Kostas Moros Profile picture
May 26, 2022 21 tweets 6 min read Read on X
A thread on international homicide rate comparisons before I head off to bed. We often hear that the US has a high homicide rate due to its recognition of the individual right to bear arms. I’m going to challenge that premise in a few different ways.
First, it’s important to note that the US has always had a higher homicide rate than European countries and Australia/NZ. And this has continued both before and after those countries enacted gun control. Image
Take England, for example. Its first gun laws were enacted in around 1920, and it didn’t ban pistols, the type of firearm by far the most often used in homicides, until 1997. Yet its homicide rate was basically unchanged for a century. And always much lower than the US. Image
(Sidenote: Northern Ireland still allows pistols, and its homicide rate is basically identical to England’s. So the rest of the UK didn’t really get anything for surrendering their rights other than getting to feel good temporarily.) Image
Even today, several countries in Europe have gun laws that, while still strict, are much more friendly than you may think to private ownership. This includes very low homicide rate nations like the Czech Republic, Switzerland, and Austria. Image
Ah, but many would then immediately counter that while some European countries may be somewhat gun friendly now or in the past, they just never had as many guns as the US does, and that’s why we have such high homicide!
But this too belies the fact that for whatever reason, the US is just more violent than Europe *regardless of guns*. See chart below. Yes, our gun-related homicides are high. But our non-gun homicides exceed the TOTAL homicide rates of most other countries listed. Image
So if it’s the guns, how come even if all our guns magically vanished, we would still have a higher homicide rate than nearly all comparable countries, several of which still have some level of guns? It seems clear to me that a lot of our gun homicides would happen anyway.
Another beef I have is always comparing to Europe. Yes, I’m not saying we should compare ourselves to Yemen, we are a first world country and should hold ourselves to that standard. At the same time, comparing only to homogenous European countries is misleading.
In the Americas, the US is by far one of the safest countries, second only to Canada (and maybe Chile some years). This despite it being the country with by far the most pro-gun laws. Many of those dark red regions below effectively ban people from owning guns. It’s not working. Image
According to the UN, there were 464,000 homicides in 2017. Per the FBI, we had 17,284 murders that year. So the US is 4.25% of the world’s population, but has only 3.7% of its murders. Bet the antigunners wouldn’t have guessed that for the most strapped country in the world!
Within the United States, there is no correlation between gun ownership rate and homicide rate on a state by state level. There isn’t even a correlation with *gun* homicide rate and ownership. Image
Moreover, homicide in the US affects different groups very differently. White Americans own by far the most guns and have a homicide rate only a little higher than what we see in Europe. Black Americans suffer homicide rates that are as if they lived in Mexico. Image
So no, I don’t think the US has a high homicide rate due to the second amendment. In fact, I think there is no data to support that given all of the above. Thanks for reading.
I feel I’ve been abusing Twitter in recent weeks given there has been a bit of a lull in my attorney work, and so I’m going to try to back off of it for a while lest I form a bad addiction haha. That said, I’ll still check in once or twice a day so leave your comments!
@GryphonWatcher Has pointed out that I at least overstated, if not unintentionally mislead, as to the number of pistols in Northern Ireland. While there is a significant amount in civilian hands given the small pop (14k as of 2009), they aren't exactly common. Apologies.
I stand by though that the UK had similarly low homicide rates both before and after its major gun control initiatives from 1900 to 2000.

Moreover, the other nations I mentioned (Switzerland, Austria, Czech Republic) are undeniably more gun-friendly with low homicide rates.
Since I did one update, may as well do one more I noticed. My data re non-gun homocides is correct, but from 2010. Let's update. According to the CDC, there were 5192 homicides not involving a firearm in 2020.

That comes out to a non-gun homicide rate of 1.6 per 100k.
The UK's total homicide rate that year was 1.17 per 100,000.

Czech Republic was 0.7 per 100,000.

France was 1.3 per 100,000.

ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati…

google.com/amp/knoema.com…

google.com/amp/knoema.com…
I could do more, but the point is that the US continues to be more violent than European nations even when you exclude guns and compare against their total homicide rates (including guns).

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Kostas Moros

Kostas Moros Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MorosKostas

Nov 9
This article is misleading and also a masterclass in how to lie by omission. Let's break it down. Image
Two bits of background information you should know beforehand:

1. "Stand Your Ground" does one thing, and one thing only: it gets rid of any duty to retreat before lawful self-defense. Every other element of self-defense must still be present before you resort to lethal force, or you are going to prison. It mainly serves to stop asshole prosecutors from second-guessing whether you "could have run away instead" in a life-or-death situation.

2. Stand Your Ground is the law in most of the country, including many Democrat states like California and Colorado. Varying levels of duty to retreat basically only exist in the Northeast at this point, plus Minnesota. Wisconsin and Nebraska have their own hybrids too. The rest of the country has Stand Your Ground either by statute or via common law.Image
The article begins with a double-lie:

"In 30 states, it often requires only a claim you killed while protecting yourself or others."

First of all, it's not 30 states, it's more like 40. But we can already see where they are going: trying to obfuscate about the blue states that also have SYG via common law, to make this about the "bad" progun red states.

Second, it's not true that it only requires a "claim", you must have all the elements of self-defense. Sure, sometimes the facts can be murky, especially if the only other witness is dead, but that's the case with any self-defense claim.
Read 16 tweets
Nov 8
This bit right here is completely outrageous to me. It is absolutely preposterous for a judge to redirect federal spending against what congress appropriated it for.

Why even have a separation of powers? Hell, the judge may as well order Congress to end the shutdown on his precise terms. What would be the difference? He is already taking over the power of the purse with this order.Image
I don't even think it was right for the judge to order the spending of the very limited contingency funds, as judges should not get to decide how money designated for an emergency gets spent.

However, at least that point was arguable. The further step he took was baseless and constitution-torching.
I hope the Supreme Court intervenes on this. I wish @AGPamBondi and team the best of luck.

Shutdowns are a high-stakes political game. If you are going to keep the government shutdown, it can't be the case that you get to run to courts and have your priorities ordered to be funded.

Congress has not appropriated more money for SNAP. The program basically doesn't exist until they do. Federal judges should not get to order it back into existence.

As the left likes to say, NO KINGS!
Read 6 tweets
Oct 20
California just filed its opposition to the cert petition in Duncan, let's see what they argue. A thread on the brief.Image
"May acquire as many approved firearms as they want" is a funny point, because it has only been true for a few months since California lost in Nguyen. California was trying to limit us to one gun per month.Image
As is always the case, antigunners want very expansive definitions of mass shootings EXCEPT when arguing to uphold AWBs and mag limits, then all of a sudden they want to limit it to the worst (and most rare) mass shootings. The GVA definition goes out the window immediately. Image
Read 15 tweets
Oct 1
This local news segment is funny because Sheriff Luna ADMITS they have been making people wait too long, while in their official PR statements, they are denying that.

He says:

"I wish we didn't have to make people wait too long, but we've got to do it right, I don't want to be issuing CCWs to people who shouldn't have them."Image
Also, his point is nonsense.

He could simply require a livescan and a training course, and skip the rest. That's what every other state does (some don't even have the training course) and yet they have no issue with people with CCW permits committing lots of crimes. In fact, they rarely ever do.
Read 4 tweets
Aug 20
An idea for the Trump admin: consider restoring the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

It started over a century ago as a way to make sure the populace in a rapidly urbanizing country stayed proficient in marksmanship by providing affordable modern firearms to those interested in learning.

Today, while it still does some good work with competitions and youth shooting sports, it seems to be a shell of its former self, and the guns offered are all ancient. It's a way for collectors to get old rifles as auction items and buy military-issued 1911s for over $1000, basically.

It's also kind of outrageous that it is limited by state laws, and that should end. For example, the website says they can't ship 1911s to Massachusetts as state law won't allow it. The whole point of the CMP was to help ensure a competently armed populace, but states can undermine that?

A revitalized Civilian Marksmanship program would be better funded, have a presence in public high schools where it could teach gun safety and responsibility, and sell more modern surplus firearms at affordable prices to Americans in every state (as it should be exempt or preempt from any state laws).Image
As some pointed out below, CMP also sells $500 1911s made more recently, but those are no available in Massachusetts, California, or even DC due to state and local laws in each.

That's just absurd. Those state laws shouldn't exist in the first place, but even given they do, the CMP should absolutely be exempt. Especially in the literal capital city! Congress should immediately nullify any DC laws on this.Image
Not counting air rifles, the most modern rifles they sell date back to WW2 era.

No reason they should not be offering more modern surplus guns.

Garands and M1 Carbines are very, very cool. But they are not what a modern citizen in 2025 looks to buy to become a proficient marksman.

The CMP should not be a niche program for collectors. That's not why it was created. It's fine if it's also that, but not only that.Image
Read 4 tweets
Aug 7
Today the Sixth Circuit ruled on a machine gun case. In this thread I'll take a look at the relatively short majority opinion and skim the longer concurrence as well.

The panel is a Reagan, Bush, and Trump judge. They seem to have ruled that while machine guns are "arms" under the Second Amendment, restrictions on them are nonetheless constitutional. Let's see what the reasoning is.Image
Ah yes, another example of "bad facts make bad law."

Very hard to win these cases when the criminal defendant making the Second Amendment claim is someone who tried to kill police officers.

The "machine gun" in this case was a Glock switch. Image
Here is where we start to run into the limits of the "common use" standard. While it is enough to stop bans on common semiautomatic rifles (if SCOTUS ever enforces its own precedent, that is), it leaves us high and dry on machine guns.

They can't enter common use because the government made them prohibitively expensive, and then in 1986 banned them even if registered. You can only get pre-1986 machine guns, and those cost tens of thousands of dollars. The government essentially stopped them from being in common use.

In one of the only correct things the Seventh Circuit has ever said on 2A, “It [is] absurd to say that the reason why a particular weapon can be banned is that there is a statute banning it so that it isn’t commonly owned. A law’s existence can’t be the source of its own constitutional validity.” Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 409 (7th Cir. 2015).

At least with SBRs and suppressors, there is no Hughes Amendment so people have still bought lots of them despite NFA tax and registration. Machine guns didn't get that chance.Image
Read 37 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(