’s not worth it to keep those things around. Personally, I do not want one of those blasted things anywhere near me.

26 Comments

Filed under Americas, Australia, Britain, Canada, Crime, Europe, Law, North America, Regional, USA

26 responses to “Gun Deaths Comparison

  1. Shawn

    Robert, can you provide a link for your source? Thanks.

    Mexico has a total gun ban and they are killing each other at rates that far exceed the USA.

    • demopower

      Thats because they go right next door to Texas and Arizona and get all the guns they want, just like Washington DC, which has strict gun laws but Virginia doesnt, so that DC thugs can easily obtaine guns.

    • True but….you leave one important factor out. The gun ban changed the stat to a fraction; less than 1/4 what it was before the ban. Any questions?

  2. Gay State Girl

    Banning guns would make them disappear like prohibition made alcohol disappear. It would just give an advantage to the criminals who would buy them through the black market.

  3. Shawn

    We have over 200,000,000 million guns in the US. It’s impossible to ban them. The problem is that no one on the crowd was able to shoot the Arizona shooter, which could have prevented many deaths including the Republican judge who was killed.

  4. LaFleur

    Shawn is right. It’s far too late for gun control where there’s already a rifle behind every blade of grass.

    • Shawn

      Yeah, how is the government going to say,” uh turn in your guns, please!” It’s not like all the criminals are going to be like, “yeah, here you go.”

  5. Gay State Girl

    I’m no fan of gun culture myself but I hate when Europeans lecture Americans about it. They just alienate people for other causes.

  6. johnUK

    Actually the Baltic States that had a peak in crime after the collapse of the USSR introduced gun ownership rules and crime decreased.

    Finland has the highest ownership of guns per citizen after the US with perhaps the most lax gun laws yet there is hardly any gun crime.

  7. Ken Hoop

    Any anti-elitist activist-even a mere blogger-of the Left or Right- who would surrender his guns to this government, deserves to be a slave.

  8. Andrew Neather

    Well, actually if you compare the the murder rate committed by the US WHITE population alone (with all weapons, including guns), to the general UK murder rate, on a per capita basis, you will find that the UK murder rate is, in fact, substantially higher than the US White murder rate.
    This is despite the fact the UK is almost entirely disarmed (it’s well nigh impossible for a UK citizen to own and keep at home ANY sort of firearm).
    Switzerland and Finland two nations where gun ownership is universal also have murder rates substantially lower than the USA.
    In fact the US murder rate is purely a racial problem, as ever.

  9. LaFleur

    Since we don’t have a Loughner thread, I’ll pretend this is one.

    Richard Estes from American Leftist is a voice of sanity regarding the establishment liberal attempt to claim that right wingers like Palin and the Tea Party are both responsible for Loughner and have a monopoly on using violence and terror:

    http://amleft.blogspot.com/2011_01_01_archive.html#3875657472578591602

    By treating the subject of the motivation of Loughner’s violence as domestic in character, the proponents of such an approach preempt any inquiry into the pervasiveness of US violence around the world. If one is going to open the door into the the uses and motivations of American violence, it should be opened fully, instead of slightly cracked. Beyond this, there is the prospect that, if an explicit political motivation for Loughner’s action is found, it may well have both domestic and international components, as was the case with Timothy McVeigh, who, as a Gulf War veteran, condemned the brutality of the US invasion of Kuwait while also expressing far right, white supremacist beliefs, including, quite reasonably in my view, anger over US government actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco. My impression is that many Americans are aware of McVeigh’s far right political motivation for bombing the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, but few know how his military service contributed to it as well. Expect a similar kind of suppression if Loughner is found to have discomforting political motivations to the extent that we may see the government and the media embrace the currently out of vogue psychological explanation for the killings.

    Jack Crow’s post, quoted by Estes, is worth reading in full:

    http://the-crows-eye.blogspot.com/2011/01/lessons-from-last-two-days-of.html

    1. If you (a) hold elected office or (b) a position of power and influence in a media conglomerate, and (c) plan, execute, fund or euphemize sky robot murder, starvation austerity, war powers expansion, occupations and escalations, coups d’etat, wetwork, black ops and the militarization of public space – you bear no responsibility for the decisions of those following your direct orders, or who act under the cover and normalization you promote. If you apologize for those who, under orders, commit the acts which directly contribute to your wealth and comfort, and to the maintenance of a continent spanning system of degradation, imprisonment and oppression, you bear absolutely no responsibility for the consequences of the systemic destruction of human life which you support and promote. You are a public servant. A leader. An exemplar of civilization.

    2. If you use campaign rhetoric which does not sanitize political conflict, or read books which do not pass official muster, or if you do sit not in current favor with those who have the wealth and influence to arrogate to themselves the arbitration of taste, worth, sanction, viability and validity, you bear complete responsibility for acts of violence committed by persons you have never met.

    Note Will Shetterly in the comments contrasting the liberal cries for civility with the “tone argument” accusation so beloved of liberal CRT types:

    …I’m on the side of toning down violent rhetoric, but I also recognize that this is a total middle class notion, and I’ll be fascinated to see if any of the neoliberal defenders of “the tone argument” want to tone down the rhetoric, ’cause the tone argument is all about using harsh language whenever you’re in the mood.

    Heh heh.

  10. LaFleur

    I haven’t watched Keith Olbermann in several years. Now I know why.

    From Olbermann’s “Special Comment” on the Tucson shootings:

    If Sarah Palin, whose website put and today scrubbed bullseye targets on 20 Representatives including Gabby Giffords, does not repudiate her own part in amplifying violence and violent imagery in politics, she must be dismissed from politics – she must be repudiated by the members of her own party, and if they fail to do so, each one of them must be judged to have silently defended this tactic that today proved so awfully foretelling, and they must in turn be dismissed by the responsible members of their own party.

    If the Tea Party leaders who took out of context a Jefferson quote about blood and tyranny and the tree of liberty do not understand – do not understand tonight, now what that really means, and these leaders do not tell their followers to abhor violence and all threat of violence, then those Tea Party leaders must be repudiated by the Republican Party…

    If Glenn Beck, who obsesses nearly as strangely as Mr. Loughner did about gold and debt and who wistfully joked about killing Michael Moore, and Bill O’Reilly, who blithely repeated Tiller the Killer until the phrase was burned into the minds of his viewers, do not begin their next broadcasts with solemn apologies for ever turning to the death-fantasies and the dreams of bloodlust, for ever having provided just the oxygen to those deep in madness to whom violence is an acceptable solution, then those commentators and the others must be repudiated by their viewers, and by all politicians, and by sponsors, and by the networks that employ them.

    Holy shit, what a blowhard. As Richard Estes replied:

    http://amleft.blogspot.com/2011_01_01_archive.html#2470630248071752645

    Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the brazen hypocrisy of Olbermann’s statement that Beck and Bill O’Reilly should apologize for having provided just the oxygen to those deep in madness to whom violence is an acceptable solution.

    Any list of such people that does not start with President Barack Obama, former President George W. Bush, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, among others, should be promptly disregarded as self-serving. For they, more than any others in this society, have been perpetually insisting that violence is an acceptable solution to the global challenges faced by the US. And, more than that, they have unapologetically asserted that the US may kill people indiscriminately in order to achieve their aspirations for global domination. While I find people like Beck and O’Reilly detestable, they are merely the media house servants for those who are truly responsible for having persuaded many Americans that the US must engage the rest of the world through policies of preemptive war, preventive detention and torture.

    A good quote from a book I haven’t read, The Mendacity of Hope by Roger D. Hodge:

    “Many liberals who deplore Obama’s insipid pragmatism and stand pat conservatism nevertheless feel compelled to support him as he betrays everything they believe in. Why? Because they are afraid of the right wing marionettes like Sarah Palin and the misguided, misinformed Tea Partiers who flock to her banner. What we must recognize is that Palin and her ilk are in some ways Obama’s best allies. They frighten the Democratic base into submission. Liberals who disagree with the president’s policies must come to understand that the Tea Partiers are not wrong to be angry with Obama and the Democrats. Common cause should be made with self-styled conservatives and rightest libertarians like Ron Paul over the perils of arbitrary rule and the obscene combination of corporate power with the party machines. Tea Partiers have no desire to lose their Social Security or their Medicare. They may insist on gun rights but their desire for financial security is strong as well. The liberals who hate guns have to decide whether they hate firearms more than they hate arbitrary government.”

    The media attempts to convince Americans that they may choose from only two slightly differing agendas, both of which serve murderous corporate imperialism. Olbermann is probably a true believer, but in the end he is serving the same master as Beck and Palin.

  11. GotSchlong?

    It’s not worth it to keep those things around. Personally, I do not want one of those blasted things anywhere near me.

    Guns are for the less well endowed… eg extensions of ones penis. You’re schlong is apparently big enough to whip out and beat up anybody that threatens you.

  12. James Schipper

    Dear Robert
    The American murder rate is about 5/100,000 and the Canadian one about 2/100,000. It follows that Canadians are finding other means than guns to kill other people since muder by guns is 10 times more common in the US than in Canada while the overall muder rate in the US is only 2.5 times higher than the Canadian rate.

    Regards. James

    • Shawn

      Good points. And Canada has a lower proportion of Blacks and Hispanics versus America. Maybe we should outlaw cars or make the minimum driving speed 20 MPH? The odds of dying via a car are many many times higher than being killed by a firearm.

  13. Speaking as an Australian, virtually no one has guns here, at least in urban areas. Sure, there are criminals who have them, but it tends to be those criminals a bit higher up the food chain in somewhat organised crime. Guns have not usually filtered down to the smaller-time street criminal. That strikes me as a big difference between us and the USA. While knife crime certainly exists, the common street thug very rarely has a gun.

    Common consensus amongst most of the West is that Americans are pretty loopy with their guns. That someone like Palin who exalts gun culture could get so close to the seat of power is scary.

    Here Down Under, we had our former PM push for serious nationwide gun control. And that was John Howard, a crony of GW Bush and our most conservative PM for a long time.

  14. Uncle Milton

    With a rather quick crunching of the numbers I came with a murder rate of around 1.95 murders per 100,000 for American Whites compared to a rate of 1.28 per 100,000 for Britons of all races. I drew my data from this link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    I find it a bit odd however that the murder rate in the UK can jump around so much…

    Here are the numbers (murder rate per 100,000) for the UK for 2000 – 2005:

    2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
    1.70 1.78 2.06 1.76 1.75 1.49

    So it would appear that in 2002 that the murder rate for White Americans and Britons (of all races…) was about the same. Canada’s latest rate is 1.81, apparently murder is fairly prevalent among First Nations people.

  15. randy

    bullshit. look at the figures for the US…when you have relative access to guns you’re most likely to turn it on yourself. turd-stain third world nations don’t even keep these stats, and i’ll bet lots of money they have far worse “gun crime” stats.

    i don’t worship the founding fathers, but those first 10 amendments deserve a lot of respect. that shooting is more an outcome of the American sickness, not any legit reason to tighten gun control.

    i say our willingness to sell guns abroad is a bigger issue than domestic gun sales.

  16. Pingback: Gun Violence out of Control?... Tax Law-Abiding Citizens as the Answer! - Page 2 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s