Skip to main content

The Facts on Gun Violence in the United States

According to a Pew Research Center survey, roughly 37 percent of Americans report that they or someone in their household owns a firearm.

This statistic implies that roughly 47 million households in the United States own at least one firearm.

According to another source, the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, there are, on average, nearly 12,000 gun-related homicides each year.

Of course, this number varies year to year, from 8,855 in 2012 to 13,286 in 2015.

At the present time, roughly three thousandths of a percent of the American population is lost annually to firearm-related homicides.

Put another way, this is 0.003 percent of the population each year.

When comparing the number of firearm-owning households to the incidence of homicide each year, one finds that there are 3,917 of those households for every single homicide.

And there are more than twenty-five thousand guns for every one of those incidents.

This is hardly evidence of a causal relationship, as some of the emotional talking heads on mainstream media would encourage you to believe.

In fact, the contrary has been true of this relationship, as the gun ownership rate in the United States has climbed by roughly 50 percent over the past two decades while the national homicide rate has declined reciprocally over the same period.



As it turns out, firearms are a necessary, but not sufficient, case for gun-related homicide.

A more ideal example of such a causal relationship is found between monetary expansion and the rate of general price increases, which the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis has quantified at around 90 percent.

But the quantity of firearms and the incidence of gun-related homicide fail to bear even a semblance of this relationship.

Indeed, when two variables trend inversely over time, it may be audacious to steadfastly stake a claim of causation, but one would surely be irresponsible to simply dismiss the data in somehow claiming the opposite is true.

In the case of firearms and homicides in the United States, the population has demonstrably become far more civil, at least as gauged by the statistical domains of homicide incidence.

Of course, one might reasonably stake the claim that there has simply been a mass exodus from physical interfacing to online social media, where anyone can readily stumble upon the modern exhibition of combative discourse.

Ultimately, the United States is presently home to more firearms than at any other time in its history.

Meanwhile, the population which resides within its borders has scarcely ever been safer from the violence which can accompany their use.

And it appears all too common an oversight, particularly amongst the anti-gun cohort, that the utility of weaponry is not specifically limited to its violent uses, that its principal feature is found rather in its relatively dormant and less theatrical life stages.

These are indeed the stages wherein the weapon is holstered for security and peace of mind.

The value thereof always escapes formal measure while eluding everywhere the remotest interest of the propagandizing reporter.

This is the true tale of the average weapon, not a maniacal thriller of Hollywood proportions, but rather a sedated story of assurance accompanied by hopes that the family, couple or individual will never have to rely on it.   

In the case of gun violence in this country, there is simply insufficient evidence to prove that firearms have acted as a principal cause of homicide.

Although they have been one of the primary tools employed by aggressors, they can seldom be identified as the cause.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes