
Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware - krg
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
======
tokenadult
The article "In Medical Triumph, Homicides Fall Despite Soaring Gun Violence"

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732471250457813...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324712504578131360684277812.html)

from December 8, 2012 provides some perspective on falling absolute numbers
(and thus a falling rate) of gunshot deaths.

"Crime experts who attribute the drop in killings to better policing or an
aging population fail to square the image of a more tranquil nation with this
statistic: The reported number of people treated for gunshot attacks from 2001
to 2011 has grown by nearly half.

. . . .

"After a steady decline through the 1990s, the annual number of homicides
zigzagged before resuming a decline in 2007, falling from 16,929 that year to
an estimated 14,722 in 2010, according to FBI crime data.

"At the same time, medical data and other surveys in the U.S. show a rising
number of serious injuries from assaults with guns and knives. The estimated
number of people wounded seriously enough by gunshots to require a hospital
stay, rather than treatment and release, rose 47% to 30,759 in 2011 from
20,844 in 2001, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury
Program. The CDC estimates showed the number of people injured in serious
stabbings rose to 23,550 from 22,047 over the same period."

Emergency medicine for gunshot victims has improved enormously in the last
twenty years, and many people who are shot by criminals now survive for a
lifetime of permanent disability rather dying on the street. A crime can only
be classified as a "homicide" by the uniform statistical methods if someone
dies, but a crime can still be very serious and harmful to the victim if it
involves a gunshot by a criminal.

~~~
jeffdavis
There's a graph of "non-fatal violent firearm crime" right in the article. It
looks flat to me between 2001 and 2011.

Are both true somehow? Those facts seem to be in conflict.

~~~
bjterry
First, the quoted WSJ data is stated on an absolute basis
(inflating/sensationalizing the numbers, obviously), while the graph in this
article is stated on a relative basis. This still leaves an apparent
discrepancy. Other real causes for the discrepancy could be improvements in
emergency response in areas with gun violence. This could cause in increase in
hospitalizations based on people not dying before getting to the hospital, but
this doesn't seem like a large factor. This leaves quality of data as the more
likely culprit. The article goes on to say after the portion tokenadult
quoted:

> Criminologists say they are cautious about using such medical statistics to
> draw conclusions because of year-to-year inconsistencies in the number of
> medical institutions reporting data. The FBI collects annual homicide and
> aggravated assault statistics but doesn't have reliable numbers for gun and
> knife attacks.

> Jens Ludwig, a law professor and the director of the University of Chicago
> Crime Lab, said he was leery of any number beyond reported homicides.

> "Homicide is the one thing we're measuring well," he said. "Everything else
> is subject to much more uncertainty," including varying numbers of emergency
> departments contributing data, as well as differences in how injuries are
> classified.

So basically, take your pre-existing political biases and use that as a guide
to choose which data you believe, just like everyone else does.

------
dmix
Also ALL violent crime is down 50% since 1993.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0>

Fear is a powerful weapon. The media and politicians know this and selectively
choose which crime stats to promote.

Emotional outrage > rational analysis when it comes to selling pageviews and
building political support.

That is nothing new. Fortunately the internet is helping to temper that
imbalance.

~~~
Terretta
> _selectively choose which crime stats to promote_

For example, FBI homicide stats last year show 350 killed by rifles of any
kind, assault or otherwise, while 750 killed by hammers. I keep waiting for
the groundswell of public support for hammer control.

~~~
corresation
750 were killed by hammers _or clubs_ which includes any blunt force attack
(vase, bat, golf club, etc. I am assuming that you're accurately quoting a
number, though last I saw that number was more in the 450 range). Secondly
every home has numerous objects that qualify as "clubs", many of them serving
valid, functional roles (for instance to hammer, or to hit balls, etc). In
many households a firearm has one single purpose, which is to kill or maim
(given that hunting is rare, though I suppose that's a weird exception I make
given that hunting is ultimately about killing, food pyramid and all).

So that's the first gross misrepresentation that you've made.

The second is that few argue for "rifle control", but instead want "gun
control". Those guns that kill 30,000+ Americans per year (whether homicide,
suicide, or accidental).

I'm a hunter (albeit here in Canada), but just as I despise misrepresentation
of facts one way, it doesn't justify gross misrepresentation the other way.

~~~
learc83
>The second is that few argue for "rifle control", but instead want "gun
control".

Except that's not what was actually happening. Most of what was hotly debated
over the last few months has been over an "Assault Weapons Ban", that is a ban
on certain semi-automatic rifles, very rarely involved in crime.

It was only after that was defeated that people started talking about
universal background checks.

>Those guns that kill 30,000+ Americans per year

60% of those are from suicide. If you look at suicide rate by country--there
is no correlation with gun ownership. How is gun control going to help our
suicide rate? The best information we have shows it's not going to help
because there are too many easily available alternates.

~~~
voidlogic
>>How is gun control going to help our suicide rate

What if I think people have a right to kill themselves?

~~~
dmix
"They tell us that suicide is the greatest piece of cowardice; that only a
madman could be guilty of it; and other insipidities of the same kind; or else
they make the nonsensical remark that suicide is wrong; when it is quite
obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more
unassailable title than to his own life and person."

\- Arthur Schopenhauer

[http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/pessimis...](http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/pessimism/chapter3.html)

------
jstalin
The drop is all the more remarkable considering that there are at least
168,000,000 more guns in circulation in the US now than when gun homicide
peaked in 1993.[1]

[1]: [https://www.fbi.gov/about-
us/cjis/nics/reports/1998_2013_sta...](https://www.fbi.gov/about-
us/cjis/nics/reports/1998_2013_state_program_to_date_purpose_ids-033113.pdf)

~~~
scottkduncan
"These statistics represent the number of firearm background checks initiated
through the NICS. They do not represent the number of firearms sold. Based on
varying state laws and purchase scenarios, a one-to-one correlation cannot be
made between a firearm background check and a firearm sale."

I imagine the total's quite a bit lower than the stated figure since many of
these background checks would be for transfers and sales of used weapons, not
always just new guns entering the system. I also imagine some people go
through the background check but then for one reason or another don't complete
the sale. Still, the number of new guns in circulation is likely very large.

~~~
jstalin
Also keep in mind that one background check may represent the sale of several
firearms.

One additional data point - nearly 9 million guns were manufactured or
imported into the US in 2010 alone: [http://www.businessinsider.com/more-gun-
stores-in-america-th...](http://www.businessinsider.com/more-gun-stores-in-
america-than-grocery-stores-2012-12)

~~~
scottkduncan
From the same article, it says there were 16.5 million background checks
during 2010. Perhaps the ratio between the number of new guns
manufactured/imported into the U.S. is relatively stable with the number of
background checks. If so, 168M background checks since 1993 would mean about
90M new guns in the United States during that period.

------
schoper
Whatever drives violent crime in the U.S. does not seem to be the presence or
absence of guns.

The white murder rate in America is about the same as it is in Europe/Canada,
etc. The black murder rate is about the same as it is in parts of Africa.
(Something like 10x the white rate.)

First look here to get a rough idea of the murder rate in different parts of
the globe:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)

Take a look here for the murder rate in different American states:

[http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-
and-...](http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-
state#MRord)

Notice how this is a very similar list:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-
American_population)

With some corrections for urbanization, the correlation is even more extreme.

Also see the discussion and figures here:
<http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hispanic.htm>

~~~
quantumstate
Your Wikipedia link shows that the US murder rate is 4.8, the rates for
Western, Southern and Northern Europe are 1.0, 1.4 and 1.5 respectively.
Eastern Europe has a higher rate of 6.4. If you are looking at economic
similarity Western, Northern and some of Southern Europe are comparable to the
US. So the murder rates are very different.

------
Prophasi
Most gun stats blithely show aggregate rates of gun ownership and gun-related
homicides, and the public reacts in fear; who wants to live in a country like
that?

But criminal-on-criminal violence is a disproportionate share. Are we supposed
to think that the presence of guns is what drives the violence, or is it
possibly that you've got millions of young men with no jobs and nothing
constructive to do, with parents who don't care to bring them up right (or who
can't control them), running drugs and fighting turf wars, cooking up ways to
make bank? There's an argument that for some people, access to guns creates an
opportunity; but there's a lot more at work here than that.

There's a social rot underneath it all -- and I'd venture that gun violence in
the US is a symptom of the rot rather than guns being a cause. It seems
remarkably dangerous to me to demonize the mechanism by which someone
_murders_ another person in the name of progress; politicians feel like
they're accomplishing something, even though we still have a bunch of people
willing to kill someone, if only they had the means.

There's significant collective cognitive dissonance in American society on
this topic, I think.

------
mattsfrey
Nobody seems to mention the reason I think accounts for a good deal of the
drop, which is simply the perception that you're going to get caught is much
higher. Up until the mid 90's there wasn't even DNA analysis. The world was a
much simpler place, no cameras everywhere, cell phones, internet, and a myriad
of other ways to be tracked. The rise of technology in law enforcement coupled
with the non stop blasting of crime shows depicting criminals getting caught
(e.g. CSI) has greatly increased the perception that you will not get away
with murder. Today most sane people at least view it as something extremely
risky and hard to get away with. Even to the destitute gun crime is not a very
attractive option these days, whereas 20+ years ago it wasn't nearly as big a
deal. Of course there's a handful of other factors, but I think the perceived
likelihood of being caught is probably the most significant.

~~~
jttam
My theory is that the advent of a popular internet itself deters people from
violence. No science to back it up, of course. But people spend more time
watching TV and using the internet; it leaves less time to be outside getting
physically rowdy with others and creating these heated moments.

------
pwenzel
Others may be unaware of the shift in suicide rates by firearm:

"The sharp decline in the U.S. gun homicide rate, combined with a slower
decrease in the gun suicide rate, means that gun suicides now account for six-
in-ten firearms deaths, the highest share since at least 1981."

~~~
jstalin
Looks like the suicide rate has been on the decline since the 1950s as well:
<http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779940.html>

~~~
codeulike
But what about "Suicide Rates Rise Sharply in U.S. (nytimes.com)"
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5647015>

~~~
jstalin
That article seems to touch only on one subgroup of people and not the overall
suicide rate.

~~~
codeulike
Yep, misleading headline ahoy

------
grimtrigger
Please keep the politics out of HN.

Edit: Referring to some of the comments in this thread, not the article.

~~~
mrchucklepants
I fail to see how review and discussion of statistical information equates to
politics. Facts are not political.

~~~
davidw
You really can't see that? Do you think there's the odd chance the ensuing
discussion might - just might - deviate from the discussion of some numbers?

My inclination is that we will see yet another reenactment of a famous
internet flame war.

~~~
mrchucklepants
It is possible, and likely will happen. However, the OP is completely
relevant.

------
platz
Just a sanity check: "Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime
and violent crime for many years, and though there are theories to explain the
decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it
happened."

~~~
dclowd9901
If I had to guess, I'd say it's because it's harder to get away with a gun
crime now than it used to be. TV shows like CSI probably have more to do with
the decline in gun violence than any other environmental factors.

~~~
malyk
It's probably a combination of things, but the correlation to the banning of
lead seems to be the highest of any other single reason.

[http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-
li...](http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-
gasoline)

------
cpursley
End the drug war and it drops even more if you don't count suicides (since
that's not really a homicide) and you're only left with the occasional nutter
with a gun(s).

------
learc83
If you live outside of a high crime area, and you aren't involved in criminal
activity the chances, of being shot are _drastically_ reduced below the
average.

~~~
CapitalistCartr
I have many foreign friends, and most are surprised to learn I've never seen a
gun used in a violent crime. They have a hard time seeing past Hollywood and
the press's portrayal of America. Of course, they don't live here.

------
ceejayoz
"Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm)
also is down markedly (72%) over two decades."

So, gun crime's falling significantly slower than crime in general, which may
account for the public perception.

~~~
rajat
Since you're comparing gun crimes to all crimes, doesn't that mean that non-
gun crime rates are also falling lower than crime in general (includes with or
without firearms)?

Public perception is being driven by a media with an anti-gun agenda.

~~~
lmm
No, because he compared percentages. If gun crime has fallen by 50% and
overall crime by 72%, that means non-gun crime has fallen by _more_ than 72%,
i.e. _much faster than gun crime_. Or to put it another way, more crime is
being committed with guns than before. Reality's well-known liberal bias
strikes again.

~~~
jrdn
"Or to put it another way, more crime is being committed with guns than
before."

Um... no.

------
buster
Well.. that's not to say a rate of 3.2 is a good rate. The U.S. still is far
above most western countries, which typically have something like 0.x or even
0.0x homicides per 100.000.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-
related_death_rate)

~~~
ap22213
Interesting data. Thanks.

And, wow, look at US's suicide rate.

~~~
jstalin
That's only the suicide rate by those who use a gun. Compare actual overall
suicide rates and the US is pretty average and very close to the rate in the
UK, Canada, France, etc:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate)

------
wahsd
Some may call me crazy, but I have a hunch that the decline in gun homicide,
and crime in general, is related to gaming.

There is frequently a claim that it's the FPS and other violent games that
trigger mass shootings. Although I believe that there is an negative effect, I
also believe that that negative effect is essentially all but negated by other
outcome positive effects of gaming. I feel like there might be net positive
outcomes related to those who would in the past have been the types who felt
the need to enforce their ego through violence, posturing, and domination.
Additionally, because those types of people / kids would then also not have
come in contact with "mentors" who would groom them, there could also be a
cycle-interrupting process going on here.

~~~
platz
Might be related to pornography as well.

------
spwestwood
SuperFreakonomics attributed the dramatic drop in crime in the 1990s to Roe vs
Wade. [http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-
wh...](http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-
you-believe/)

~~~
jeffdavis
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime)

A number of people disagree with that conclusion based on seemingly reasonable
scientific arguments.

~~~
nathan_long
Furthermore, if it's meant to be an argument for abortion, it really has no
effect on the pro-life position.

If you start with the understanding that a baby in the womb is a human, this
arguments sounds like "it's good that we have legal murder because it prevents
illegal murder".

------
tayllargardner
If gun homicide is truly down 49% then why so much controversy over wether or
not they should be allowed and what not. This will constantly be an ongoing
battle for years to come over gun control. Why blame the gun for random acts
of violence when violence is truly uncontrolable. Before there were guns
people still committed horrendous crimes. It's the corrupted mind not the
weapon.

------
stevewilhelm
One of the factors in reducing gun homicide is we have gotten better since
1993 at keeping people alive after they have been shot.

I am interested in the change per capita of gun shot victims as a whole.

------
edtechdev
Well back in 1993, almost 49% of households had a gun. Today the number is
32%. That alone is a 35% drop in gun ownership.

There are so many other factors that could play a role here. And none of them
negate the need for common sense gun regulations and re-funding research on
both gun and non-gun violence.

~~~
hga
See <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5675330>; you're talking about the
number of households that _admit_ to owning a gun, not the real number.

That's somewhere around the middle of the nationwide sweep of shall issue
concealed carry regimes, now totalling 42 states and 2/3rds of the population.
Such an astounding political development---there were 2-3 states when Florida
opened the floodgates in 1987---wouldn't seem to correlate with lower
ownership rates.

As for this so called research, would you be talking about the output of
people like Dr. Mark Rosenberg, director of the National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control at the CDC in 1994 when he said objective was to make
people see firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.”

Any wonder the NRA and gun owners in general were able to get the Congress to
ban such "research"? And aren't you a bit disturbed by the violations of the
rule of law of Obama ignoring these laws?

~~~
edtechdev
"you're talking about the number of households that admit to owning a gun, not
the real number"

Looks like you either didn't read the short sentence I posted, or didn't think
about it before responding, because that doesn't say anything against the
evidence that there is lower gun ownership today than there was 20 years ago,
only that the actual percentage back then AND now is likely higher than
surveys suggest, but there is still a strong trend downward in gun ownership.

And for this "so called research", I'm talking about the NIH and CDC research
into gun violence that was cut off under pressure by the NRA in 1996:
[http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-
violence.as...](http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-
violence.aspx)

Research for example that showed that owning a gun increases the likelihood of
harm done to or by a family member or acquaintance.

~~~
hga
Heh, your own descriptions of the research impeach it. "Acquaintance" of
course includes e.g. drug dealers killing each other. They are generally
"acquaintances" if not exactly friends, or friends any more; in general,
stranger murders are relatively rare.

And your citation first mentions Arthur Kellerman, who's infamous for scoring
undesired civilian deaths vs. civilians _killing_ criminals, when such killing
_cannot_ legally be and is not the objective, stopping them is. There are
_many_ other problems with his "research", but when it's invalid at that high
a level we hardly need to go into the details.

~~~
edtechdev
You didn't even bother to read the article, it says "family member or intimate
acquaintance." If you're intimate with "drug dealers killing each other" then
I stand corrected.

------
pygy_
It appears that gun homicide rate increased under Bush Sr. (~5.6 => 7.0) and
Jr.(3.8 => 4.0), and declined under Reagan(6.6 => 5.6), Clinton (7.0 => 3.8)
and Obama (4.0 =>3.6).

Numbers are in death/100,000 people, (+/-0.1 because they were read from the
graph[0]).

A t-test on the yearly rate of change, yields a p-value of 0.002. (in Excel
=T.TEST(A1:A12, B1:B14,1,3)).

Did the Bush have a peculiar approach regarding crime fighting?

[0]
[http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/05/SDT-2013-05-gun...](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/05/SDT-2013-05-gun-
crime-1-2.png)

------
Spooky23
A big part of the perception problem is that gangs have spread out or have
left the larger urban environments in favor of smaller cities and suburbs with
no resources.

So people see gang activity in places like Albany, NY or Springfield, MA or
some suburb in Tennessee and hear about 15 year old gang members carrying
handguns. They associate that real social problem with the tools that they are
carrying.

That combined with pandering politicians and advocacy group funded PR efforts
that land gun related incidents on the TV everyday leads to the present
situation.

------
ap22213
As with most things, follow the money. Who benefits the most when the public
is frightened of gun violence (and also being told to arm themselves)?

Similarly, war deaths (as a portion of total death) have been decreasing
incredibly. Yet, globally we keep increasing our spending on military. And,
the public is frightened of war. Some would say that the spending on military
has been the major deterrent to war. But, studies show the decrease is more
related to rises in democracy and global trade.

------
squozzer
I wonder if the increase in available distractions, such as video games, has
something to do with it.

And I don't know the name of the theory, but stats don't really relate well to
certain events, such as taking a bullet. If took_a_bullet = false, then are
you really thinking about the odds? If took_a_bullet = true, then you've got
bigger problems than becoming a statistic.

------
crazy1van
The focus on "gun violence" or "gun homicides" instead of just violence or
homicides strikes me as very strange.

~~~
jeffdavis
If you try to talk about violence, people are going to ask whether it is
higher or lower than before. The fact that it is lower eliminates fear and
sensationalism and the conversation dries up to little more than local police
budget issues.

But if you talk about gun violence, people will generally have an opinion
regardless of the facts, and won't tend to ask questions. That's why everyone
has a strong opinion but few know that it's actually a declining problem.

------
Millennium
Of course they're unaware. It's harder to keep fear alive when information
like this gets out.

Both sides know this. But each side is convinced that it benefits more from a
fearful populace than an unafraid populace, and that the reverse is true for
its opposition. And so the fearmongering continues.

------
balloot
In a totally and completely unrelated fact, the rate of gun ownership is also
down 30% since the 1980's. It's almost as if the two may have a relationship,
but that certainly cannot be the case because the NRA has spent a jillion
dollars telling me otherwise!

~~~
hga
All of those statistics that I've seen, claiming that rates of ownership are
down, are based on surveys.

What do you think are common reactions from gun owners when a nosy stranger
calls them on the phone and asks if they own a gun?

Might it have correlations with the _Zeitgeist_ created by the gun grabbers,
especially when they dance on the blood of victims like with Newtown?

I haven't run the numbers myself, but someone's claimed that if you mash these
all together, the post-Newtown "admits to owning a firearm" + the number known
to be outstanding (we have solid figures on legal production and imports) and
the population, the _average_ gun owner owns about $100K worth of firearms.

See also solid evidence like Illinois FOID application rates as I mentioned
elsewhere in this topic. By definition those are from people who haven't
previously legally owned guns, and they've quadrupled since Newtown.

~~~
jstalin
^ this. No one I know who is a gun owner would say "yes" if called as part of
a survey and asked if they own guns.

------
joyeuse6701
I'm surprised no one here has made mention of the correlation between led in
the atmosphere and violent crime.

[http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-
li...](http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-
gasoline)

------
RyanMcGreal
Please, please do yourself a favour and read Steven Pinker's _The Better
Angels of our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined_ \- a breathtaking tour-de-
force backed by strong, robust, varied evidence.

------
grey-area
Homicide rates in the US are still significantly higher than other developed
nations, so there's a long way to go:

    
    
        US 4.8 per 100,000 in 2012
        UK 1.2
        France 1.1
        Germany 0.8
        Japan 0.4
    

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)

I wonder why this paper doesn't use the statistics from 2012, which show an
uptick to 4.8?

~~~
joshuahedlund
It's unfair to compare the best state-sized countries with the entire United
States, which has several states 7+ but also several 2 and under. It would be
better to compare the US to the closer-sized Europe, which is 3.5. Still a
legitimate difference, but not nearly as stark.

~~~
quantumstate
Why are you comparing based on size? Surely it is sensible to try and compare
economically similar. Western and Northern Europe is probably the best
comparison, with a combined population of something like 280 Million, not too
far from the US. The murder rates are 1.0 and 1.5 respectively, far lower than
the US. The whole of Europe includes Eastern Europe which is much less similar
to the US and has a higher murder rate.

------
mixmastamyk
There are a few theories (I've not seen mentioned here) as to why crime is
down so much. Not certain how valid they are but are food for thought. Some
external reasons crime may be down:

\- The ban on lead in gasoline and other products, the contamination of which
tended to create dumber and more impulsive people.

\- The legalization of abortion, resulting in fewer unwanted, unsupervised
children.

------
brianbreslin
I didn't read the article, but am going to make a commentary anyway. I take
from this declining violent crime stat, that we still have a long way to go in
eradicating violent crimes (both gun and non gun related). /soapbox

------
ebbv
Of course it is. All violent crime is down.

That has nothing to do with the fact that kids are still accidentally getting
shot.

I propose a new law; if a child (under 18) is found in possession of a gun the
gun owner is fined $50,000. If the gun's ownership cannot be established, the
parents or legal guardians are fined $50,000 instead.

People might be a little more serious about locking up their guns and not
letting their kids play with them.

Dumb parents never seemed to be scared of their kids accidentally shooting
each other but and one of them dies, maybe they'd be scared of them
accidentally shooting each other and owing $50,000.

~~~
Taylorious
What a silly law. Why don't we fine people $50,000 every time they do anything
irresponsible or dangerous. Surely that would make our society safe and
responsible!

Seriously, no one is going to pay heed to this law because how would you ever
get caught? No one thinks their kid is going to get into their guns, if they
did they would do something to prevent it. I can't believe you actually
suggest that someone would care more about a $50,000 fine than if their kid
shot themself or someone else.

I don't own any guns now, but some of my earliest and fondest memories are of
shooting guns with my dad. I think it started when I was seven... I was never
allowed to use guns on my own, only with strict supervision with safety gear
etc.

If the government was really worried about children getting into guns, they
wouldn't set up a bunch of pointless fines, they would start an educational
campaign (maybe even get the NRA involved) reminding people that if they have
guns they should secure them and teach their children the dangers of guns etc.

Honestly its not that hard, get a cheap gun safe, lock your guns up, keep the
key on your key chain. Be an actual parent and educate your children. Problem
solved.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
Exactly. I grew up with guns in the house. My dad would take us out shooting
all the time. But as a kid, I would never even think of going into my dad's
room without permission. And if I did venture in there, I certainly would not
have touched the rifle he kept under the bed or the .357 he kept in the sock
drawer. It was called respect. Respect for authority. Respect for the fire
arms. Respect. We have a lack of that these days.

------
lifeisstillgood
dmix is right - here in the UK the UK Peace Index [1] (a rather hippie name
for respected peer reviewed sociology) shows massive drops across the board
for violent crime.

[1] [http://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/04/U...](http://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/04/UK-Peace-Index-2013-IEP-Report.pdf)

~~~
hga
That's not what the national crime survey says! And I think the police
statistics as well (those can and are often fudged).

------
TheBindingVoid
Someone link this to gaming, please.

~~~
zerohm
That study was done by Pew Pew Research.

------
lifeguard
There are still over 90 people killed by accident EVERY DAY in the USA.

------
yoster
93' was gangster. I was a teenager around then and a lot of people were
gangbanging at the time. Most of those people realized that they didn't want
to go to prison for murder.

------
bluedino
Yet, cities like Chicago and Flint are setting new records for homicide rates,
and the % of those committed by guns is at an all-time high.

~~~
pessimizer
You made this up, loosely based on the number of news stories that you've seen
lately. Chicago's homicide rate is half of what it was in 1993.

