To put it in perspective:
What I posted before
On average, for every +1 gang member per 100k population, the homicide rate rises by about 0.034 per 100k.
(an extra 100 gang members per 100k is associated with ~+3.4 homicides per 100k.)
-- that was looking at high confidence data from 12 different countries
That seems to be stronger than the correlation of "privately owned guns" to homicides.
We have about 400 million privately owned firearms in the US (in a nation of 300 million people), and a homicide rate of about 5.5 per 100k.
The UK has about 1.9 million privately owned firearms (in a population of 68 million people), and a homicide rate of about 1.1 per 100k.
- United States
- 400,000,000 guns ÷ 300,000,000 people = 1.333 guns per person.
- Per 100k → 133,333 guns per 100k.
- Homicide rate = 5.5 per 100k.
- United Kingdom
- 1,900,000 guns ÷ 68,000,000 people ≈ 0.0279 guns per person.
- Per 100k → 2,794 guns per 100k.
- Homicide rate = 1.1 per 100k.
View attachment 369425
For every
+1 gun per 100,000 people, the homicide rate goes up by about
0.000033 per 100k.
Or to put in other words:
When comparing us to the UK
We have 48 times the amount of guns per capita
We have about 4 times the gang membership per capita
Our homicide rate is 5 times what theirs is.
If the gun ownership rate was the stronger correlating metric, then on a scale of 4x <-> 48x, I would expect to see our homicide comparison be much closer to the latter.
And we've actually seen that play out here in various cities.
For instance, when Baltimore implemented it's Gang Violence Reduction taskforce, they dropped their murder rate by 25% in 2 years (despite the gun laws of Maryland not changing during that time period that I'm aware of)