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.
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.
(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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
En banc denied in May v. Bonta, Carralero v. Bonta, and Wolford v. Lopez, our case and two others concerning overexpansive sensitive places laws in California and Hawaii. Not really surprising. Now we will either seek SCOTUS cert review, or, go back down to get a final judgment.
There were 8 dissenting judges from the denial of en banc review. A thread on the dissenting opinions.
Ok?
Not sure why they didn't just join the VanDyke dissent....maybe he said mean things about their colleagues lol
They aren't really all that creative, New York did the same thing. But the 2nd circuit struck their vampire rule, unlike Hawaii's. (California's was stricken for a very technical difference)
The Snope reply brief is in. This concludes the briefing for the cert petition (aside from any amicus briefs coming in support of the state).
Let's take a look at what they argued in response to Maryland's opposition.
A strong opening here, basically telling the Court that if they don't put a stop to this, it will have only itself to blame when the abuse continues. I would only add that the reason the lower courts have all gone the same way is because the more pro-gun circuits never see such cases, being generally made up of more pro-gun states.
Agreed. "Percolation" is valuable only if you assume good faith. And we have no reason to in this context.
Let's take a look at Maryland's opposition brief to the cert petition in Snope v. Brown, the case we are all hoping the Supreme Court decides to take so it can settle the "assault weapon" issue (and hopefully some other issues).
Props to the Maryland attorneys for getting this done despite having to type through the tears of Kamala's loss.
They always focus on this language from Heller, but ignore four things:
1. It was dicta inserted mainly to keep Justice Kennedy on board.
2. It was clearly referring to machine guns, not semiautomatic rifles.
3. Heller's author and Bruen's author dissented in Friedman from the denial of cert, and were very clear that semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 may not be banned.
4. SCOTUS GVR'd this very case after Bruen. If they thought this was a settled question, no reason to do that (and it's why I'll be very mad if they deny cert now!)
If SCOTUS dodges, this may be why. But it would be a very bad excuse to do so.
No "percolation" is likely to happen in any pro-2A circuits, because the states within those circuits do not pass bans on firearms. So only hostile circuits like the 4th, 7th, 9th, etc. will hear these cases. Not the progun 5th, 11th, or 8th. |
And while SCOTUS lets them "percolate", the anti-2A courts will continue to bastardize Bruen beyond recognition, just as they did Heller.
A thread on our final judgment from Judge McGlynn in our case of FFL-IL v. Pritzker. We represented Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, Guns Save Life, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Piasa Armory, and individual plaintiffs in this challenge to the euphemistically named "Protect Illinois Communities Act" (an "assault weapon" and magazine ban).
The "Rorschach test of America's gun debate." I like that.
I am going to skip through the background section as I am sure everyone following this case is well aware.
Tl;Dr - challenge to Illinois's "assault weapon" ban, magazine capacity limit, and registration requirement.
Note that California law classifies ALL Glocks as "unsafe handguns" because they do not have a compliant chamber load indicator, lack a magazine disconnect mechanism, and until our lawsuit caused California to repeal the requirement, of course lacked microstamping.
The only reason we can still buy Gen 3s is because they are grandfathered in, but they are still "unsafe handguns". We can't buy more modern Glocks new in gun stores (just secondhand from exempt cops, or from those who moved here with them from other states).
She supported the Unsafe Handgun Act and expanded it such that microstamping began to be enforced in 2013. So why does she own an "unsafe handgun"?
If a Glock is "safe" enough for Kamala Harris, she should call for the repeal of the handgun roster so Californians can buy more modern Glocks.
The lives of millions of regular people aren't worth less than hers.
Thanks to our lawsuit on behalf of CRPA and others in Boland v. Bonta, new semiauto pistol models have been able to enter the California roster for the first time in a decade after microstamping enforcement stopped.
But the guns added are still just a small fraction of the whole market, as it's not possible (or sometimes not financially feasible) to redesign guns to have the unwanted magazine disconnects and chamber load indicators.
This 1890 congressional debate on a bill banning the carrying of weapons in Washington DC is interesting in how much it repeats so many things we are still arguing about to this day.
First, the text of the bill:
Congressman Blount knew how this could be abused, even with the apparent allowance for open carry.
Congressman Grout (from Vermont), in response, seems annoyed Blount (from Georgia) is even debating this.
Grout quickly reveals the impetus for the bill, this was yet another example of gun control racism.
And apparently, "minors" was code for "black minors."