The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries
Much
of the political thinking about violence in the United States comes
from unfavorable comparisons between the United States and a series of
cherry-picked countries with lower murder rates and with fewer guns per
capita. We’ve all seen it many times. The United States, with a murder
rate of approximately 5 per 100,000 is compared to a variety of Western
and Central European countries (also sometimes Japan) with murder rates
often below 1 per 100,000. This is, in turn, supposed to fill Americans
with a sense of shame and illustrate that the United States should be
regarded as some sort of pariah nation because of its murder rate.
Prejudice about the "Developed World" vs "the Third World"
But for an illustration of where this sort of thinking leads, let's look at this Washington Post article titled “The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country.”
Note,
however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list
of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States. They are
countries that were settled
long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse
today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a
population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again,
unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives
in government per voter). Politically, historically, and
demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan.
Prejudice about the "Developed World" vs "the Third World"
But
these are the only countries the US shall be compared to, we are told,
because the US shall only be compared to “developed” countries when
analyzing its murder rate and gun ownership.
And
yet, no reason for this is ever given. What is the criteria for
deciding that the United States shall be compared to Luxembourg but not
to Mexico, which has far more in common with the US than Luxembourg in
terms of size, history, ethnic diversity, and geography?
Much of this stems from outdated preconceived and evidence-free notions about the "third world." As Hans Rosling has shown, there is this idea of "we" vs. "them." "We" are the special "developed" countries were people are happy healthy, and live long lives. "Them" is the third world where people live in war-torn squalor and lives there are nasty, brutish, and short. In this mode of thinking there is a bright shiny line between the "developed" world and everyone else, who might as well be considered as a different species.
Much of this stems from outdated preconceived and evidence-free notions about the "third world." As Hans Rosling has shown, there is this idea of "we" vs. "them." "We" are the special "developed" countries were people are happy healthy, and live long lives. "Them" is the third world where people live in war-torn squalor and lives there are nasty, brutish, and short. In this mode of thinking there is a bright shiny line between the "developed" world and everyone else, who might as well be considered as a different species.
[RELATED: "Gun Control Fails: What Happened in England, Ireland, and Canada"]
In truth, there is no dividing line between the alleged "developed" world and everyone else. There is, in fact, only gradual change that takes place as one looks at Belgium, then the US, then Chile, and Turkey, and China, and Mexico. Most countries, as Rosling illustrates here, are in the middle, and this is freely exhibited by a variety of metrics including the UN's human development index.
Once we understand these facts, and do not cling to bizarre xenophobic views about how everyone outside the "developed" world is too dysfunctional and/or subhuman (although few gun control advocates would ever admit to the thought) to bear comparison to the US, we immediately see that the mantra "worst in the developed world" offers an immensely skewed, unrealistic, and even bigoted view of the world and how countries compare to each other.
While ignorance about true global poverty, life expectancy, and family planning are no doubt a source of some of these wrong-headed comparisons, one doesn't need to be the world's biggest cynic to recognize that the US is only compared to a selective list of countries because doing so offers a biased view of the United States that makes it looks like an especially crime-ridden place.
But, we are never allowed to compare the US to middle income countries like Uruguay, Russia, or Mexico because that would show that the US is actually a remarkably safe place in global terms on top of having many more legally owned guns than those countries.
Nevertheless, we've all heard it too many times to count: gun laws in the United States are "insane" because countries like Sweden and Luxembourg have far more restrictive gun laws and are much safer because of it. The US has the highest murder rate in the "developed world" — presumably because of its lax guns laws —we are told again and again.
Few people who repeat this mantra have any standard in their heads of what exactly is the "developed" world. They just repeat the phrase because they have learned to do so. They never acknowledge that when factors beyond per capita GDP are considered, it makes little sense to claim Sweden should be compared to the US, but not Argentina. Such assertions ignore immense differences in culture, size, politics, history, demographics, or ethnic diversity. Comparisons with mono-ethnic Asian countries like Japan and Korea make even less sense.
In truth, there is no dividing line between the alleged "developed" world and everyone else. There is, in fact, only gradual change that takes place as one looks at Belgium, then the US, then Chile, and Turkey, and China, and Mexico. Most countries, as Rosling illustrates here, are in the middle, and this is freely exhibited by a variety of metrics including the UN's human development index.
Once we understand these facts, and do not cling to bizarre xenophobic views about how everyone outside the "developed" world is too dysfunctional and/or subhuman (although few gun control advocates would ever admit to the thought) to bear comparison to the US, we immediately see that the mantra "worst in the developed world" offers an immensely skewed, unrealistic, and even bigoted view of the world and how countries compare to each other.
While ignorance about true global poverty, life expectancy, and family planning are no doubt a source of some of these wrong-headed comparisons, one doesn't need to be the world's biggest cynic to recognize that the US is only compared to a selective list of countries because doing so offers a biased view of the United States that makes it looks like an especially crime-ridden place.
But, we are never allowed to compare the US to middle income countries like Uruguay, Russia, or Mexico because that would show that the US is actually a remarkably safe place in global terms on top of having many more legally owned guns than those countries.
Nevertheless, we've all heard it too many times to count: gun laws in the United States are "insane" because countries like Sweden and Luxembourg have far more restrictive gun laws and are much safer because of it. The US has the highest murder rate in the "developed world" — presumably because of its lax guns laws —we are told again and again.
Few people who repeat this mantra have any standard in their heads of what exactly is the "developed" world. They just repeat the phrase because they have learned to do so. They never acknowledge that when factors beyond per capita GDP are considered, it makes little sense to claim Sweden should be compared to the US, but not Argentina. Such assertions ignore immense differences in culture, size, politics, history, demographics, or ethnic diversity. Comparisons with mono-ethnic Asian countries like Japan and Korea make even less sense.
But for an illustration of where this sort of thinking leads, let's look at this Washington Post article titled “The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country.”
After
mistakenly using the "gun related" killings rate instead of the murder
rate (see below) the author, Max Fisher, carefully construct his
comparisons so as to emphasize the gun deaths rate (which is implied to
be as good as the murder rate) in the US.
As
usual, no reason is given as to why the US should only be compared to
“developed” countries, but then Fisher proceeds to add a few
non-traditional comparisons to drive home the point as to how violent
the US truly is, in his view.
Fisher adds Bulgaria, Turkey, and Chile, which are middle-income countries. And that lets him make this graph:
Why
Turkey and Chile and Bulgaria? Well, those countries are OECD members,
and many who use the "developed country" moniker often use the OECD
members countries as a de facto list of the "true" developed
countries. Of course, membership in the OECD is highly political and
hardly based on any objective economic or cultural criteria.
But if you're familiar with the OECD, you'll immediately notice a problem with the list Fisher uses. Mexico is an OECD country. So why is Mexico not in this graph? Well, it's pretty apparent that Mexico was left off the list because to do so would interfere with the point Fisher is trying to make. After all, Mexico — in spite of much more restrictive gun laws — has a murder rate many times larger than the US.
But Fisher has what he thinks is a good excuse for his manipulation here. According to Fisher, the omission is because Mexico “has about triple the U.S. rate due in large part to the ongoing drug war.”
Oh, so every country that has drug war deaths is exempt? Well, then I guess we have to remove the US from the list.
But if you're familiar with the OECD, you'll immediately notice a problem with the list Fisher uses. Mexico is an OECD country. So why is Mexico not in this graph? Well, it's pretty apparent that Mexico was left off the list because to do so would interfere with the point Fisher is trying to make. After all, Mexico — in spite of much more restrictive gun laws — has a murder rate many times larger than the US.
But Fisher has what he thinks is a good excuse for his manipulation here. According to Fisher, the omission is because Mexico “has about triple the U.S. rate due in large part to the ongoing drug war.”
Oh, so every country that has drug war deaths is exempt? Well, then I guess we have to remove the US from the list.
But, of course, the US for some mysterious reason must remain on the list, so, by “developed” country, Fisher really means “ a country that’s on the OECD list minus any country with a higher murder rate than the US.”
At
this point, we're reminded that Fisher (and no one else I’ve ever seen)
has made a case for what special magic it is that makes the OECD list
the one list of countries to which the US shall be compared.
More Realistic Comparisons Involve a Broader View of the World
Why
not use the UN’s human development index instead? That would seem to
make at least as much sense if we’re devoted to looking at “developed
countries.”
So, let’s do that. Here we see
that the OECD’s list contains Turkey, Bulgaria, Mexico, and Chile. So,
if we're honest with ourselves, that must mean that other countries with
similar human development rankings are also suitable for comparisons to
the US.
Well, Turkey and Mexico have HDI numbers at .75.
So, let’s include other countries with HDI numbers either similar or
higher. That means we should include The Bahamas, Argentina, Costa Rica,
Cuba, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela, Russia, Lithuania, Belarus, Estonia,
and Latvia.
You
can see where this is going. If we include countries that have HDI
numbers similar to — or at least as high as — OECD members Turkey and
Mexico, we find that the picture for the United States murder rate looks
very different (correctly using murder rates and not gun-deaths rates):
Wow,
that US sure has a pretty low murder rate compared to all those
countries that are comparable to some OECD members. In fact, Russia,
Costa Rica and Lithuania have all been invited to begin the process of
joining the OECD (Russia is on hold for obvious political reasons). But
all those countries have higher murder rates than the US. (I wonder
what excuse Fisher will manufacture for leaving off those countries
after they join the OECD.)
Things get even more interesting if we add American states with low murder rates.
And
why not include data from individual states? It has always been
extremely imprecise and lazy to talk about the “US murder rate” The US
is an immense country with a lot of variety in laws and demographics.
(Mexico deserves the same analysis,
by the way.) Many states have murder rates that place them on the short
list of low-crime places in the world. Why do we conveniently ignore
them? The US murder rate is being driven up by a few high-murder states
such as Maryland, Louisiana, South Carolina, Delaware, and Tennessee. In
the spirit of selective use of data, let's just leave those states out
of it, and look at some of the low-crime ones:
We
see that OECD members Chile and Turkey have murder rates higher than
Colorado. Perhaps they should try adopting Colorado’s laws and allow
sale of handguns and semi-automatic rifles to all non-felon adults. That
might help them bring their murder rates down a little.
But
you know that’s not the conclusion we're supposed to come
to.Comparisons can never work in that direction. The comparisons should
only be used to compare the US to countries with restrictive gun laws
and low murder rates. Comparisons with countries that have restrictive
gun laws (and/or few private guns) and murder rates similar to or higher
than US rates (i.e., Latin America, the Caribbean and the Baltic
States.)
Nevertheless,
we have yet to see any objective reason why only OECD countries should
be included or why countries similar in the HDI to Turkey and Mexico
should be excluded.
But
before we wrap up, let’s look at the murder rates in all these
countries alongside the number of civilian guns per 100 residents. (The x
axis is civilian guns per 100 residents, and the y axis is murder rates
in x per 100,000.)
Here’s the scatter plot:
Obviously,
the US is big outlier in terms of guns per capita. But in terms of
murder rate, it’s very much in the middle of these countries.
Things
look even better for some areas of the US. If I include low-crime
states, we get this (The x axis is civilian guns per 100 residents and y
axis is murder rate in x per 100,000):
Of
course, if I added countries like France and Sweden, you’d see many
more dots here near Bulgaria with low gun totals and very low murder
rates.
But as
no reason has ever been given as to why we should only compare to
Western Europe,. Let’s compare the US to the rest of the Americas for a
more realistic picture of the world beyond the OECD. When we do that, we
get:
By comparison, the US look downright pacific. And why should not this comparison be made?
Indeed, it makes more sense to compare the US to other states in the Americas
than to Europe or Japan. The US and most Latin American countries were
settled in similar time periods. They are frontier countries settled
mostly by European immigrants that displaced a native population (to
varying degrees), and most of them gained independence from European
imperial nations in a similar time period. They tend to have ethnically
diverse populations, and many have been impacted by the slave trade that
ended in the 19th century.
European countries share very few of these qualities in common with the US.
So,
it would seem that the old diktat of “thou shalt only compare US murder
rates to the approved 'developed' countries" is based on really no
objective standard at all. And we should stop doing it.
If
we’re honestly trying to evaluate the nature of crime and violence in a
comparative atmosphere, we cannot limit ourselves to a handful of
countries that have very little in common with the US beyond a handful
of economic indicators.
A Note on the Data:
Gun ownership levels are based on the Small Arms Survey data. This takes into account "registered" vs. "unregistered" civilian gun ownership in the countries surveyed. Murder rates come from UNODC data.
State by state data in the US is usually presented as a percentage of residents who are gun owners. worldwide, however, gun ownership is presented as numbers of guns per 100 residents. I attempted to make the two lists compatible by taking the percentage of gun owners and adjusting it to reflect the fact that there are about 2.8 guns per gun owner in the US (using Small Arms Survey Data for the US). Thus, in Wyoming, for example, we end up with a number of more than 130 guns per 100 residents.
Now, let's address the bait-and-switch of using "gun-related killings" versus homicides, that is often used. These numbers include accidents and suicides. But of course, the reason most people are concerned about gun violence is because of homicides. Many people commit suicides with ropes and cars, but we don't talk about banning ropes and cars. Moreover, many people die from accidents involving power tools, ladders, and other items. Again, we don't talk about banning those things. The other statistic often used is "gun-related deaths." This also ignores the fact that the whole point of gun control (in the minds of most of the public) is to bring down the murder rate. It would be irresponsible to bring down gun murders and then ignore the overall murder rate. After all, if the "gun murder" rate goes down, but the murder rate remains unchanged, then we find that little has been accomplished. It stands to reason that few murdered people think in their last moments "gee, at least I wasn't murdered with a gun."
Gun ownership levels are based on the Small Arms Survey data. This takes into account "registered" vs. "unregistered" civilian gun ownership in the countries surveyed. Murder rates come from UNODC data.
State by state data in the US is usually presented as a percentage of residents who are gun owners. worldwide, however, gun ownership is presented as numbers of guns per 100 residents. I attempted to make the two lists compatible by taking the percentage of gun owners and adjusting it to reflect the fact that there are about 2.8 guns per gun owner in the US (using Small Arms Survey Data for the US). Thus, in Wyoming, for example, we end up with a number of more than 130 guns per 100 residents.
Now, let's address the bait-and-switch of using "gun-related killings" versus homicides, that is often used. These numbers include accidents and suicides. But of course, the reason most people are concerned about gun violence is because of homicides. Many people commit suicides with ropes and cars, but we don't talk about banning ropes and cars. Moreover, many people die from accidents involving power tools, ladders, and other items. Again, we don't talk about banning those things. The other statistic often used is "gun-related deaths." This also ignores the fact that the whole point of gun control (in the minds of most of the public) is to bring down the murder rate. It would be irresponsible to bring down gun murders and then ignore the overall murder rate. After all, if the "gun murder" rate goes down, but the murder rate remains unchanged, then we find that little has been accomplished. It stands to reason that few murdered people think in their last moments "gee, at least I wasn't murdered with a gun."
No comments:
Post a Comment