I did a little bit of digging around on the internet and haven't had much time to accumulate a lot of data. A few points of note:

Sub-conclusion 1: 15.8% of total homicides (1756 approximately) by firearm can be attributed to gang violence across the entire of the US. Maybe this percentage is not as high as some people on the pro-gun side of the debate would have liked but either way, that is quite a big proportion given the relative number of people in gangs compared to the entire population. According to your statistics compiled by the CDC, most gun related deaths fall between the ages of 16-29, more males kill than females, and by far the highest homicide rates fall within the Black and Hispanic demographics, although this could be attributed to a heap of socio-economic factors and gang-related violence (the two are likely strongly correlated anyway), as opposed to racial motivations.

Sub-conclusion 2: The United States has higher rates of deaths, including homicide, than many European neighbours, even when accounting for the number of guns proportionate to the population. Accidental deaths are minimal and comparable in most cases between the US and other countries. By far the biggest cause of death in the US and European countries is firearm death by suicide. It is worth noting that these deaths would likely not be averted in the absence of firearms. Firearms are likely to be a preferred method for suicide due to effectiveness. When looking beyond Europe and N. America, particularly at Latin America, many countries have disproportionately high numbers of firearm deaths and much higher rates of firearm related homicide despite reporting significantly lower numbers of gun ownership per capita. (I am also severely skeptical if a firearm ban would even be able to be enforced in the US, a country with close to a 1:1 gun to person ratio, and a third of all households owning at least one firearm.)

It is plausible that the disparities between the US and European nations lies in socio-economic factors and/or regulatory practices of the US.

Sub-conclusion 3: Violent crime data could not be sourced easily for other nations owing to cross-comparison difficulties. This point remains inconclusive.

Sub-conclusion 4: Federal Tax revenues and license fees do not cover the costs quoted by the New York Times article. When accounting for administrative fees within the government, even less tax-payer money would make it to the hospitals. It is worth noting that the negative social costs associated with the gun industry are easily pinpointed, whereas positive social benefits are much harder to pin down. There may be scope for federal tax hikes on guns depending on how price elastic the consumer demand within the industry is, in fact taxation may be a more effective tool than a blanket ban of firearms.

Having reviewed the data, I'm now sort of teetering between both sides on the issue. I still need to do a little more research in some areas to make up my mind.

And the data below:

On Rade's point regarding gang-related firearm homicides:

Quote

The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2006 to 2010. During the same time period, the FBI estimated, on average, more than 16,000 homicides across the United States (www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 12 percent of all homicides annually.

[www.nationalgangcenter.gov]

Gang-related homicides show an increased use of firearms as opposed to non-gang. Firearms were prevalent in over 90% of the gang-related incidents in the cities for which detailed analysis was carried out. Non-gang was around the 60% region. (See: Table 2, in link.)

[www.cdc.gov]

So taking an estimate, supposing that around 12% of all homicides in the US are gang-related, and (to be conservative) 90% of those gang-related homicides are carried out using a firearm, we have approximately 10.8% of all homicides committed in 2008 are gang-related and committed by firearm.

There were 774000 estimated total gang-members in the US in 2008 according to statistics in the first link. (10.8% of the total homicides in 2008 [according to your previous link] is 1756 homicides, meaning the homicide rate per 100,000 people is 226.9 homicides amongst gang-affiliated individuals compared with 3.6 per 100,000 individuals amongst the regular population.)

On NbM/Batman's points regarding various:

Firearm related deaths by country
Taken from: [en.wikipedia.org]
And:
[en.wikipedia.org]

- In 2011, the US displayed 10.2 total firearm deaths per 100,000 individuals. Of this rate of 10.2 per 100,000, 3.6 was homicide, 6.3 was suicide and 0.2 was unintentional. The remaining 0.1 was undefined. The US has the highest gun ownership per capita in the world at 88 firearms owned per 100 individuals.
- Next is Yemen; there is no data on homicides in this region.
- Switzerland is third at 45.7 guns per 100 individuals and shows a 3.84 total firearm deaths per 100,000 individuals, of which 0.52 are homicide, 3.15 are suicide and 0.1 are accidental deaths.
- Finland is fourth and demonstrates similar figures to Switzerland, 45.3 guns per 100 individuals. 3.64 deaths per 100,000 individuals, 0.26 are homicide, 3.34 are suicide and 0.2 accidental deaths.
- Serbia is fifth showing comparable, but slightly elevated figures to Switzerland despite lower gun ownership.
- Some countries like El Salvador which has only 5.8 guns per 100 individuals shows massive homicide rates at 50.36 gun related deaths per 100,000, all reported as homicide.

My input: The economic toll of firearm related violence

Tax rate on firearms sales 10% on pistols and revolvers, 11% on ammunition and other firearms [www.ttb.gov] (I thought it would be higher.)

Other gun related statistics: [www.statisticbrain.com]



Edited 12 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2013 08:16PM by istirith.