Yeah, Sweden is "at the top of the list", but its gun-ownership rate is not even a third of America's. In virtually all developed countries, guns are given out after training and background checks and waiting periods. Here, you walk into WalMart and receive one five seconds after requesting it. Thank God for freedom, eh.

Stilted because the author clearly had a pre-disposed goal in mind and attempted to lean the findings of his research to meet that goal. Namely that guns are bad and that the USA is some horribly dangerous place.

Yet his findings fail to take overall homicide rates into account, because by doing so the USA isn't that bad. Furthermore, a closer look at violence in the US would reveal that most gun crimes occur in certain communities and usually with unlicensed, illegally obtained guns. There is a great deal of variability in the strictness of gun laws in different states, yet there is no correlation between strict gun laws and lowered violent crime. Demographics have a lot more to do with the level of violence than gun bans do.

Lastly, comparing a polyglot society like the US with a homogeneous one such as Saudi Arabia or Finland is absurd. To be fair, the article hinted at this by revealing that certain groups are more prone to gun violence than others - in Sweden.

This article begs a fundamental question underlying gun control and gun policy that never seems to get asked or answered. Can anyone make a strong correlation-let alone establish any kind of causation-between ease of legal access to guns and gun homicide rates?

El Paso has virtually no gun control laws and counted five homicides last year. Boston's about the same size, has some of the strictest gun control laws in the United States, and had 72. There has been no decrease in gun crime in Britain since their handgun ban; in fact, the opposite is true. Attitudes like Avilla's above are commonplace; guns are ridiculously easy to get in the United States and that obviously explains the high rates of gun violence. But is there any evidence, anywhere, that gun control laws actually work? And if you can't cite any, consider yourself to be someone who believes in public policy decisions supported by logic and evidence, and believe in gun control, why haven't you asked yourself this question?

Well if you look at one of links provided it says that Britain has lowest gun crime rates (ok, there is only 32 countries). And we have some of strictist gun laws in the developed world. Apparently Japan is only tougher (which is not included on the source). In Glasgow (where I live), I can't remember the last time we had a gun crime commited by anything other than a shotgun, which aren't difficult to get. No one needs handguns, and they shouldn't be made available. And 2008 statistics for the UK on gun deaths (most recent I could find), said gun deaths were at 20 year low.

The Switzerland post contains the following errors:
- Swiss men are issued an M550 assault rifle (no longer the M57)
- In the wake of the 2001 shooting (amongst other things) active duty soldiers no longer store the ammunition at home.
- Once they are discharged they can keep their assault rifle, however, only until has been altered to semi-automatic.
- there are restrictions on the purchase of weapons (this also includes weapons received as gifts or by inheritance) and on the carrying of weapons. This is a federal law and applies to all cantons (i.e. states) [http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/514_54/index.html]. In order to purchase a weapons a purchase permit is required.
- To carry guns in public a carry permit is required. This is only granted if the person requesting it can show that he credibly needs to protect himself or others from an actual threat and only after having passed a theoretical and practical exam.
- Exceptions apply for hunting weapons (however, hunters also require a hunting permit). Military weapons are governed by military law.

As the example of Switzerland shows the right to bear arms and having an armed militia but also sensible restrictions and required permits are not mutually exclusive.

I am disappointed to find Time/Newsweek-type article in FP, with the accompanying breezy generalizations and glib and superficial reporting.

The great strawman here is focusing on "gun deaths" and presenting that statistic as the definitive representation of homicide and crime rates. This is a common trick of gun control advocates. In reality, homicides and violent death in any country can be broken down into the following categories:

1) Total homicide (gun and non-gun) which breaks down into (2) and (3) below:

2) Homicide by gun
2a) Suicide by gun
2b) Justifiable homicide (self-defense) by gun
2c) Murder or manslaughter by gun

3) Homicide by non-gun
3a) Suicide by non-gun
3b) Justifiable homicide (self-defense) by non-gun
3c) Murder or manslaughter by non-gun

Other violent crimes not amounting to death can also be broken down in a similar manner.

Sensible crime policy should focus on the items (2c) and (3c) and work to reduce both of them. Instead, gun control advocates prefer to cherry pick item (2) instead, since that gives them the scariest numbers, and helps to show the US in a bad light. You will note that they ignore item (3) altogether. In reality, there are many countries where non-gun homicides outnumber gun homicides. But in this type of article, they will be shown in a favorable light compared to the US. This is very much intentional. It is doubtful if the victims felt any better that they were bludgeoned, stabbed or strangled to death.

So a complete understanding of guns and crime has to include non-gun crime as well, and preferably, not just homicide, but all violent crime. When you actually do this, the US disappears as an outlier and actually is shown to be a moderately safe country. It still leads in homicide but other violent crime rates are quite comparable to the rest of the modern world. In the US, nearly 70% of homicide victims happen to fall into one or more of these groups: They have their own history of criminal behavior; they are involved in using or trading illegal drugs, or they associate with the previous persons. While nobody should lose their life just because they live on the edge, if you avoid these behaviors, you will reduce your risk of being murdered by 70%.

Suicide is something that will exist regardless of the instrument used to commit it, and is usually the end result of years of depression, other mental illness, bad health, financial problems and other chronic circumstances that make life seem hopeless. Nobody commits suicide on a whim just because they found a gun. They had already made some kind of decision to end their life. The US has a moderately low suicide rate compared to many other countries, despite the widespread presence of guns. Japan in particular has a suicide rate higher than the US, despite the fact that in Japan, guns are restricted to only the military, police and criminals.

The readership should be aware of how a case can be presented in a one-sided manner while pretending that another side doesn't exist at all. This is very common with gun control advocates and MSM news coverage of gun-related issues: focus on cherry-picked stories of carnage, ignore that the other side even exists, and above all, systematically ignore the fact that lawful gun ownership does save lives, prevent crimes, and benefit society in general.

but that is due to fact we have one of the most unequal socities in the developed world (not surprisingly the US is most unequal out of developed countries). We have many areas of immense poverty (for a developed country), and that is what leads people into violence and crime, most of it caused by our culture of binge drinking. It isn't organised crime, it violent drunks who are allowed to roam the streets, since these people aren't in proper gangs, they can't always get guns, if our laws were relaxed they might and that would cause much more problems. When violent crimes occur, most people aren't going to have there guns ready to stop it. Murders by gun here are almost always within gangs, it is unusual to here of a non-gang affliliated person to be shot. We do have one the worlds highest stabbing rates, but I would rather people got stabbed than shot. I don't feel defenceless without a gun cause whenever I would be a situation where I might need it, it almost certainly won't be in a place where I can access it. When I got mugged out on the streets last year, would a gun have saved no cause, I wouldn't never take it out on a night of drinking. Murder in the USA is nearly double the nearest developed country (South Korea).

Industrial decline led to higher unemployment, as our industries disappeared, it was during Thatcher that crime really began to decrease as crime disappeared and youths had no hope of finding employment.

Also the creation of new towns to replace the traditional slums, led to a decline in community spirit due to people suddenly being moved away from there traditional neighbours to new unknowns.

And finally the way statistics are kept etc, can always play a role. Cause crime is far more likely to be reported than they were many years ago

There are two types of gun owners. Those who buy guns for self-defense and those who traditionally buy it for hunting and dealing with animals. This is what makes gun crime statistics so difficult to interpret. Here in Canada for example, we have a high rate of rifle and shotgun ownership but handguns are virtually banned. This may explain why we have a very low rate of crimes committed with firearms. Nearly all gun crimes committed in Canada are done with illegal American handguns.

I believe the difference in outcomes to gun ownership has mostly to do with the huge, growing gap in income in the USA. Wilkerson and Pickett's recent book The Spirit Level examines data that strongly suggests that gun violence (as well as other crime and other forms of violence) run exactly consistent with income inequality, with more equal societies like Sweden doing much better. The USA is generally at the bottom of the pile of developed countries in their stats. I think their book and premise makes a lot of sense. If the USA wants to reduce gun violence, it would do better to address income disparity thru tax or policy solutions.

Crime stats I honestly don't ever trust, the ways in which police/government can change stats for there benefit. I was just throwing that in as a possible suggestion. From 1955-Thatcher, I say community spirit and the lack of social amenities certainly led bored youths (in the new towns) to go out of control. Also I was just thinking, that people perhaps started to see that there was more material things that they a realistic chance of getting, moreso than before (as lower classes became richer), so people starting wanting material things more, due to rise of pop cultures and so on. Whereas beforehand then many in lower classes really believe they could get these material objects.

I was right about Thatcher, during her time crime increased as unemplyment decreases. Then as things began to improve during the Blair era, with more jobs and opportunities.

Obviously industrial decline isn't the only factor in all the rise in crime, but it is certainly a factor. As well as social inequality, as Britainthe most unequal and the Western Europe, and also has high attempted murder rates (since guns aren't as common success rates are lower.

The main point of my original comment was that increased guns laws had NOTHING to do with increased, and that it was a complete false argument, a more coincidence that it came about in a time when crime was increasing anyway.

Compared to other European countries, but guns are registered once purchased and police have a right to inspect their safety at any time.

What isn't mentioned in the article is that ammunition is strictly controlled and users have to account for how it will be expended at the time of purchase, and can be audited/penalized if the accounting is incorrect. Loading it yourself requires a LOT of paperwork.

A far cry from gun/ammunition ownership in the US.

As a country, the US simply doesn't have the collective maturity/responsibility to make potential universal gun ownership reasonable. The US is not a relatively stable place that has shown long-term endurance, like Switzerland.
A relatively young country, and guns are used extensively in the commission of crime. No training is required,which itself is rather odd.

There are probably many thousands or hundreds of thousands of individuals (no one knows the number) who are or could be responsible owners. The US has to collectively decide if those individuals' right overrides the numbers of senseless maimings and worse. And the US Supreme Court acts like the language in the US Constitution is from another planet. What part of "well-regulated militia" is difficult to comprehend...

... in the United States. There may be an estimated 100,000 violent criminals who use guns to commit violence. They don't obey any laws. Their crime is counteracted, in part, by the 70 million gun owners who use their firearms lawfully and responsibly.

Sounds like a pretty good ratio to me.

One of the factors overlooked by both sides of the debate is that of the approximately 28000 deaths per year in the US, less than half are murders. In the proportion of about 6 to 4, the majority are suicides. It is odd that no-one has picked up on the fact that the person most likely to be killed by a gun in America is its owner.

*Accidental deaths are few, but even here, the States has a higher death rate per 1000 than most.

Here are some figures whcih also show that deaths from firearms (whether by murder or suicide) are exponentially higher in the US than in any comparable nation: either because the US has more guns or it is an inherently violent society, or both. We'd all be interested to hear any other plausible explanations. I said 'plausible'.

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0
Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.

As a German American, I have always been curious about the marked difference between American and German statistics on crime. It is one of the more noticeable contrasts between the two societies. On the gun control issue, I think it would be important to point out that German society is much different than here in the US (though I do agree with your observation that Germans seem more inclined to follow the rules, whatever they are). Did you notice that merchants in the Munich Viktualienmarkt left their wares in their stalls overnight without locking them up, without much concern for theft? Try that in a major US city! You’d be robbed blind. I think the statistics you quoted on gun fatalities are more reflective of the national character and culture, not so much about gun control. As a counterpoint, how else would you explain neighboring Switzerland’s low death rates and life insurance given that their government is issuing automatic rifles to its citizenry? Brazil has some of the strictest gun control in the world and it’s one of the most murderous places I have ever been. It is quite a paradox. I think attributing causality can be tricky and simply asserting that gun laws lead to lower gun related deaths in Germany is misleading. I have come to the conclusion that the LEAST influential factor determining gun-related death rates is legislation.