Just over a week ago I
got into a discussion with someone on Facebook (no names, no pack drill) about
gun control in the USA, or lack of it. My interlocutor was an obviously
intelligent bloke and claimed his argument was objective and emotion-free,
based on mathematics. To this end he produced a graph demonstrating that there
was no correlation between gun murders (homicides) and gun ownership across the
50 states of America. After the debate I found another graph that disputes his
findings, but that’s not what my argument is about.
In truth, I think he
was just as emotive about this issue as me, perhaps more so, but believed he
could take refuge in the safe haven of statistical analysis. In fact, he made
the extraordinary statement (from my perspective) that violence in the US is
‘cultural ….but there's no evidence it has anything to do with guns’. In other
words, he acknowledges that America is a violent country but it has ‘nothing to
do with guns’, because there is no correlation between gun ownership and
homicides between states. The point I want to make is that one can make an
illogical non-syllogism if one can back it up with statistics. He effectively
argued that yes, there are a lot of gun-related deaths in America (over 10 per
100k of people; arguably the highest in the developed world) and America has a
lot of guns (9 for every 10 people; the absolute highest apparently) but there
is no connection between the 2 stats.
So I pulled out an old
psychology text book on statistics and did some analysis of my own. There is
a well-worn formula called the Pearson Correlation that exploits standard
deviation of both sets of data and delivers a figure between -1 and +1 that is
easy to interpret. 1 is obviously a perfect correlation and 0 is no
correlation, with -1 an inverse correlation.
Using data on
Wikipedia I did a correlation for all 74 countries that Wiki lists for total firearm-related death rate (the list of gun numbers is considerably longer).
The Pearson Correlation was -0.07, which is marginally negative and seems to
support my Facebook antagonist. But a handful of countries have huge death
rates in the 30s and 40s per 100k, which wipes out any correlation that the
majority may reveal.
So if one removes all
African countries, all Central and South American countries, Caribbean
countries and all Middle Eastern countries (except Israel) we are left with all
of Europe (both West and East, where we have figures) and most of Asia (except
Philippines; refer below) and North America; 46 countries out of the 74. Now we
get a Pearson’s Correlation of 0.83 which is quite high. However, if one adds
just one anomalous country like the Philippines, which has a gun death rate of
9.5 (almost the same as US) but with gun ownership less than 5 per 100 people
(20% of US gun ownership) the correlation drops to 0.6, a considerable difference
made by one country out of 47. On the other hand, if one drops the US from the
list, the correlation also drops to 0.67, so it’s a significant weighty
statistic in its own right.
If one just takes
England, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and United States (countries
most culturally similar to the US) one gets a Pearson’s Correlation of 0.95
(almost exact). But taking US out of this smaller list of 6 English-speaking
countries the correlation only drops to 0.86, which suggests that the US is not
an anomaly in the same way that the Philippines is.
So much for
statistics. Mass shootings that grab global media headlines, apparently make up
only 1% of gun-related deaths in the US (according to my Facebook opponent) therefore
from a statistical point of view they shouldn’t influence the debate at all, but
that’s just nonsense. The point is that they should be 0% as they tend to be in
other developed countries. The obvious question to ask is what is the
difference between the US and the other handful of similar countries (like
England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) that provide the strongest
correlation? I would suggest it’s gun control. If the US has the largest number
of guns per people of anywhere in the world and the highest gun-death rate in
the Western world, then it’s screaming out for gun control.
I argued on Facebook
that gun-deaths in America drive up gun ownership, indicated by the fact that
there is a spike in gun purchases following mass shootings. America appears to
have the most liberal gun laws in the developed world – a legacy of the NRA, one of the strongest political lobbies in America. It’s unlikely that Obama
will be able to do any more than previous administrations, despite his
history-challenging rhetoric. Every tragic shooting reopens this debate, but
nothing changes, and every incident only reinforces the belief held by many
Americans that they need to be armed.
1 comment:
I think it is also cultural. In some countries, the citizens are rather well armed, even by European standards, yet the homicides are quite low in comparison. These people just value their neighbours more. I can understand that the automatic weapons should not be available to anyone just for fun, or for some weird entitlement, but should be only used by the Army. Not even the Police should be entitled to use these weapons. There is no reason for it and they ought to be happy with a sidearm, possibly just a revolver or some small calibre semiautomatic. I remember seeing the Italian Police with these toy-like Berettas, and they were happy with it.
Post a Comment