Assuming that our goal is to reduce homicides, would it not be better to track the overall homicide rate instead of focusing only on firearm homicides? When a researcher chooses the latter, I must assume that their goal is to demonize gun ownership rather than find the true causes of homicide. I've heard the arguments for doing research this way, but they all seem to stem from political bias. Am I missing something or is this just one more example of how politics has corrupted science?
In 2020, the national homicide rate increased by 30%. That is the largest single-year increase in over a century.
However, not all types of homicide grew at the same rate. Between 2019 and 2021, firearm homicide rates increased 44%, from 4.6 victims per 100,000 people in 2019 to 6.7 victims per 100,000 people in 2021. Alternatively, homicides committed by cutting or stabbing injuries or suffocation – the next most common methods of killing – decreased 17% and 33%, respectively. https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-homicides
This is from CDC data, but my independent research confirms that cities of all sizes have spiking gun violence since 2019. It’s not because gun LAWS were loosened in these cities/states. My opinion on why this has been happening is that it comes down almost exclusively to under-policing & under-incarceration. In 2014 we had the lowest rates of gun violence & resultantly homicides ever observed in United States history. Something changed incredibly quickly to alter the incentive structure to commit gun violence. I am with Roland Fryer on this. Police pulled back & gun crime naturally rose.
So, I study Firearm Homicide Rates because they were at an all time low in 2014 despite this country having similar rates of gun ownership back then. Something changed and it isn’t just the gun laws, which actually become stricter in many states after several high profile mass shootings.
Without saying explicitly my research shows that those gun control laws haven’t curbed community gun violence, which is what we should care a lot more about than splashy mass shootings, even though those are very horrific.
You will not find gun control advocacy in my newsletter because I do not think more laws (that aren’t enforced!) are the solution. I think we should enforce existing laws. Very few firearm homicides are committed by legal gun owners. Most are committed by felons & teenagers, and most are committed with handguns instead of assault rifles. And most homicides do not result in an arrest. Take a few minutes to look through my newsletter and you will see that I refute myriad claims made by “progressive” gun control advocates! I point out that gun violence increased in states with the strictest gun laws. I also show that some states with the most permissive gun laws & high ownership have the lowest rates of shootings in their cities.
I grew up in Alaska surrounded by guns. When I moved to Illinois I became interested in gun violence because we didn’t have much in Alaska, even in the cities, but we have a whole hell of a lot of it in Illinois, even in small towns!
TL;DR: I don’t think passing more laws is the solution and I never said it was. But I do think we need to acknowledge that this is a problem that has increased (especially in Democratic-run cities in Blue states, but also in a lot of small & mid-sized cities in the South & Midwest). There is going to be a lot of denial about whether the “crime wave” is real during the upcoming election, just like there was in 2022. I use data to interrogate & provide nuance to claims about the locus, scope & severity of gun violence in American cities.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply! I wasn't aware of the differential effects of depolicing. It makes sense to me that "gun violence" could increase relative to non-gun violence in the absence of policing if we accept the idea that the threat of arrest/punishment kept some violent people from using their guns. Perhaps they thought homicide by non-gun means would help them avoid arrest or reduce punishment. Very interesting!
I also note your point that firearm homicides rose after 2014, the year a young man with my name was killed in a city that gave us the term "Ferguson Effect."
You’re welcome, and I appreciate the feedback! It helps me to consider how my framing might be interpreted by people who are concerned about the problem, but put off by the way that most researchers focus exclusively on gun control as the only or even best solution. I am one of a handful of people who study gun violence, but focus on it from a criminology perspective rather than looking exclusively at public policy. I’m not saying that easy access to guns doesn’t exacerbate the problem, but why do so many people want to use them? And why did this increase recently? (homicide remains illegal, after all!) These are compelling questions.
Also, I appreciate the pledge. I am, however unable to monetize this due to the data source. I have a full-time job, so this is just an enjoyable side project that enables me to share information with a broader, non-academic audience.
The Ferguson and George Floyd effects are real and have been downplayed. But anyone who lives in Minneapolis knows that something changed in 2020. I went to grad school there and it was one of the least violent, large-ish US cities during that time. Now gun violence has spilled into neighborhoods where it never previously existed. It’s undeniable that it is because police pulled back & are understaffed. It’s also important for us to keep in mind that the number of people who actually engage in violence is tiny, but they continue to terrorize communities because they are so rarely caught and punished. I don’t think society suddenly became twice as violent, I just think the violent people became a lot more brazen knowing that they would not face consequences. This triggers cycles of retribution that ripple through communities and will continue until violent individuals are removed.
Assuming that our goal is to reduce homicides, would it not be better to track the overall homicide rate instead of focusing only on firearm homicides? When a researcher chooses the latter, I must assume that their goal is to demonize gun ownership rather than find the true causes of homicide. I've heard the arguments for doing research this way, but they all seem to stem from political bias. Am I missing something or is this just one more example of how politics has corrupted science?
In 2020, the national homicide rate increased by 30%. That is the largest single-year increase in over a century.
However, not all types of homicide grew at the same rate. Between 2019 and 2021, firearm homicide rates increased 44%, from 4.6 victims per 100,000 people in 2019 to 6.7 victims per 100,000 people in 2021. Alternatively, homicides committed by cutting or stabbing injuries or suffocation – the next most common methods of killing – decreased 17% and 33%, respectively. https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-homicides
This is from CDC data, but my independent research confirms that cities of all sizes have spiking gun violence since 2019. It’s not because gun LAWS were loosened in these cities/states. My opinion on why this has been happening is that it comes down almost exclusively to under-policing & under-incarceration. In 2014 we had the lowest rates of gun violence & resultantly homicides ever observed in United States history. Something changed incredibly quickly to alter the incentive structure to commit gun violence. I am with Roland Fryer on this. Police pulled back & gun crime naturally rose.
So, I study Firearm Homicide Rates because they were at an all time low in 2014 despite this country having similar rates of gun ownership back then. Something changed and it isn’t just the gun laws, which actually become stricter in many states after several high profile mass shootings.
Without saying explicitly my research shows that those gun control laws haven’t curbed community gun violence, which is what we should care a lot more about than splashy mass shootings, even though those are very horrific.
You will not find gun control advocacy in my newsletter because I do not think more laws (that aren’t enforced!) are the solution. I think we should enforce existing laws. Very few firearm homicides are committed by legal gun owners. Most are committed by felons & teenagers, and most are committed with handguns instead of assault rifles. And most homicides do not result in an arrest. Take a few minutes to look through my newsletter and you will see that I refute myriad claims made by “progressive” gun control advocates! I point out that gun violence increased in states with the strictest gun laws. I also show that some states with the most permissive gun laws & high ownership have the lowest rates of shootings in their cities.
I grew up in Alaska surrounded by guns. When I moved to Illinois I became interested in gun violence because we didn’t have much in Alaska, even in the cities, but we have a whole hell of a lot of it in Illinois, even in small towns!
TL;DR: I don’t think passing more laws is the solution and I never said it was. But I do think we need to acknowledge that this is a problem that has increased (especially in Democratic-run cities in Blue states, but also in a lot of small & mid-sized cities in the South & Midwest). There is going to be a lot of denial about whether the “crime wave” is real during the upcoming election, just like there was in 2022. I use data to interrogate & provide nuance to claims about the locus, scope & severity of gun violence in American cities.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply! I wasn't aware of the differential effects of depolicing. It makes sense to me that "gun violence" could increase relative to non-gun violence in the absence of policing if we accept the idea that the threat of arrest/punishment kept some violent people from using their guns. Perhaps they thought homicide by non-gun means would help them avoid arrest or reduce punishment. Very interesting!
I also note your point that firearm homicides rose after 2014, the year a young man with my name was killed in a city that gave us the term "Ferguson Effect."
Keep up the good work. I'm going to subscribe.
You’re welcome, and I appreciate the feedback! It helps me to consider how my framing might be interpreted by people who are concerned about the problem, but put off by the way that most researchers focus exclusively on gun control as the only or even best solution. I am one of a handful of people who study gun violence, but focus on it from a criminology perspective rather than looking exclusively at public policy. I’m not saying that easy access to guns doesn’t exacerbate the problem, but why do so many people want to use them? And why did this increase recently? (homicide remains illegal, after all!) These are compelling questions.
Also, I appreciate the pledge. I am, however unable to monetize this due to the data source. I have a full-time job, so this is just an enjoyable side project that enables me to share information with a broader, non-academic audience.
The Ferguson and George Floyd effects are real and have been downplayed. But anyone who lives in Minneapolis knows that something changed in 2020. I went to grad school there and it was one of the least violent, large-ish US cities during that time. Now gun violence has spilled into neighborhoods where it never previously existed. It’s undeniable that it is because police pulled back & are understaffed. It’s also important for us to keep in mind that the number of people who actually engage in violence is tiny, but they continue to terrorize communities because they are so rarely caught and punished. I don’t think society suddenly became twice as violent, I just think the violent people became a lot more brazen knowing that they would not face consequences. This triggers cycles of retribution that ripple through communities and will continue until violent individuals are removed.