The Tribune’s recent series “Fire Sale: America’s unchecked gun market” inaccurately linked higher gun ownership to higher murder and suicide rates. Combined with anecdotes of tragic shootings, the comparisons of the United States with other countries seemingly led to the inescapable conclusion that our gun laws must be strengthened.
Yet to reach these conclusions the authors selectively picked comparison countries and did not match the actual variation in murder rates with the changes in gun ownership.
Take the international comparison of firearm death rates. No explanation is offered for why the authors examined Sweden but not Finland, Australia but not New Zealand, or Germany but not Switzerland. People in Finland, Switzerland and New Zealand all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland’s murder rate was 40 percent lower than Germany’s, and New Zealand’s was lower than Australia’s. Finland and Sweden have very similar murder rates but very different gun ownership rates. Israel, with one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, has a murder rate 40 percent lower than Canada’s. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.
Does gun ownership facilitate suicide? Surprisingly, international comparisons actually reveal slightly lower suicide rates in countries where people have more access to guns (for example, Japan’s suicide rate is almost twice our own despite strict gun control). Obviously, countries differ in other respects, and any serious discussion would have to account for other differences.
There are many difficulties in making comparisons across countries. Besides problems in accounting for all the differences that affect crime, gun ownership is only estimated through widely incompatible polls. Further, few people dare to tell pollsters that they own a gun when such an activity is illegal.
In a forthcoming book from the University of Chicago Press, I study far more reliable gun ownership rates across U.S. states over time (where the same polls were used to survey all the states) and examine its impact on crime. This comparison allows me to account for such influences as different arrest and conviction rates. I find that increased gun ownership is associated with lower crime rates. Further, it is the poorest people in the most crime-prone areas who benefit the most from gun ownership. There is no evidence that gun ownership affects suicide rates.
This brings us to the part of the story that was left out. How is it possible that higher gun ownership could be associated with fewer crimes? The Tribune emphasized the crimes committed with guns, yet completely ignores that guns also protect people. Criminals tend to attack victims that they perceive as weak, and guns can offset the differences in strength and thus serve as an important deterrent.
Without a doubt, people do bad things with guns, but guns also protect people when law enforcement is not able to be there. In the final analysis, one concern unites us all: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? Unfortunately, articles like the Tribune’s do not move us any closer to the answer.
