Myth: Gun control laws won't reduce the gun homicide rate.
Fact: The murder rate almost always falls after the enforcement of gun control laws.
Summary
There are numerous examples of gun control laws that have reduced the murder rate --
both domestically and internationally.
Argument
Contrary to what the gun lobby would have you believe, there is
abundant evidence that enforcing gun control laws reduces the gun homicide
rate.
One of the most remarkable examples was a 1992-93 Kansas City experiment
by the National Institute of Justice. There, police officers in a large
section of the inner city agreed to work overtime to remove illegal guns
from the streets. During these overtime shifts, they were given no other
responsibilities but to search for and confiscate illegal weapons. This
heightened enforcement (of existing gun laws) lasted 29 weeks. The study
compared the crime rate during this period to the prior 29 weeks; it also
compared the "target area" with a "comparison area"
which experienced no changes in its normal police duties. The population
of the target area was almost entirely nonwhite and had a crime rate 20
times the national average.
The results were dramatic. Seizures of illegal guns in the target area
climbed 65 percent above normal, while they actually declined somewhat
in the comparison area. Meanwhile, gun crimes declined 49 percent in
the target area. Drive-by shootings fell from 7 to 1 in the time periods
compared. The rates for other types of crime did not change, but -- most
significantly -- there appeared to be no spillover of crime from the target
area into surrounding areas. (For more details of this study, see Appendix
A below.)
There are other examples of stricter gun control passing into law,
their success depending on how fully they were enforced:
State murder rates (per 100,000 population) and weapons offense arrest rates (per 100,000 population), 1993. (t = tie) (6) Weapons Weapons Murder Offense Murder Offense State Rate Rate Rank Rank ------------------------------------------------ Louisiana 20.3 142 1 4 Mississippi 13.5 135 2 8 New York 13.3 102 3 20 California 13.1 135 4 9 Maryland 12.7 104 5 19 Texas 11.9 139 6 7 Alabama 11.6 67 7 34 Georgia 11.4 149 8 3 Illinois 11.4 75 9 30(t) North Carolina 11.3 132 10 10 Missouri 11.3 199 11 1 Nevada 10.4 141 12 5 South Carolina 10.3 77 13 29 Arkansas 10.2 126 14 13 Tennessee 10.2 131 15 11 Michigan 9.8 107 16 16(t) Alaska 9.0 107 17 16(t) Florida 8.9 68 18 33 Arizona 8.6 114 19 15 Oklahoma 8.4 91 20 24 Virginia 8.3 129 21 12 New Mexico 8.0 71 22 32 Indiana 7.5 59 23 38 West Virginia 6.9 77 24 28 Pennsylvania 6.8 49 25 40 Kentucky 6.6 106 26 18 Kansas 6.4 94 27 22(t) Connecticut 6.3 116 28 14 Ohio 6.0 97 29 21 Colorado 5.8 140 30 6 New Jersey 5.3 94 31 22(t) Washington 5.2 75 32 30(t) Delaware 5.0 30 33 44(t) Oregon 4.6 81 34 26 Wisconsin 4.4 165 35 2 Massachusetts 3.9 35 36 42 Nebraska 3.9 78 37 27 Rhode Island 3.9 60 38 36(t) Hawaii 3.8 60 39 36(t) Vermont 3.6 1 40 50 Wyoming 3.4 31 41 43 Minnesota 3.4 61 42 35 South Dakota 3.4 41 43 41 Utah 3.1 85 44 25 Montana 3.0 12 45 49 Idaho 2.9 52 46 39 Iowa 2.3 30 47 44(t) New Hampshire 2.0 16 48 48 North Dakota 1.7 25 49 46 Maine 1.6 23 50 47 -------------------------------------------------- Correlation .67 .71 to crime (7)
The correlation between crime and weapons offense arrests is .67 for the
raw statistics and .71 for the state rankings. These are both quite strong
and highly significant correlations.
Of course, there is an obvious criticism to the above chart. It could simply prove
that murderers have a penchant for handling their weapons illegally --
something we already knew.
However, this chart also shows that there is value to gun control laws,
since the behavior and weaponry they regulate are correlated with higher
murder rates. It also suggests that enforcing these laws more strictly
would reduce the murder rate.
To see why, consider drunk driving laws. It doesn't matter whether
drunk driving is legal or not - it is the behavior itself which is correlated
with higher traffic fatalities. At first the U.S. did not regulate drunk
drivers, and the result was a tragically high fatality rate. But eventually
the nation passed DUI laws, and each time it has strengthened them, traffic
fatalities have fallen. If we were to compare the states' statistics on
DUI arrests and traffic fatalities, we would expect to find the states
with the most DUI's experiencing the most fatalities. This would call for
stricter passage and enforcement of DUI laws.
(As an aside, it would be illogical for a drunk driving lobby to argue
that they have the right to drive drunk as long as they don't hurt anyone.
We would surely think it strange for them to argue that police should crack
down only on the drunk drivers who cause accidents, and that "law-abiding"
drunk drivers should not be "persecuted" with DUI convictions.)
Of course, the opposite argument is also possible: more arrests could
be a symptom of greater commitment to law enforcement. In that case, the higher
fatality rate is occurring in spite of, not because of, greater
law enforcement efforts.
To disprove this reverse causal arrow, a few preliminary observations
are necessary. First, law enforcement can be divided into two categories:
effective and antagonistic. Banning free speech would be an example of
antagonistic law enforcement; the more a state tried to enforce it, the
more people would rebel against it. That's only to a certain point, however;
when Gestapo-like enforcement becomes too brutal, people eventually comply.
Compare this to effective law enforcement -- for example, writing
tickets for speeders. If the speed limit is 50, but everyone is driving
70, the police face a massive crackdown job. They are going to have to
work overtime writing tickets until finally a reputation is established,
and drivers learn to slow down. But once everyone is driving 50 again,
then law enforcement can be reduced; only a fraction of the police are
necessary to catch the occasional speeder. Notice that in the compliance
phase of antagonistic enforcement, lots of police are necessary; in the
compliance phase of effective enforcement, few police are necessary.
What defines the difference between effective and antagonistic law
enforcement? It ultimately boils down to people's attitudes towards a specific
law. People believe that free speech is a cherished right, but they do
not believe the same thing about the ability to drive 70 miles an hour.
Indeed, most people can see the need for lower speed limits, especially
in crowded cities.
Now, a gun advocate may claim that gun control laws are antagonistic,
and the reason why more weapons arrests are tied to higher murder rates
is because we are still in the rebellious stage, not the police state/compliance
stage. However, murder is not free speech; people do not have a right to
commit murder, much less be antagonized by its unlawfulness. Furthermore,
murder does not fit the definition of an antagonistic law; almost everyone
sees the need to curtail it, and therefore agrees with it.
That, gun control advocates claim, would make gun control laws effective
law enforcement. And the experiences of Kansas City, Washington D.C. and
Europe show that gun control laws do not result in rebellion, but lower
murder rates. Most of the nation, however, is still in the pre-crackdown
phase, much like the stage where most drivers are breaking the speed limit
or driving drunk. The states with the most egregious violators are making
the most arrests, but no states are seriously cracking down on weapons
offenses.
It is more reasonable to conclude that enforcing gun control laws will
reduce behavior that is tied to higher murder rates.
Return to Overview
Endnotes:
1. Jeffrey Roth, "Firearms and Violence," National Institute of Justice
Research in Brief, February 1994.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports,
1993, 1994.
6. U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United
States, 1993.
7. Spearman correlation of ranks:
p (chance that r=0 coincidentally) = 1.0627e-08 (very small)
ts (t statistics) = 6.8957
df (degrees of freedom n-2) = 48
r (correlation) = 0.70544
Pearson correlation of murder rate/weapon offense rate:
p = 8.7832e-08
ts = 6.2978
df = 48
r = 0.67264
Rates for Murder/Non-negligent Manslaughter and Homicide (per 100,000 population) for Washington D.C. and the U.S. (n.a. = not available.) D.C. D.C. U.S. Year MNNM Homicide MNNM ------------------------------------------ 1957 10.2 8.9 4.7 1958 9.8 n.a. 4.7 1959 9.7 9.9 4.8 1960 10.6 11.5 5.1 1961 11.4 11.5 4.8 1962 11.7 12.7 4.6 1963 12.0 11.1 4.6 1964 16.5 <upturn 14.7 upturn> 4.9 1965 18.6 15.3 5.1 1966 17.8 16.8 5.6 1967 22.5 22.0 6.1 1968 25.1 20.2 6.9 1969 37.7 <plateau 31.9 7.2 1970 29.2 26.4 7.8 1971 36.3 34.7 8.5 1972 32.6 33.5 8.9 1973 36.4 35.3 9.3 1974 38.3 <high 38.0 high> 9.7 1975 33.0 34.0 9.6 1976 LAW 26.9 <low 28.9 low> 8.7 1977 28.0 27.3 8.8 1978 28.2 25.6 8.9 1979 27.4 28.1 9.7 1980 31.5 27.6 high> 10.2 1981 35.1 <high 35.1 9.8 1982 30.7 33.8 9.0 1983 29.4 26.2 8.2 1984 28.1 26.8 7.9 1985 23.5 <low 23.3 low> 7.9 1986 31.0 28.1 8.5 1987 36.2 33.8 8.2 1988 59.5 <upturn 49.7 upturn> 8.3 1989 71.9 59.6 8.5 1990 77.9 66.5 9.3 1991 80.6 <high 69.7 high> 9.6 1992 75.2 n.a. 9.2 1993 78.6 n.a. 9.4 1994 70.0 n.a. 8.8
Critics of the D.C. law make a big deal over the fact that the Murder/Non-negligent
Manslaughter rate was already falling in 1975, a year before the law went
into effect. However, even the most casual glance at the chart reveals
that the murder rate is volatile, changing significantly from year to year.
A far more accurate way to compare the pre-law and post-law murder rates
is to average them over a period of years.
After climbing in the 60s, the murder rate plateaued at a high level
from 1969 to 1975. This was followed by a period of reduced murder rates
after the law went into effect, from 1976 to 1987. Here are the averages
from those two periods:
Average rates of Murder/Non-negligent Manslaughter and Homicide (per 100,000) for Washington D.C. and the U.S. D.C. D.C. U.S. MNNM Homicide MNNM --------------------------------------- 1969 to 1975: 34.8 33.4 8.7 1976 to 1987: 29.7 28.7 8.8
So we see a five-point drop in the murder rate for Washington D.C.
after the law went into effect, compared to an insignificant increase for
the rest of the nation. This case study remains an excellent example of
how gun control laws contribute to lower murder rates.
Sources:
Uniform Crime Reports for the United States, 19xx-1994,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Dept. of Justice,
SuDoc# J 1.14/7:9xx
Vital Statistics of the United States, 19xx-1991, Vol. II -
Mortality Part B, National Center for Health Statistics,
U.S. Public Health Service, SuDoc# HE 20.6210:9xx/v.2/pt.B
Statistical Abstract of the United States 19xx-1994,
Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, SuDoc# C 3.134:9xx
Population estimates are for D.C. only, excluding non-D.C.
Metropolitan Statistical Area, using census figures for years ending
in zero.
Homicides include total homicides (including justifiable homicides
and homicides due to "legal intervention" by the police).
Rates for Murder/Non-negligent Manslaughter and Homicide (per 100,000)
are population-adjusted figures (annual rates per 100,000 population).
* U.S. Murder/Non-negligent Manslaughter rates reflect the population-adjusted
MNNM figures for the entire United States (annual rates per 100,000 population),
excluding the population and MNNM of the District of Columbia Formula:
(US)MNNM/100K = ((usMNNM - dcMNNM) / (usPop - dcPop)) * 100,000
n.a. = not available
Canadian homicide rate (per 100,000) By By other Year Overall guns methods ---------------------------------- 1974 2.68 1.4 1.3 1975 3.09 1.4 1.7 1976 2.91 1.2 1.7 1977 3.06 1.2 1.8 1978 2.81 1.1 1.7 < C-51 passed 1979 2.66 0.9 1.8 1980 2.47 0.9 1.6 1981 2.66 0.8 1.8 1982 2.72 1.0 1.7 1983 2.75 0.9 1.8 1984 2.67 0.9 1.7 1985 2.80 0.8 1.9 1986 2.24 0.7 1.5 1987 2.51 0.8 1.7 Averages: 74-78 2.91 1.3 1.6 79-87 2.61 0.9 1.7 Source: Stats Canada 88.
This chart shows that the drop in firearm homicides was not cancelled out
by an equal rise in homicides using other methods. Murderers
did not simply switch over to other types of weapons. In fact, t-tests show
that the average drop in firearm homicides is significant (p=0.00003),
whereas the slight increase for other methods is not (p=0.39).
Of course, this chart alone does not tell us if
gun control was the cause of this reduction in gun homicides. But it does present
a significant challenge to those who would like to argue that gun control laws
increase the murder rate, or cause murderers to choose alternate weapons.
Return to Overview