What's In a Gun?

By Chet Lake

One of the more controversial issues of the day involves the ownership and use of guns. Should the United States federal government introduce more gun control legislation? This question leads to other questions such as do Americans have the right to keep and bear arms? If they do, how far do those rights extend? Is that alleged right worth the social cost? And so on.

I will deal with the big question: do Americans (or humans in general) have a right to keep and bear arms?

I consider the right to keep and bear arms a more specific prima facie right derived from the more general right to self-defense, which is a part of the right to be free of aggression from other rational agents.

What do I mean by a prima facie right? A prima facie right is one that is assumed at face value. In this context, I will assume a prima facie right to liberty: an individual right to action that can only be overturned by other moral concerns, e.g., the rights of others. This general idea is commonly expressed by the phrase "my right to swing my fist ends at your nose". In the context of this blog post, it means that each individual has a prima facie right to keep and bear arms which is derived from his or her right of self-defense; and the burden of proof is upon the one claiming the authority (or that the State has the authority) to curtail that right (I recommend Michael Heumer's article for more on this right to keep and bear arms; I will be referring to it several times).

Are guns necessary for self-defense?

Guns, or weapons in general, are necessary tools of self-defense for two reasons: (1) for individuals to protect themselves from criminals, and (2) for the people to protect themselves against both political and economic powers. I will demonstrate the first point (the second will be addressed later). It is common sense to think that a weapon in the hands of a criminal gives that criminal an obvious advantage against his or her victim(s). However, some would argue that the social cost, as a whole, outweighs any particular individual's ability to defend himself, or herself, against an aggressor. It is assumed that the presence of guns is the problem and that limiting the access and number of arms in circulation will curb the problem enough (if not an all out ban). Is this claim true?

The Center for Disease Control  reports a lack of evidence in support of the effectiveness of legislation. The CATO Institute published a report confirming the findings of the CDC:

"the empirical analysis presented here provides no
support for the contention that gun control reduces crime rates. In
none of the regressions for the 10 categories of crime rates in 1999
and the 10 for 2001 is the measure of gun control statistically significant.
The article tests another hypothesis, namely, that lax gun control
laws in neighboring states undermine the effectiveness of state gun
laws. It finds no support for this hypothesis. The proxy for neighboring
state gun control is never significant in any of the 20 regressions
estimated."

Gun control advocates often like to point out different countries and their allegedly stricter gun laws and lower violent crime rates. For now, I will put aside the problem (due to cultural differences, demographic differences, historical context, number of arms in circulation, etc.) of comparing different countries and entertain such comparisons. An analysis of the data (UN data as reported by Civitas) reveals some very interesting facts:

1. In the category "Intentional Homicide", the US ranks 3rd at 5.0 per 100,000 behind Estonia (2nd at 5.2 per 100, 000) and Mexico (1st at 18.1 per 100,000) with Mexico having stricter gun control laws than the US. 
2. When it comes to "Rape", the US ranks 4th behind New Zealand, Sweden, and Australia (Australia having the tightest gun control laws of the four).
3. Under "Robbery", the US ranks 8th behind Belgium, Spain, Mexico, Chile, Portugal, France, and England and Wales.
4. For "Assault", the US ranks 16th behind France, Portugal, Australia, Iceland, Netherlands, Ireland, Luxembourg, Chile, Finland, Germany, Israel, Belgium, England and Wales, Sweden, and Scotland.
5. The US ranks 12th for Burglary.
6. The US ranks 10th for vehicle theft.

As can be seen from the data, some countries with tighter gun control rank higher than the US in all categories and some rank lower.

The UK is a specific country that is often touted as an example of gun control success due to its relatively low homicide rates. However, it is ranked very highly in other types of violent crime as can be seen by the previously cited data. To add salt to the wound, the Daily Mail reported that the UK was the "The Most Violent Country in Europe".

Furthermore, the BBC reported in 2001 that "the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned". This piece, also from the BBC, reports UK statistics crimes involving guns. After their most recent ban in 1997, crimes involving guns increased from ~5 thousand in 1998/99 to ~9.5 thousand in 2006/07, peaking at ~11 thousand in 2005/06.

One might respond to these data by pointing out that though violent crime in the UK is relatively high, homicide (especially homicide due to firearms) is relatively low in comparison to the US. Though this is true, there are a couple of problems with this objection (aside from the ones I briefly mentioned earlier).

1. The UK (or Britain) has historically had low homicide rates relative to other nations that are part of an overall declining trend.
2. The US has historically had higher homicide rates, especially relative to the UK.
3. It is difficult to establish guns as the primary reason for the disparity, especially since the UK outshines the US in several other categories.

Upon further analysis, it can be seen that the UK is not the example gun control advocates think it is.

But what about the homicide rates? 

It is true that the US has a high homicide rate compared to the UK and other countries. However, what else do we find when we examine the data?

1. The US has a firearm related homicide rate of 3.7 per 100,000.
2. Mexico, Brazil, and Honduras have firearm related homicide rates of 10.0, 19.01, and 50.36 per 100,000 respectively (all with tighter gun control than the US).
3. Switzerland, with a rate of 0.52 per 100, 000, is an interesting case due to the fact it conscripts most males into the militia, and thus has one of the highest rates of militia arms ownership in the world.

What about within the US? What conclusions can we derive from the data?

From the CDC's National Vital Statistics Reports (2009) we find the following relevant statistics (pp. 39):

1. Number of Homicides: 16,799
2. Number of Homicides due to discharge of firearms: 11, 493

In other words, ~68% of homicides were committed with a firearm while ~32% were committed by other means. So it does seem that guns are involved in the majority of homicides. However, it is difficult to determine that more laws limiting the sale, use, and ownership of firearms will have any significant impact on reducing homicides, especially in light of the research done by the CDC and CATO institute (see links to the research above).

If we consider data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, we see that violent crime overall has been declining (a decrease of ~64.6% for the years 1973-2009; total or overall crime includes "simple assault"; see the BJS source for a more accurate breakdown of the data) while gun legislation has varied. Also, the number of homicides by firearms has remained relatively flat (an overall decrease of ~5.0% for the years 1976-2005).

With those data in mind, it also appears that more legislation isn't as necessary as some might think (ignoring the fact that there is little to no evidence that more legislation will alleviate the alleged gun problem).

The same National Vital Statistics report also breaks down the data in terms of homicide and firearm injury rates by state (pp. 87). If we correlate these data with the 2009 Brady Scorecard (states are scored on a scale of 0 to 100 with 0 being no control to very lenient; in other words, the higher the score, the more gun control) we find some interesting results (note: this map does not correlate with the CDC numbers exactly, however the map can be referenced for convenience):

2009 CDC data by State and Brady Score
State (Including D.C.)	Homicide Rate (per 100,000)	Injury Rate By Firearm (per 100,000)	Brady Score (2009)
Alabama	8.7	17.6	16
Alaska	3.7	14.9	2
Arizona	5.9	13	2
Arkansas	7.6	16.1	4
California	5.7	8.4	79
Colorado	3.9	11.6	15
Connecticut	3.2	4.9	53
Delaware	5.1	8.6	21
District of Columbia	22.5	18.5	*
Florida	6.1	12.5	6
Georgia	6.5	12.7	8
Hawaii	1.8	3.6	42
Idaho	1.4	12.7	2
Illinois	6.8	8.2	28
Indiana	5.3	11.4	6
Iowa	1.4	6.4	14
Kansas	4.5	10.7	7
Kentucky	4.9	13	2
Louisiana	12.8	18	2
Maine	2.3	9.3	11
Maryland	8	10.3	52
Massachusetts	2.7	3.1	54
Michigan	6.6	11	23
Minnesota	1.8	6.4	15
Mississippi	9.3	16.5	6
Missouri	7.1	13.7	4
Montana	3.6	17	4
Nebraska	2.7	7.3	8
Nevada	5.8	15.4	9
New Hampshire	*	6.7	9
New Jersey	3.8	4.7	73
New Mexico	8.7	14.9	4
New York	4.3	4.9	50
North Carolina	6	11.9	19
North Dakota	*	9.1	4
Ohio	4.7	8.6	11
Oklahoma	6.7	14.5	2
Oregon	2.7	10.9	17
Pennsylvania	5.2	10.7	25
Rhode Island	2.8	5.3	45
South Carolina	7.6	13.9	10
South Dakota	3.8	9.2	4
Tennessee	7.9	15.3	8
Texas	6.1	10.9	9
Utah	1.8	9.3	0
Vermont	*	9.7	8
Virginia	4.9	10.6	17
Washington	2.9	9.3	17
West Virginia	5.1	13.8	4
Wisconsin	2.9	8.1	10
Wyoming	*	17.6	10

Table 1

Injury Rate and Brady Score
Brady Score (2009)	Injury Rate By Firearm (per 100,000)
0	9.3
2	14.9
2	13
2	12.7
2	13
2	18
2	14.5
4	16.1
4	13.7
4	17
4	14.9
4	9.1
4	9.2
4	13.8
6	12.5
6	11.4
6	16.5
7	10.7
8	12.7
8	7.3
8	15.3
8	9.7
9	15.4
9	6.7
9	10.9
10	13.9
10	8.1
10	17.6
11	9.3
11	8.6
14	6.4
15	11.6
15	6.4
16	17.6
17	10.9
17	10.6
17	9.3
19	11.9
21	8.6
23	11
25	10.7
28	8.2
42	3.6
45	5.3
50	4.9
52	10.3
53	4.9
54	3.1
73	4.7
79	8.4
*	18.5

Table 2

Chart 1

Chart 2 (not including the District of Columbia due to no Brady score)

As can be seen in Table 2, Chart 1, and Chart 3, there is a moderately negative relationship between the Brady score and the injury rate by firearms.

Homicide Rate v Brady Score by State
Brady Score (2009)	Homicide Rate (per 100,000)
0	1.8
2	3.7
2	5.9
2	1.4
2	4.9
2	12.8
2	6.7
4	7.6
4	7.1
4	3.6
4	8.7
4	3.8
4	5.1
6	6.1
6	5.3
6	9.3
7	4.5
8	6.5
8	2.7
8	7.9
9	5.8
9	6.1
10	7.6
10	2.9
11	2.3
11	4.7
14	1.4
15	3.9
15	1.8
16	8.7
17	2.7
17	4.9
17	2.9
19	6
21	5.1
23	6.6
25	5.2
28	6.8
42	1.8
45	2.8
50	4.3
52	8
53	3.2
54	2.7
73	3.8
79	5.7
*	22.5

Table 3

Chart 4

Chart 5 (not including the District of Columbia due to no Brady score)

As can be seen from Table 3 and Chart 4, and Chart 5, there is a weak negative relationship between Brady scores and homicide rates.

There are two things to keep in mind while interpreting these data: (1)while there is a moderate, negative relationship between firearm injury rates and Brady scores, the category includes suicides and accidents, so the actual relationship is most likely weaker than the data suggest; and (2) homicide rates include non-gun related homicides, so this relationship is also likely to be weaker.

These data in light of other research suggest very little evidence for the effectiveness of more gun legislation (for other examples, click here).

Many other people contend that the very least that should be done is reinstating the assault weapons ban. The justification for this is that Assault weapons are not needed for self-defense and are able to kill too many people too efficiently. What do the data have to say?

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, handguns are used in more than half of gun related homicides. The rest fall under the category "other guns" which would include "assault weapons" among other types of weapons. So why not a call to ban handguns?

If legislation cannot be shown to be effective, if gun ownership is a prima facie right related to self defense, and assault rifles are not even involved in a majority of homicides, then what reason(s) do we have to ban them? Remember, the burden of proof is upon the one calling for the abrogation of liberty in the form of legislation.

What about tyrranny and oppression? The people's ability to keep the government in check via the right to keep and bear arms is perhaps more important than the ability to defend one's self against criminals. However, more often than not, this is the reason that brings on the most scorn and ridicule. The counter-argument is that people who think this are paranoid, conspiratorial, or just plain nuts. Not so. History has demonstrated repeatedly the ability of governments to oppress and exploit the people. The right to keep and bear arms helps safeguard against tyranny and ensure social justice.

Possible Objections

"You haven't really shown that we have a right to own weapons like assault rifles."

If you still do not think I have made a good argument for a prima facie right (I admit I was very brief on this point and relied heavily on the reader at least skimming the article I linked), please read Michael Huemer's article if you already have not done so.

"Michael Huemer does concede that liberty can be limited in some situations, but what about self-ownership?"

Again, if you have not done so, read Huemer's article. If you still have problems with Huemer's arguments for certain limitations then I would invite you to reexamine your Rothbardian/Anarcho-Capitalistic assumptions. Matt Zwolinkski has written a symposium examining and critiquing some of the most fundamental concepts in  Murray Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty".

Just as a preview, Zwolinski argues that Rothbard's natural rights theory is foundationally based on an is-ought fallacy, that Rothbard's view is too narrow and neglects other relevant moral concerns, and that he fails to establish what exactly self-ownership and property rights imply.

"Correlation is not Causation!"

This is likely in response to the data I presented. I agree with this sentiment; correlation is not causation and I briefly gave reasons against making international comparisons before I went and did just that to make a point: even if such comparisons were reliable, they do not establish a very clear trend that we should expect to see if the gun control advocates were correct.

However, I think domestic comparisons are more reliable because more variables are controllable. Though correlations do not necessarily establish a cause and effect relationships, they are good indicators that call for further examination.

If critics still insist that correlations are not enough, then that is fine. Either way, an evidence based argument for more gun legislation cannot be made and the prima facie right to own a gun still remains firmly established.

"There are still a lot of gun related homicides! We need to do something!"

Again, I agree. I just disagree with the notion of using legislation for curing social ills, especially when they are not shown to work.

"But banning large clips and magazines still makes sense to me."

Your intuition is more reflective of reality than hard evidence? Good for you.

"What about all the mass shootings that are on the rise? Think of the children!"

It only seems like there are more shootings because our brains have evolved to immediately recall the scary things in life and to forget the boring stuff. It is simply not the case that mass shootings are on the rise.  

Conclusion

Now that I have established (1) a prima facie right to own weapons for reasons of self-defense, (2) that there is no need to for more legislation due to falling violent crime, and (3) that legislation has not been shown to be effective, the Statist now must show why my arguments are flawed and present better evidence than I have presented sufficient enough to make the case for abrogating liberty (and as Huemer argues, it will take quite a bit of hard evidence showing substantial social costs for not abrogating liberty).

*UPDATE*

For further analysis concerning the empirical evidence and its implications, I highly recommend this review published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. The authors of the review make a similar argument to the one I made:

"This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world."