While it tops the charts when it comes to gun ownership, the US actually ranks 11th in terms of firearm-related deaths, with 10.54 annually per 100,000 of its population. Ahead of it are a slew of Latin American countries: Honduras (top with 67.18), Venezuela, Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia, Brazil, Panama and Uruguay. Swaziland and Jamaica complete the top 10.
Source: Mapped: The countries with the most guns (no prizes for guessing #1)
Articles like these are the reason one must do due diligence and check the numbers and the sources for the obvious lack of accuracy. It gets doubly sweet when the sources the author uses give you the material to prove the BSI (Bullshit Index) of the article.
First alarms sound when the expression “firearm-related deaths” is used as it means they will add all possible data points even when they are painting the issue as criminal violence only. Now, we know by the FBI numbers that the Murder/Manslaughter by firearm rate is not even close to half of the one mentioned in the article, so it is a good guess that the author is stuffing the number with suicides and deaths by other means. The next alarm was the rates for Honduras as it is too low. It turns out that the rate presented is for a decade ago and not the latest numbers. Venezuela always runs a very close second when not on top and they have not seen numbers in the 60s-70s per 100,000 in a decade or so.
But is the USA 11th in Violent deaths? Hardly, even the Small Arms Survey (which hates US gun ownership with passion) places us 105th worldwide. So then, what are the US numbers? Again I go back to the wonderfully interactive map provided by SAS:
So from the misleading “firearm-related deaths” at 10.54 per 100K we actually get a Homicide by Firearm of 2.7 per 100K. That is a 74.4% difference which makes the author either brutally stupid or purposefully deceiving.
I’ll take purposefully deceiving for $200, Alex.
So from the misleading “firearm-related deaths” at 10.54 per 100K we actually get a Homicide by Firearm of 2.7 per 100K. That is a 74.4% difference which makes the author either brutally stupid or purposefully deceiving.
Nope. A 290% difference, not 74.4%.
When you’re comparing numbers, one number has to be the “original”, and the other is the one being measured against it (call it the “new” number). This can go either way — it’s simultaneously correct to say that murder rates now are ~50% of what they were in the 60s (using the 60s rate as the original) AND that the murder rates in the 60s were ~100% higher than they are now (using the current rate as the original). However, for accuracy, whenever possible (like it is here) the “original” should be verifiable and sourced and the “new” (the number to be compared) should be the questionable one.
The “2.7 per 100,000” is verifiable in WISQARS and credibly sourced from the FBI. That makes the 2.7 our “original” and the 10.54 the “new”.
Thus, since 10.54 is ~390% of 2.7, subtracting the original 100% leaves a 290% difference.
Statistics are fun. 🙂