top | item 2028142

(no title)

Total firearm-related death rate per 100'000 for the US: between 10.2 and 15.22.

For the UK: 0.38 to 0.46

Source (and more sources): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re...

discuss

anamax|15 years ago

You'll find similar differences between the "feet and fists" death rate. What are the "feet" control laws?

And, the UK's low firearms death rates predate the firearms laws, which largely occurred post-WWI to stop a communist takeover.

Note the US' firearms death rate isn't uniform. For example, most of the peninsula's is better than the UK's best, but East Palo Alto, which has exactly the same laws (and lower firearms ownership than Palo Alto), is horrendously worse.

Parts of the US are third-world, with all that that entails. Gun control won't change that.

tome|15 years ago

You'll find similar differences between the "feet and fists" death rate.

If you know of a specific reference I'll be very pleased to read it.

_b8r0|15 years ago

To be fair that's for England and Wales, not the UK.

In Northern Ireland (where as far as I'm aware the gun law is the same) it's 6.82.

It's interesting that England and Wales features in 7th lowest spot for death rate whereas Northern Ireland is 7th highest.

eftpotrm|15 years ago

OK, but a) Northern Ireland has been in a state of at best hevy terrorist activity and at worst borderline civil war in some areas for a good part of the last 40 years, and b) Relative populations: England: 51.5m Wales: 3m Northern Ireland: 1.5m

So in NI we're talking about just over 1,000 deaths against E/W combined, about 200. Hence the separate treatment.

ZoFreX|15 years ago

> In Northern Ireland (where as far as I'm aware the gun law is the same)

It isn't, a lot more people in NI own firearms.

jackfoxy|15 years ago

The stats in this table are terribly out of date. I'm not criticizing your post, just pointing it out. Also odd the authors of this article chose to publish 2 numbers for the U.S. I interpret them for corresponding to 2004/1993, which means there was a significant difference between those two years, not the rate is between those numbers.

I've bemoaned the difficulty in finding reliable, research-quality statistical data like this for a long time. I've even tried to raise capital to for a start-up to do this. No luck.