Perpetually relevant thoughts on the relationship b/w the murder rate and the gun owner rate

Apropos of people getting killed by guns every day, here’s some data I’ve analyzed over the years.

What’s crystal clear is as the number of gun owners per capita rises, the number of murders per capita rises.

Now, if you want to have a rational argument about guns, it’s the number of gun owners–not number of guns owned–that matters most.

The number of guns owned in America has skyrocketed but the number of gun owners per capita has fallen.

In other words, if America were a town of 100 people and 100 guns, it’s safer when 2 people in the town have 50 guns each than it is when 100 people in the town each has 1 gun.

Now, I know arguing about guns in this country is impossible, so I’d rather speak with the data–and they are clear.

The correlation b/w gun owners per capita and murders per capita as well as firearm deaths per capita is super high.

Is this correlation b/w variables just completely random? I mean, is this just a total fluke?


The people who want to argue this correlation is just random are the same people who probably think smoking and lung cancer rates are just random.

To understand why guns amplify murders, you have to dissect the elements of a crime–motive, method and opportunity.

Crime is a product, not a sum, of these three ingredients.

Motive does not a murder make.Guns are the most popular method of murder in this country.

Why is that?

Why would someone spend money on a method that’s more costly if all methods are equal?

Because all methods aren’t equal substitutes for each other.

More than any other weapon, except bombs and missiles, guns extend lethal force farther and more effectively.

In other words, guns expand opportunity.

Motive*method*opportunity=crime, ok?

The method available changes opportunity.

So if two people have the same motive but different methods, they won’t be able to realize their motives as effectively.

JFK wasn’t killed by a bow and arrow or a sword or a knife.

He was killed by a sniper rifle.

Consider that.

Lee Harvey Oswald chose a method that expanded his opportunity to realize his motive.

Access to guns didn’t change his motive. But it sure as hell allowed him opportunity that no other weapon would.

Considering that most criminals don’t want to get caught, guns are the most effective tools because in addition to being more lethal they allow the shooter distance from the victim.

Ok, think I’m done.