But it is not a question of “dismissing” statistics, but a question of understanding how statistical research is conducted, and how sociological questions are determined. This is more complex than most people realise. The ability to weed out extraneous factors and to control for various constants is part of such sociological research. This makes trans-national comparisons always quite difficult, and serious statisticians will always heavily qualify their remarks in such studies.

Take a similar area: deaths due to drugs. Unless nations have the exact same criteria to measure such things, you will come up with quite misleading comparisons. For example, some nations define a ‘drug-death’ as something which is absolutely clear, involving only an illicit drug, while other nations will list as a drug death that which involves all sorts of other contributing factors, and drugs may be only a small, or perhaps even negligible, aspect of the death.

Thus with such widely differing standards of measurement, it is nearly impossible to make worthwhile international comparisons. We are simply often just comparing apples with oranges. That is why Mark is correct to state that the best way to do research here is when most variables are eliminated or standardised, and we look at things such as when a change to the law occurs in a certain place over time. That gives us much better data to work with than unwieldy international comparisons.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

You are doing what Bill accused me of – making rather wild and unsubstantiated claims, without any corresponding evidence or solid statistics.

Wikipedia may not be a scholarly reference, but we are talking about statistics for intentional homicide here, and the comparitive figures are all referenced back to official sources.

My original point was that the US is way out of line with the experience of other countries with comparable living standards and stable, democratic governments, e.g. Australia, Canada, Europe. The countries I singled out were from that group, but if you like I will re-publish the figures for every country in Europe and the picture will be the same. The figures are all there in the reference I cited anyway.

While there might be some definitional differences between countries with certain individual cases, e.g. where assualt leads to death some time after the event, the difference between the USA and other countries is so stark that such quibbles must pale into insignificance. If you really believe otherwise, show me some proof. We’re not comparing something as subjective as literacy levels here, we are talking about intentional murder.

My assertion remains – the USA has homicide rates 4 to 5 times those of comparable countries. My belief is that it is due to the liberal attitude towards availability of concealable weapons, but perhaps there are other factors here, e.g. a lower respect for the value of human life. But why should that be in a country that has a predominantly Christian culture?

My conclusions are obviously subjective and open to debate, but the underlying statistics are impossible to simply dismiss. If guns don’t explain it, what does?

Stephen Hills

I agree with the others. Just taking a comparison of countries with differing levels of gun restrictions and homicide rates is very simplistic and proves nothing. There are many factors that influence homicide levels.

The best way to test the theory is to examine districts and countries where gun laws have changed and then watch for what happens to the murder rates etc. And just about every study shows that right-to-carry laws lead to a drop in murder rates, armed robberies etc.

Most bureaucratic efforts at top-down social engineering don’t work and oppresses the average individual.

The philosopher Bill Vallicella has also made a good case for the right to guns as being nothing more than an extension of the right to life;

“1. Every human person possesses a natural right to life.

2. If every human person has a natural right to life, then he has a right to defend his life against those who would seek to violate this right.

3. If every human person has a right to defend his life, then he has a right to an effective means of defending his life.

Therefore

4. Every human person has a right to an effective means of defending his life. (From 1, 2, 3 by Modus Ponens and Hypothetical Syllogism.)

5. In many circumstances, a gun is the only effective means of defending one’s life.

Therefore

6. In many circumstances, human persons have a right to possess guns, a right that is not conferred by constitutions but ought to be respected by them.”

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/11/deriving-gun-rights-from-the-right-to-life.html

Damien Spillane

International comparisons are fundamentally flawed because they do not take into account differences in culture aside from the legal status of weapons carrying. Your case is no case at all.

The best comparisons are always going to be what happens within the same country or area when gun laws are changed. And it is that argument that is irrefutable. Gun control laws lead to more murders. It really is that simple.

Mark Rabich

But your case really is not rested yet. As I mentioned, transnational comparisons of most things can be misleading and unhelpful, due to differing measuring systems, differing definitions, and so on. And of course Wiki is hardly known as a source of reliable and scholarly information. And you gave us just a few selected bits of info from their charts.

Moreover, mere homicide rates alone of course tell us only a small part of the overall story. We need much more detail as to how these homicides occurred, by what means, what actual guns laws are in place, and so on, to get a really accurate comparison of differing nations. So the case is far from shut.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

None of the references provided by others here actually make any international comparisons.

Here are the statistics. The underlying figures come from official sources, e.g. FBI in America:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Homicide rates per 100,000 population:
USA 5.8
Canada 1.83
France 1.59
Australia 1.2
Spain 1.2
Sweden 0.89
Italy 1.06
Netherlands 0.91

I rest my case.

Stephen Hills

Ewan McDonald.

But you continue to throw out rather wild and unsubstantiated charges, without any corresponding evidence or solid statistics. While transnational comparisons on almost any subject can be fraught with dangers, just what figures are you going on when you speak of differing international homicide rates? And you seem to be far out of your depth concerning just how an American can purchase a firearm.

Others have provided facts, figures and statistics here, while those opposed to American gun laws have failed to do this. In my books, one side is winning this debate hands down, simply based on the evidence.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

More particularly, why are homicide rates so high in the US when it is a largely Christian country compared with secular Europe? It’s hardly a great advertisement for Christian culture.

Would anyone here really support having the same “freedom” in Australia to buy handguns over the counter at a gun show with no questions asked? I certainly would not.

Stephen Hills

You are however correct about the ease in killing someone with a gun and the difficulty in killing anyone with a close range weapon. The same applies to infantry and fighter pilots, Generals commanding those fighter pilots and so on until one reaches the President. That is none the less beside the point. The weapon is not the one who does the action it is the person holding the weapon, they must thrust the sword, pull the trigger. The sword or the gun only follow the command of the hand.

Raymond Cox, Sedalia CO, USA