What Drives US Homicides: Gun Ownership or Culture or Both?
We can learn from like countries which do a much better job controlling crime.
Compared to similar countries in the New World, the United States has the highest homicide rate. In 2021 it was 6.8 per 100,000 of population. In Australia it was 0.7. in New Zealand 1.0 and in Canada 2.1, all three of which have strict gun control laws in place.
It is tempting to conclude that the US figures are due to widespread gun ownership. However, a closer look at comparative statistics reveals that it is not quite so simple. Australia is a good yardstick as it has a similar culture to the United States. I have lived in each country for more than 25 years.
The United States has a serious violent crime problem. This is the case even when guns are not used, which is so in 67% of cases. In 2021 there were 143 sentenced prisoners in US penitentiaries, per 100,000 of adult population, who were held for violent crimes committed without the use of a gun.
In Australia in the same year 100 sentenced prisoners, per 100,000 adults, were being held for violent crimes of all types, only a small percentage involving firearms. The United States is at least 43% more violent than Australia, even when firearm violence is not included; and more than twice as violent when it is.
With local law enforcement and courts in the United States stretched thin by so much violent crime, it is little wonder that drugs on the streets and property crimes are rampant in many cities, including San Francisco.
It is tempting to speculate that the cultural, social and political factors behind heightened non-firearm violence in the United States may also be contributing to excessive firearm violence. If those factors can be identified through comparative statistics with like countries, then this may present low hanging fruit for efforts to reduce gun violence in the United States. For example, it may be easier to vote out polarizing politicians than guns.
Democrats claim that gun violence can only be reduced by removing guns from the community. Certainly, it is hard to argue against the claim that blocking access to guns for 15–25-year-old males would reduce the number of school mass shootings substantially, this being the demographic chiefly responsible. But such proposals have gotten nowhere up to now because they would contravene the Second Amendment in the US Constitution, which grants Americans the right to keep and bear arms. Such proposals have been opposed by the politically powerful National Rifle Association, and by all Republican politicians and even some Democrats.
One of the reasons for this opposition is the high crime rate and the fact that the criminals already have guns, and they are not about to give them up. Citizens are scared and believe that gun ownership would give them some sense of security, at least emotionally. This is despite the fact that law- abiding citizens rarely get a chance to fire back when attacked, because those assaults usually occur without warning. In 2007–2011 less than 1% of victims in non-fatal violent crimes in the United States reported using a firearm to defend themselves during the incident. This is despite widespread gun ownership in the United States.
Efforts to change the gun laws in the United States are laudatory but are running into a brick wall.
On the other hand, Republicans have a different take on the cause of the horrifying incidence of mass shootings. They say that it is not the guns but people that kill victims. This is only half right. They claim that something should be done about mental illness in this country so that disturbed people are not free to roam the streets and the schools.
Certainly, a large percentage of school and other mass shootings are committed by disturbed people. However, reaching them is not easy. Many are undiagnosed and live in plain sight in the community. Often their parents do not even know what is going on in their minds.
In any event, the incidence of mental illness, per se, does not seem to explain the different homicide rates in Australia and the United States. The incidence of those suffering with some kind of mental disorder is about the same in both countries, about one in five of the population. In both countries less than 0.1% of sufferers are institutionalized.
The cause of mass shootings would seem to be not mental illness per se, but rather those cultural, social and political factors that incite disturbed people to commit these acts. To pinpoint the causes, we should identify those factors which exist in the United States but not Australia. Such research is beyond the scope of this article. What we can do here is eliminate some of the factors often cited that do not seem to be responsible for the differences.
The sentenced imprisonment rate in the United States in 2021 was 350 per 100,000 of adult population, compared to 133 in Australia. These numbers may simply reflect a higher crime rate in the United States, rather than a tougher line on crime. On the other hand, the numbers do not support the case that the United States is soft on crime.
Certainly, harsh punishments for breaking the law do seem to reduce crime elsewhere. In Singapore if you are caught firing a gun, even if you don’t injure anyone, or dealing drugs, it can get you the death penalty. Illegally owning a gun or ammo, which applies to almost everybody, can get you a long prison sentence. However, Singapore combines these harsh punishments with social safety nets such as community housing and police liaison programs, which tend to reduce the incidence of crime. Singapore adopts a carrot and stick approach. The result is a very low homicide rate of 0.1 per 100,000 nationals in 2021.
So far, we have not identified any obvious causes of the higher incidence of non-firearm violence in the United States compared to Australia, which might hint at what underlies US gun violence, apart from the presence of the guns themselves. Thus, we need to look further afield for possible culprits. These may include racial tensions, political polarization and bullying, exacerbated by misinformation, conspiracy theories and extremist views posted on the internet and social media. There they are reinforced by online communities acting as echo chambers for shared beliefs, often weird, and algorithmic news feeds which likewise promote confirmation bias by only feeding people slants they already hold.
If the above comparisons fail to reveal the differences, then we should next compare the anger generated by social activism and lack of social safety nets in the two countries.
Other social and cultural markers to compare include the incidence of broken homes, insufficient moral training of children in a busy world, individualism versus community spirit, disparity in education, availability of violent video games and movies, etc.
While doubtless there are differences between Australia and the United States among these factors, it would take a detailed study to dig them out.
For example, while Australia has had its racial prejudices against indigenous people and Asian immigrants, it does not have a legacy issue such as slavery, the overhang of which is still fueling racial tensions and unhelpful behavior in the United States. Also, the lack of a land border in Australia has ensured less uncontrolled immigration and a more gradual assimilation of immigrants.
Pending detailed comparisons, let us hazard an educated guess as to the probable causes of the high level of mass shootings in the United States. The main culprits appear to be political and racial polarization, fanned by misinformation, conspiracy theories and extremist views posted on the internet and social media, affecting disturbed persons, who happen to have access to firearms.