The article "In Medical Triumph, Homicides Fall Despite Soaring Gun Violence"<p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324712504578131360684277812.html" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732471250457813...</a><p>from December 8, 2012 provides some perspective on falling absolute numbers (and thus a falling rate) of gunshot deaths.<p>"Crime experts who attribute the drop in killings to better policing or an aging population fail to square the image of a more tranquil nation with this statistic: The reported number of people treated for gunshot attacks from 2001 to 2011 has grown by nearly half.<p>. . . .<p>"After a steady decline through the 1990s, the annual number of homicides zigzagged before resuming a decline in 2007, falling from 16,929 that year to an estimated 14,722 in 2010, according to FBI crime data.<p>"At the same time, medical data and other surveys in the U.S. show a rising number of serious injuries from assaults with guns and knives. The estimated number of people wounded seriously enough by gunshots to require a hospital stay, rather than treatment and release, rose 47% to 30,759 in 2011 from 20,844 in 2001, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program. The CDC estimates showed the number of people injured in serious stabbings rose to 23,550 from 22,047 over the same period."<p>Emergency medicine for gunshot victims has improved enormously in the last twenty years, and many people who are shot by criminals now survive for a lifetime of permanent disability rather dying on the street. A crime can only be classified as a "homicide" by the uniform statistical methods if someone dies, but a crime can still be very serious and harmful to the victim if it involves a gunshot by a criminal.
Also ALL violent crime is down 50% since 1993.<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0</a><p>Fear is a powerful weapon. The media and politicians know this and selectively choose which crime stats to promote.<p>Emotional outrage > rational analysis when it comes to selling pageviews and building political support.<p>That is nothing new. Fortunately the internet is helping to temper that imbalance.
The drop is all the more remarkable considering that there are at least 168,000,000 more guns in circulation in the US now than when gun homicide peaked in 1993.[1]<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/1998_2013_state_program_to_date_purpose_ids-033113.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/1998_2013_sta...</a>
Whatever drives violent crime in the U.S. does not seem to be the presence or absence of guns.<p>The white murder rate in America is about the same as it is in Europe/Canada, etc. The black murder rate is about the same as it is in parts of Africa. (Something like 10x the white rate.)<p>First look here to get a rough idea of the murder rate in different parts of the globe:<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...</a><p>Take a look here for the murder rate in different American states:<p><a href="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord" rel="nofollow">http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-...</a><p>Notice how this is a very similar list:<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-American_population" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-...</a><p>With some corrections for urbanization, the correlation is even more extreme.<p>Also see the discussion and figures here:
<a href="http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hispanic.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hispanic.htm</a>
Most gun stats blithely show aggregate rates of gun ownership and gun-related homicides, and the public reacts in fear; who wants to live in a country like that?<p>But criminal-on-criminal violence is a disproportionate share. Are we supposed to think that the presence of guns is what drives the violence, or is it possibly that you've got millions of young men with no jobs and nothing constructive to do, with parents who don't care to bring them up right (or who can't control them), running drugs and fighting turf wars, cooking up ways to make bank? There's an argument that for some people, access to guns creates an opportunity; but there's a lot more at work here than that.<p>There's a social rot underneath it all -- and I'd venture that gun violence in the US is a symptom of the rot rather than guns being a cause. It seems remarkably dangerous to me to demonize the mechanism by which someone <i>murders</i> another person in the name of progress; politicians feel like they're accomplishing something, even though we still have a bunch of people willing to kill someone, if only they had the means.<p>There's significant collective cognitive dissonance in American society on this topic, I think.
Nobody seems to mention the reason I think accounts for a good deal of the drop, which is simply the perception that you're going to get caught is much higher. Up until the mid 90's there wasn't even DNA analysis. The world was a much simpler place, no cameras everywhere, cell phones, internet, and a myriad of other ways to be tracked. The rise of technology in law enforcement coupled with the non stop blasting of crime shows depicting criminals getting caught (e.g. CSI) has greatly increased the perception that you will not get away with murder. Today most sane people at least view it as something extremely risky and hard to get away with. Even to the destitute gun crime is not a very attractive option these days, whereas 20+ years ago it wasn't nearly as big a deal. Of course there's a handful of other factors, but I think the perceived likelihood of being caught is probably the most significant.
Others may be unaware of the shift in suicide rates by firearm:<p>"The sharp decline in the U.S. gun homicide rate, combined with a slower decrease in the gun suicide rate, means that gun suicides now account for six-in-ten firearms deaths, the highest share since at least 1981."
Just a sanity check: "Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years, and though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened."
End the drug war and it drops even more if you don't count suicides (since that's not really a homicide) and you're only left with the occasional nutter with a gun(s).
If you live outside of a high crime area, and you aren't involved in criminal activity the chances, of being shot are <i>drastically</i> reduced below the average.
"Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades."<p>So, gun crime's falling significantly slower than crime in general, which may account for the public perception.
Well.. that's not to say a rate of 3.2 is a good rate. The U.S. still is far above most western countries, which typically have something like 0.x or even 0.0x homicides per 100.000.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...</a>
Some may call me crazy, but I have a hunch that the decline in gun homicide, and crime in general, is related to gaming.<p>There is frequently a claim that it's the FPS and other violent games that trigger mass shootings. Although I believe that there is an negative effect, I also believe that that negative effect is essentially all but negated by other outcome positive effects of gaming. I feel like there might be net positive outcomes related to those who would in the past have been the types who felt the need to enforce their ego through violence, posturing, and domination. Additionally, because those types of people / kids would then also not have come in contact with "mentors" who would groom them, there could also be a cycle-interrupting process going on here.
SuperFreakonomics attributed the dramatic drop in crime in the 1990s to Roe vs Wade.
<a href="http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/" rel="nofollow">http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-wh...</a>
If gun homicide is truly down 49% then why so much controversy over wether or not they should be allowed and what not. This will constantly be an ongoing battle for years to come over gun control. Why blame the gun for random acts of violence when violence is truly uncontrolable. Before there were guns people still committed horrendous crimes. It's the corrupted mind not the weapon.
One of the factors in reducing gun homicide is we have gotten better since 1993 at keeping people alive after they have been shot.<p>I am interested in the change per capita of gun shot victims as a whole.
Well back in 1993, almost 49% of households had a gun. Today the number is 32%. That alone is a 35% drop in gun ownership.<p>There are so many other factors that could play a role here. And none of them negate the need for common sense gun regulations and re-funding research on both gun and non-gun violence.
It appears that gun homicide rate increased under Bush Sr. (~5.6 => 7.0) and Jr.(3.8 => 4.0), and declined under Reagan(6.6 => 5.6), Clinton (7.0 => 3.8) and Obama (4.0 =>3.6).<p>Numbers are in death/100,000 people, (+/-0.1 because they were read from the graph[0]).<p>A t-test on the yearly rate of change, yields a p-value of 0.002. (in Excel =T.TEST(A1:A12, B1:B14,1,3)).<p>Did the Bush have a peculiar approach regarding crime fighting?<p>[0] <a href="http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/05/SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-2.png" rel="nofollow">http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/05/SDT-2013-05-gun...</a>
A big part of the perception problem is that gangs have spread out or have left the larger urban environments in favor of smaller cities and suburbs with no resources.<p>So people see gang activity in places like Albany, NY or Springfield, MA or some suburb in Tennessee and hear about 15 year old gang members carrying handguns. They associate that real social problem with the tools that they are carrying.<p>That combined with pandering politicians and advocacy group funded PR efforts that land gun related incidents on the TV everyday leads to the present situation.
As with most things, follow the money. Who benefits the most when the public is frightened of gun violence (and also being told to arm themselves)?<p>Similarly, war deaths (as a portion of total death) have been decreasing incredibly. Yet, globally we keep increasing our spending on military. And, the public is frightened of war. Some would say that the spending on military has been the major deterrent to war. But, studies show the decrease is more related to rises in democracy and global trade.
I wonder if the increase in available distractions, such as video games, has something to do with it.<p>And I don't know the name of the theory, but stats don't really relate well to certain events, such as taking a bullet. If took_a_bullet = false, then are you really thinking about the odds? If took_a_bullet = true, then you've got bigger problems than becoming a statistic.
Of course they're unaware. It's harder to keep fear alive when information like this gets out.<p>Both sides know this. But each side is convinced that it benefits more from a fearful populace than an unafraid populace, and that the reverse is true for its opposition. And so the fearmongering continues.
In a totally and completely unrelated fact, the rate of gun ownership is also down 30% since the 1980's. It's almost as if the two may have a relationship, but that certainly cannot be the case because the NRA has spent a jillion dollars telling me otherwise!
I'm surprised no one here has made mention of the correlation between led in the atmosphere and violent crime.<p><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline" rel="nofollow">http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-li...</a>
Please, please do yourself a favour and read Steven Pinker's <i>The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined</i> - a breathtaking tour-de-force backed by strong, robust, varied evidence.
Homicide rates in the US are still significantly higher than other developed nations, so there's a long way to go:<p><pre><code> US 4.8 per 100,000 in 2012
UK 1.2
France 1.1
Germany 0.8
Japan 0.4
</code></pre>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...</a><p>I wonder why this paper doesn't use the statistics from 2012, which show an uptick to 4.8?
There are a few theories (I've not seen mentioned here) as to why crime is down so much. Not certain how valid they are but are food for thought. Some external reasons crime may be down:<p>- The ban on lead in gasoline and other products, the contamination of which tended to create dumber and more impulsive people.<p>- The legalization of abortion, resulting in fewer unwanted, unsupervised children.
I didn't read the article, but am going to make a commentary anyway. I take from this declining violent crime stat, that we still have a long way to go in eradicating violent crimes (both gun and non gun related). /soapbox
Of course it is. All violent crime is down.<p>That has nothing to do with the fact that kids are still accidentally getting shot.<p>I propose a new law; if a child (under 18) is found in possession of a gun the gun owner is fined $50,000. If the gun's ownership cannot be established, the parents or legal guardians are fined $50,000 instead.<p>People might be a little more serious about locking up their guns and not letting their kids play with them.<p>Dumb parents never seemed to be scared of their kids accidentally shooting each other but and one of them dies, maybe they'd be scared of them accidentally shooting each other and owing $50,000.
dmix is right - here in the UK the UK Peace Index [1] (a rather hippie name for respected peer reviewed sociology) shows massive drops across the board for violent crime.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/UK-Peace-Index-2013-IEP-Report.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/U...</a>
93' was gangster. I was a teenager around then and a lot of people were gangbanging at the time. Most of those people realized that they didn't want to go to prison for murder.