The Great Gun Debate Part Two: Why Guns, other Factors, and Switzerland
This article follows Part One, which can be found here.
Frequent commenter and source of interesting questions and perspectives Jim Roye posted several items to think about when responding to Part One, including:
“What’s the fascination with guns? … Firearms accounted for 1.5% of all premature deaths in 2010. That’s down 25% (from 2.0%) in 1990 and down by a much larger amount if you go back to the 1960s.”
He then provided the following graph:
Jim’s point is that firearm deaths are really low on the list of causes for premature deaths, so why are so many focused on it instead of the other big items?
As I look at this list, I would say that generally what sets firearms apart is that there seems to be disagreement as to how dangerous they are, how necessary they are, and who is responsible for the damage done using them. No one is really arguing anymore that tobacco is not bad for you, that more exercise and eating healthier will not improve your life, or that we should not do everything we can to remove dangerous microbes and toxins from places where people are.
In contrast, there are people continuing to loudly argue that “Guns don’t kill people, people do” and “Mass shootings are a mental health issue, not a gun issue.”
So my answer to “Why guns?” would be “Because there is a large divide in this country when it comes beliefs about how we should treat guns in terms of individuals’ rights and in terms of ensuring the safety of all citizens.”
Jim also agreed that other factors should be considered. So let’s try that.
I grabbed some state-level statistics somewhat at random to show other factors that might influence the incidence of gun-related deaths. These fall into the categories of Education, Income, Population Distribution, and Race.
You can see the Tableau interactive workbook where I have all this data here.
Education
First we look at the percent of the population ages 25 to 34 who have not earned a high school diploma. This is a very strong predictor, with higher percentages of the population without a high school education predicting a higher incidence of firearm deaths.
Looking at another statistic, we see something different:
When looking at the percent of the population ages 18–24 who are enrolled in or completed college, we see it has no predictive ability on the incidence of gun-related deaths.
This suggests that the percent of a state’s adult population with and without a basic adult education has an impact on the incidence of firearm deaths, but the percent of a state’s young adult population who have at least some college experience does not have an impact.
Next, let’s look at income.
Income
Median household income is a strong predictor, with states having higher incomes showing less firearm deaths.
Let’s look at another measure of income.
So the percent of the state below poverty is a strong predictor, with more people in poverty predicting more firearm deaths.
More money equals less gun deaths.
So what about the urban versus rural debate? Some would argue that rural folks are more likely to have and use guns, while others would argue those in large urban settings would be.
Population Distribution
The percent of a state’s population that lives in urban settings is a strong predictor of gun deaths, with states having more urban populations less likely to have gun-related deaths.
Similarly, the more people you have per square mile, on average, the fewer gun deaths you have.
The other factor I included is race.
Race
So, the percent of your state that are white has no significant predictive power on the number of firearm deaths. I guess that’s a good thing?
So from these brief comparisons, we could conclude that states with more people with a basic adult education, people who make more money, and people who live more closely together have less firearm deaths.
This would suggest that we should be looking at ways to improve graduation rates, help everyone earn a decent living, and make sure people are a part of a larger community. All worthwhile things to pursue.
But so is better regulation for guns.
Impact
Finally, Jim suggested that successful gun control legislation would have a very small impact on all premature deaths in the country, and therefore shouldn’t be our focus.
We Americans are all about quantity, and don’t think much about quality. Better gun regulation might only save a few people every year, but I feel the ROI is still pretty high. Because it’s not just about saving those who die from firearm related deaths. It’s about saving their families and friends the trauma of dealing with a senseless death. it is about saving the public who is inundated with stories of shootings and as a result live in more and more fear.
It is about making smart decisions about what it will take to keep us safe.
Switzerland
Finally, Brian Ansorge suggested that I should really look at Switzerland to see the impact of culture on the incidence of gun violence.
Here is an article in Time from 2012:
Here’s a quote:
One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons — and also why the Swiss mentality can’t be transposed to the current American reality — is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation.
So yes, Switzerland has only slightly fewer guns per capita than the US, but has a much lower incidence of gun violence. But Switzerland is also a largely homogenous population, and we are not. There is no way to suddenly instill a strong sense of patriotism and responsibility. It just doesn’t work that way.
To sum this hodgepodge up, I would say that gun violence and the importance of gun control is a messy, messy topic, and there are no easy answers or solutions. But it is important to continue the discussion.
