Approximately 0.1% of all guns in the United States are used in a crime each year. That's one tenth of one percent. And that includes ALL crimes committed with a firearm. If you only consider violent crimes, that number plumments. Restrict crimes to those involving fatalities and the number falls farther.
For a bit of perspective, consider the proportion of cars in the U.S. involved in vehicular accidents: about 2.5%. Compared to a gun, a car is roughly 25 times more likely to be involved in an unfortunate incident.
Now, admittedly, these numbers were imperfectly calculated using DOT and Wikipedia statistics, but they are of the correct magnitude. You might argue that cars and guns are apples and oranges because the two are used for drastically different purposes. But cars are never used intentionally as a weapon, so you would expect the ratio to be reversed, making the statistic even more shocking. In any case, the comparison does provide a bit of perspective. I'm not opposed to *some* prudent gun control, but I think the debate is largely an interaction between sensational media and "do-something" politics. Never a good a combo.
Check out Tyler Cowen for a discussion of gun control in the context of monetary phenomena: liquidity, velocity and tax incidence.
FYI: This was inspired by Obama's recent faux pas on gun ownership and his subsequent backpeddling. Check out this article for a round-up of Obama on guns.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Vehicles to guns is a tortured comparison. Aside from what you mentioned, the vast majority of cars are put to use on a much more regular basis than guns. And thank goodness.
Agreed. There is no good comparison for firearms--cars are just convenient. But it does provide an interesting backdrop for where the debate over gun control invariably rests: saving lives. If we are merely looking at ways the government can regulate products to save lives then there's plenty of other fertile ground. Swimming pools, ladders, toxic cleaning supplies, medical malpractice…all claim a significant number of lives. The comparison is meant to illustrate that (1) a “dangerous” product is relative and (2) choosing to regulate this particular product to save lives is somewhat arbitrary as 999/1000 guns are used without incident.
You're right-- but swimming pools, ladders, solvents, automobiles, and medical procedures are almost never used with the intention of committing a crime.
I want to think about this a little more... but wouldn't it be safe to say that the *vast* majority of the time, deaths from gunshots in the US occur during a crime, and that the gun was intended to make the crime (murder even) more successful?
Regulating the use of certain toxins can make the public safer (preventing pollution to water supplies, for example). I would imagine the same thing is true in the case of ladders (requiring that safe weight limits be identified clearly on the ladder, for instance). I'm not sure there is any kind of regulation of firearms that will make people appreciably safer other than preventing the firearms from being used altogether.
What evidence do you have that a ban will be effective at making people safer?
I think what you are saying is mostly correct. Although, I would argue that the cost of regulating consumer products, in general, provides negligible benefits while adding significantly to the cost of goods and restricting consumer choice. Hence, consumer protection is effectively regressive taxation.
I would argue further that for gun restrictions there is no reliable evidence as to the magnitude or even the direction of the effect on saving lives. Add to that the primary claim from the main post that guns really aren’t that dangerous and it seems like the argument for gun control is a bit shaky.
In fact, although the ratio of crimes to ownership is about 0.1, it is likely the case that something like 0.1% of the guns are almost certain to be used in a crime and 99.9% have a probability of being used in a crime of something extremely close to zero. So, if you want an outright ban to be effective you would have to get over 99.9% off the guns off the street…then you would have to assume the remaining guns aren’t used for MORE crimes (which they almost surely would be). (Actually, for licensing, illegal trade and a host of other reasons this probably drastically understates the target…no pun intended.) How confident are you that our government can achieve 99.9% effective at anything?
If you were really interested in reducing the number of gun related homicides in the U.S. you could accomplish it through drug legalization. The OVERWHELMING majority of gun crimes are drug related. How “dangerous” are guns once we remove those from the statistic?
I'm not sure how you got to consumer protection from gun control. It looked like you were talking about whether the possession of guns should be regulated, rather than whether more product safety checks are necessary. I don't see how what you wrote fits with your earlier argument.
I know you're arguing statistics here, but how do you know what each individual's gun is going to be used for? Is that lack of precision in being able to predict each individual's intended use really a justification for deregulating guns? When known harm is accepted, it usually is accepted because of some known benefit -- like the fact that for every large number of people vaccinated, a few may react negatively to the vaccine. Yet, a very large number of people (and perhaps an entire community) is better off. What benefit offsets the cost of people using guns to cause harm -- besides fulfilling the right to bear arms?
What happens to your statistics (not clear to me if these are real or hypothesized) when you take out the guns people use to hunt, or you separate out urban and rural areas?
Anon-
Recycle your exact same logic: "When known [cost] is accepted, it is usually accepted for some known benefit."
The "known benefit" of gun control is precisely nonexistent.
And again: "What benefits offset the cost of [restricting peoples consumption and leisure]?"
Originally, I was only arguing that the gun debate is out of perspective...it would be better framed as an urban crime issue like your last para and my comment on my speculation drug legalization suggests. Beyond that, gun control relies on unverified outcomes and near-perfect enforcement...all at great cost. Can you provide a historical example of a similar miraculous achievement?
Did you see CNN Today? In the article regarding carrying on campuses, the Chief of Police in Cincinnati said that the answer to bullets flying isn't more bullets flying. Was that a joke?!?! In the very next breath he says that his men might mistakenly shoot anyone with a gun (mistakenly shooting a heroic citizen). So, I guess the answer to bullets flying is more bullets flying?!? Or at least the answer to bullets flying is for police bullets to be flying, not armed citizens.
Overall, they are missing the broader target. If criminals know their victims are armed, they are less like to attack. Carrying guns on campuses will result in less bullets flying because it changes the incentives of an attack. The police chief said he wants to focus on preventing the shootings. The answer is right under his nose--change the incentives for the criminal.
Which campus would a criminal most likely attack: 1)unarmed campus; 2)armed campus?
JD-
I tend to agree with you. Still, the idea that more guns means less crime is only theoretical. The empirical evidence is not compelling one way or the other. I also tend to be less than confident that campus shooters rationally respond to incentives…I mean, most are committing suicide after the rampage. Passion killers are probably the one group that significant gun control could deter. But, in my opinion, there is list of reasons why we might not want to pursue measures to prevent that minority of gun crimes.
The police Chief’s comment amounts to saying that by owning a gun, a person is accepting certain risks. That is obvious. And something I’m certain most people who own and carry a gun are quite aware of. That type of paternalistic argument is the least persuasive reason for gun bans.
Post a Comment