Gun Death Comparisons by Country

[Belsnickel]

So this came across my Facebook feed, and I thought it would be interesting to share here. The article is titled "The U.S. Is A World Leader in Gun Deaths." The title doesn't leave much to the imagination, but it compares our gun deaths to that of our neighbors if you plopped us into different regions. There are some increases given to countries that the organization assumes to be under reported, and they take out death from armed conflicts such as the war in Syria. So this is focusing on crime, not war. I'll list our ranking in each region and you can read the article for more info.

Western Europe: 1st out of 23
Central and Eastern Europe: 2nd out of 21
The Americas: 13th out of 20 (we have a violent hemisphere, don't we?)
North Africa and the Middle East: 2nd out of 21
Sub-Saharan Africa: 8th out of 43
Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Australasia: 3rd out of 19

There are obviously biases based upon where these folks draw the lines for the regions. But out of 147 countries, we come in 24th. Considering where we rank when compared with the rest of the developed world, it's rather startling to think about.

[Benton]

Taking out armed conflicts makes that a very subjective list, especially as numbers from those countries can be skewed due to the violence. That's like making a chart on crime, but tossing out drug related stats because addiction is a disease.

[Belsnickel]

(12-08-2015, 01:42 PM)Benton Wrote: Taking out armed conflicts makes that a very subjective list, especially as numbers from those countries can be skewed due to the violence. That's like making a chart on crime, but tossing out drug related stats because addiction is a disease.

I disagree. Eliminating armed, military conflicts makes it more objective. Armed conflicts would create outliers in the data that would further skew the results. From a statistical standpoint, eliminating those conflicts eliminates confounders in the data making the information more accurate with regards to the topic at hand.

[Benton]

(12-08-2015, 01:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree. Eliminating armed, military conflicts makes it more objective. Armed conflicts would create outliers in the data that would further skew the results. From a statistical standpoint, eliminating those conflicts eliminates confounders in the data making the information more accurate with regards to the topic at hand.

The problem is there's no reliable way to know if someone shot in Syria was shot because he was robbed or because he was in the middle of an armed conflict. So a number of countries that may have a high number of gun related deaths are discounted because of recognized discord.

[Belsnickel]

(12-08-2015, 02:09 PM)Benton Wrote: The problem is there's no reliable way to know if someone shot in Syria was shot because he was robbed or because he was in the middle of an armed conflict. So a number of countries that may have a high number of gun related deaths are discounted because of recognized discord.

I can see that. Admittedly, neither one of us knows the methods used to adjust to remove the armed conflict data since the article does not report it. While there is certainly nothing that could be done that would make it 100% reliable, I'd wager that they they could be more than 60% reliable in separating those out. Either way, they are inflating under reported regions, so I'm betting they are taking that uncertainty into account. But taking out the numbers of casualties from the conflict itself is the right thing to do, statistically speaking.

Of course, regardless of all of that, the countries involved in those armed conflicts are in areas that have vast differences from us in the social, political, and economic climates. When compared with our other developed nations, which are not those with armed conflicts within their borders, we don't fair well either. I'm actually most shocked at our ranking among the former Soviet Bloc.

[*PhilHos*]

Are these numbers also considering suicides? I heard (and haven't checked it's veracity) that suicides make up 60% of the gun deaths in the US. Regardless of the actual percentage, I think including suicide by gun is disingenuous, because people that want to kill themselves, will kill themselves regardless of whether they use a gun or not.

[*Nately120*]

(12-08-2015, 02:37 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I think including suicide by gun is disingenuous, because people that want to kill themselves, will kill themselves regardless of whether they use a gun or not.

Suicide is more spontaneous and convenience-based than people think.  Much like with homicide, guns don't kill people via suicide, but they do make it easier and more prevalent.  

[*PhilHos*]

(12-08-2015, 02:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Suicide is more spontaneous and convenience-based than people think.  Much like with homicide, guns don't kill people via suicide, but they do make it easier and more prevalent.  

So, of those people that killed themselves via gun, without access to a gun ALL of them would not commit suicide? :snark:

[Belsnickel]

(12-08-2015, 02:37 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Are these numbers also considering suicides? I heard (and haven't checked it's veracity) that suicides make up 60% of the gun deaths in the US. Regardless of the actual percentage, I think including suicide by gun is disingenuous, because people that want to kill themselves, will kill themselves regardless of whether they use a gun or not.

My understanding of the statistic is that it is assault by firearm. This is based on looking at the database the data was pulled from and that being the most likely category used. They separate out self-harm.

[*PhilHos*]

(12-08-2015, 03:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: My understanding of the statistic is that it is assault by firearm. This is based on looking at the database the data was pulled from and that being the most likely category used. They separate out self-harm.

If that's the case (and I have no reason not to believe you), then carry on.

[*Nately120*]

(12-08-2015, 03:02 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So, of those people that killed themselves via gun, without access to a gun ALL of them would not commit suicide? :snark:

I don't recall saying ALL.  And just on an anecdotal note, if someone you knew happened to be severely depressed would you hand him a loaded gun secure in the notion that you did nothing to escalate things?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-08-2015, 01:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So this came across my Facebook feed, and I thought it would be interesting to share here. The article is titled "The U.S. Is A World Leader in Gun Deaths." The title doesn't leave much to the imagination, but it compares our gun deaths to that of our neighbors if you plopped us into different regions. There are some increases given to countries that the organization assumes to be under reported, and they take out death from armed conflicts such as the war in Syria. So this is focusing on crime, not war. I'll list our ranking in each region and you can read the article for more info.

Western Europe: 1st out of 23
Central and Eastern Europe: 2nd out of 21
The Americas: 13th out of 20 (we have a violent hemisphere, don't we?)
North Africa and the Middle East: 2nd out of 21
Sub-Saharan Africa: 8th out of 43
Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Australasia: 3rd out of 19

There are obviously biases based upon where these folks draw the lines for the regions. But out of 147 countries, we come in 24th. Considering where we rank when compared with the rest of the developed world, it's rather startling to think about.

I don't like this list, it is comparing Apples to Oranges.
 
Who defined what is a developed country vs non-developed?

Is it based on GDP? if so, it's a sham comparing us to many of those countries on that list.

Deaths from Wars were excluded from other countries, so why aren't they excluding our deaths from the war on drugs as well?

Lastly, People tend to forget, the US is not a very old country like many of the others listed on here. We are younger and much more diverse than many of these countries that are on that list. Take Japan for instance, it was supposedly founded in 600 B.C. As of 2012, 98.5% of the people in Japan are Japanese.

So scratch them off the list, we have nothing in common with them. I could go on and list even more, but I think you get the idea.

[Belsnickel]

(12-08-2015, 08:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I don't like this list, it is comparing Apples to Oranges.
 
Who defined what is a developed country vs non-developed?

Is it based on GDP? if so, it's a sham comparing us to many of those countries on that list.

Deaths from Wars were excluded from other countries, so why aren't they excluding our deaths from the war on drugs as well?

Lastly, People tend to forget, the US is not a very old country like many of the others listed on here. We are younger and much more diverse than many of these countries that are on that list. Take Japan for instance, it was supposedly founded in 600 B.C. As of 2012, 98.5% of the people in Japan are Japanese.

So scratch them off the list, we have nothing in common with them. I could go on and list even more, but I think you get the idea.

It wasn't intended to compare like countries, so that complaint is irrelevant. It didn't differentiate between developed and developing. I made that comment. You are essentially saying we are different and so therefore we should not compare with anyone else.

As for the war on drugs, the deaths from cartels and things of that nature are criminal. Organized crime and is not the military. If you note, though, those numbers are what drives the numbers in central and South America. Removing them would make us look even worse.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-08-2015, 08:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It wasn't intended to compare like countries, so that complaint is irrelevant. It didn't differentiate between developed and developing. I made that comment. You are essentially saying we are different and so therefore we should not compare with anyone else.

As for the war on drugs, the deaths from cartels and things of that nature are criminal. Organized crime and is not the military. If you note, though, those numbers are what drives the numbers in central and South America. Removing them would make us look even worse.

Civil wars are not criminal acts (most times it's not the military either)? Or are we just going to gloss over that?

I'm very well aware that the numbers in the America's would change. And yes, we are different compared to most of those other countries. We don't have the same ethnic make up, nor do we have the same laws in regard to guns. If you want to compare us to someone, compare us to countries that have similar gun laws.

Not only that, but it fails to make sure they are comparable in population as well. It's much easier to control a smaller group than it is a larger one like ours. So my suggestion there is to use our states to compare. Once you take out Maryland, Tennessee and a 2-3 other states, you will find that our ratios are better than most of those European countries.

[Belsnickel]

(12-08-2015, 09:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Civil wars are not criminal acts (most times it's not the military either)? Or are we just going to gloss over that?

I'm very well aware that the numbers in the America's would change. And yes, we are different compared to most of those other countries. We don't have the same ethnic make up, nor do we have the same laws in regard to guns. If you want to compare us to someone, compare us to countries that have similar gun laws.

Not only that, but it fails to make sure they are comparable in population as well. It's much easier to control a smaller group than it is a larger one like ours. So my suggestion there is to use our states to compare. Once you take out Maryland, Tennessee and a 2-3 other states, you will find that our ratios are better than most of those European countries.

Civil wars are more military than criminal, as often times the side that is not the official state military is headed by, and the ranks are partially filled by, former members of the state military. Civil wars are more akin to military conflicts than criminal violence.

If you want to compare to countries with similar gun laws, then pull up that data. This is a high level comparison. They separated the world by regions and compared our gun deaths with the countries in that region. It wasn't a pick and choose, and I even provided the ranking based on all the countries used of 147. There were some left out, they likely had no data on them and so they could not be included, and that may have changed the situation of the standings for the U.S. in some regions. However, the data is present and sufficient for the most similar countries to ours. When compared to our typical comrades of western, developed nations we do not fair so well. All of the countries ranking higher are those countries where the social, political, and economic situations are much more tumultuous.

As for the population, that is why it is based on per 100k people, IIRC. Of course, there are smaller countries that rank higher than us, so what is the excuse there? DC has the highest gun deaths 100k in the country yet is the smallest (I think it's still smaller than RI technically). There are small and large states at both the top and the bottom of the list in both geography and population, so it doesn't seem like being smaller makes it easier to control. Of course, if you would like to provide some numbers to back up your claim, feel free.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-08-2015, 03:02 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So, of those people that killed themselves via gun, without access to a gun ALL of them would not commit suicide? :snark:

Ha, apparently not. Based on Suicides only, we are relatively low on that chart.

(12-08-2015, 03:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: My understanding of the statistic is that it is assault by firearm. This is based on looking at the database the data was pulled from and that being the most likely category used. They separate out self-harm.

yes, self harm is separated from it (Intentionally, I would think) because if you add in Suicides, Belgium's numbers triple ours and we are much closer to many of those European and Asian countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_death_rate

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Even something so simple as taking the word "Firearms" out of murders and we are well below the world average.

http://chartsbin.com/view/1454

So yes, we obviously have more gun related deaths than most other countries out there, especially ones that have banned guns, but they make up for it in other areas, ones that we do much better than them at.

Now if we used the same criteria as other countries do (number of arrests, not number of incidents) then our number would drop in half, down to 2.26 per 100k.

http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

[GMDino]

(12-08-2015, 01:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So this came across my Facebook feed, and I thought it would be interesting to share here. The article is titled "The U.S. Is A World Leader in Gun Deaths." The title doesn't leave much to the imagination, but it compares our gun deaths to that of our neighbors if you plopped us into different regions. There are some increases given to countries that the organization assumes to be under reported, and they take out death from armed conflicts such as the war in Syria. So this is focusing on crime, not war. I'll list our ranking in each region and you can read the article for more info.

Western Europe: 1st out of 23
Central and Eastern Europe: 2nd out of 21
The Americas: 13th out of 20 (we have a violent hemisphere, don't we?)
North Africa and the Middle East: 2nd out of 21
Sub-Saharan Africa: 8th out of 43
Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Australasia: 3rd out of 19

There are obviously biases based upon where these folks draw the lines for the regions. But out of 147 countries, we come in 24th. Considering where we rank when compared with the rest of the developed world, it's rather startling to think about.

Well Matt, there you go.

We're fine because a couple countries are worse than the US, the numbers can been changed and we do a better job than others in death by pet monkey.

No reason to discuss guns ever again or regulating them ever again.  I mean, where did people get the crazy idea that guns could be regulated anyway?