Home » Opinion » Editorials
January 19. 2013 11:23PM
During his Wednesday press conference announcing portions of his gun-control agenda, President Obama said we had to confront the "epidemic of gun violence in this country." That is a curious way of referring to a problem that has been in steady decline for years.
According to FBI data, the number of murders committed by firearms in this country is falling, not rising.
In 2011, the latest year for which full data are available, 8,583 people were killed by firearms. That is down from 10,225 in 2006. Murders committed with rifles, which includes "assault rifles" such as the Bushmaster AR-15, fell from 453 in 2007 to 323 in 2011.
Overall, the murder and violent crime rates in the United States have been declining for decades. Citing FBI data, New York University professor Patrick Egan wrote last July, "we are a less violent nation now than we've been in over forty years. In 2010, violent crime rates hit a low not seen since 1972; murder rates sunk to levels last experienced during the Kennedy Administration."
This is hardly suggestive of an epidemic that screams for immediate government correction. What about mass shootings, though?
As widely reported after the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., those are not on the rise. Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox wrote in The Boston Globe after the Aurora, Colo., shootings last summer, "the facts say clearly that there has been no increase in mass killings, and certainly no epidemic" over the last 30 years.
Surely, though, we have to do something to stem the dangerous rise in gun ownership. The problem there is that gun ownership has fallen dramatically in the United States since the 1950s. Then, about half of Americans said they owned guns. Today, it is about a third, as professor Egan has noted.
In the last few years, gun ownership has experienced an upward swing. That increase coincided with the drop in gun-related homicides mentioned at the beginning of this editorial.
The idea that the United States is experiencing a rising tide of gun violence is simply false. That does not mean that we should pursue no legislative actions to curb mass killings. But those actions should be guided by facts, not emotional impulses.
Gun violence: Surprise, it's not rising
According to FBI data, the number of murders committed by firearms in this country is falling, not rising.
In 2011, the latest year for which full data are available, 8,583 people were killed by firearms. That is down from 10,225 in 2006. Murders committed with rifles, which includes "assault rifles" such as the Bushmaster AR-15, fell from 453 in 2007 to 323 in 2011.
Overall, the murder and violent crime rates in the United States have been declining for decades. Citing FBI data, New York University professor Patrick Egan wrote last July, "we are a less violent nation now than we've been in over forty years. In 2010, violent crime rates hit a low not seen since 1972; murder rates sunk to levels last experienced during the Kennedy Administration."
This is hardly suggestive of an epidemic that screams for immediate government correction. What about mass shootings, though?
As widely reported after the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., those are not on the rise. Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox wrote in The Boston Globe after the Aurora, Colo., shootings last summer, "the facts say clearly that there has been no increase in mass killings, and certainly no epidemic" over the last 30 years.
Surely, though, we have to do something to stem the dangerous rise in gun ownership. The problem there is that gun ownership has fallen dramatically in the United States since the 1950s. Then, about half of Americans said they owned guns. Today, it is about a third, as professor Egan has noted.
In the last few years, gun ownership has experienced an upward swing. That increase coincided with the drop in gun-related homicides mentioned at the beginning of this editorial.
The idea that the United States is experiencing a rising tide of gun violence is simply false. That does not mean that we should pursue no legislative actions to curb mass killings. But those actions should be guided by facts, not emotional impulses.
- David Harsanyi: Get the IRS out of the speech business altogether - 9
- Another View -- Ryan Gallagher: The U.S. government spies on reporters all too frequently - 4
- John Stossel: Who has true grit anymore? - 0
- Another View: New Hampshire would take a risky bet on casinos - 6
- Ramesh Ponnuru: In flextime fight, liberals play to their stereotype - 0
- Jonah Goldberg: Benghazi's smoking guns - 1
- Another View: Nashua does need to conduct its own review of commuter rail - 1
- George Will: Forgetting the lessons of Watergate - 0
- Charles Arlinghaus: Screeching lies does not count as debate - 2
Charles Krauthammer: Redacted truth, subjunctive outrage
READER COMMENTS: 0- Man shot to death on Manchester street late Saturday - 2
- UNH hires firm to redesign one of its logos - 10
- Disengaged: Obama's lousy excuse - 11
- Underestimating NH: Gun control picks two wrong targets - 17
- Roaming jihadis: A terrorist visits Manchester - 3
- Ted Siefer's City Hall: School board on the defensive over Cupcake-gate - 1
- Garry Rayno's State House Dome: All eyes on House as casino vote nears - 2
- 43 killers on lifetime parole - but where? - 3
- Official says NH abortion sites need state scrutiny - 13
NY man stable after destroying classic Porsche 911 in Route 16 wreck
READER COMMENTS: 1
Sorry, no question available



