// You are reading...

Second Amendment

Correction: Amok Time


After publishing “Amok Time” yesterday, my friend and fellow Democrat Abroad, Sue Burke, pointed out that two of my graphs were showing erroneous data. The graphs on U.S. National and State murder and non-negligent homicides showed total homicides, not just firearm-related homicides. It turns out she was right.

So allow me to apologize for that error and thank Sue for detecting it and letting me know about it.

However, Sue’s second assertion, that firearm-related homicides have not declined in either absolute terms or in proportion to population turn out to be both incorrect. Here is the original data (total homicides) along with the firearm-related homicides:


The FBI’s UCR database only provides data on the “extended homicide tables” back to 1991. Earlier data is available only in pdf format on compact disk, not online. In any case, we can see that the rate of firearm homicides declines by more than 50% from the 1993 peak of 6.3 per 100,000 to 2.9 per 100,000 in 2010. And the absolute number of firearm homicides declined from 14,373 in 1993 to 8,593 in 2011, a decrease of -40%.

Unfortunately, the state-level data is not available for the “extended homicide tables”, which means that I cannot separate out the firearm homicides from the total. However, since firearm homicides as a percentage of total homicides remains very steady for the two decades of data in the national data (averaging 67%) we might perhaps be willing to assume that regional variation in that rate are minimal.

One additional point I would make regarding the efficacy of an assault weapon ban, since I pulled the data anyway. Rifles of any type make up a very small percentage of all firearm homicides, averaging 4.5% over the period. This is similar to the shotgun percentage, which is slightly higher. This makes sense: neither weapon is easily concealed, which severely limits their usefulness to criminals. The vast majority of firearm deaths are caused by handguns, and most of these are caused by previous offenders.


So why focus on assault rifles when these are used in an insignificant number of crimes? Furthermore, the assault weapon ban had no appreciable effect on the percentage of rifle deaths: these declined but at the same rate as all other firearm deaths.

I hope the Administration proves me wrong, but the current efforts they are spearheading appear aimed at appeasing the anti-gun collective within the Democratic Party rather than in actually improving firearm safety or identifying and treating people like Adam Lanza or Seung-Hui Cho before they endanger the lives of others.

With the most recent news that President Obama may decide to side-step Congress completely and act on an assault weapons ban through executive fiat[1] bodes extremely ill on many levels: for those of us who want sincere and practical means to improve gun safety, for those of us who are concerned about our already eroded civil liberties and the authority of Congress, and for those of us who believe that an uncompromising Administration is unlikely to address the many and urgent priorities of the country: gun control not being one of them.

Sources and Notes

[1] Nelson, Colleen McCain and Fields, Gary, “Biden Says White House May Bypass Congress Over Guns,” The Wall Street Journal, 9 January 2013

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

“Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives.“

John Adams


Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 792 other subscribers