Noor F. Amin

POLI 301- Research Methods in Political Science

Does Firearm Control Mean Less Gun Related Crime?: An Analysis of The Relationship Between Gun Availability and Crime

Introduction

The objective of this paper is to analyze the impact of the availability of guns in society

and how it affects our everyday lives. The United States prides itself over its commitment to

individual liberty. Among the many rights given to U.S. citizens is also the right to bear arms,

which is imprinted as the second amendment of the constitution. This right allows citizens to

legally purchase firearms to defend themselves in the face of a life or death situation. However,

this law has also been a subject of much debate and controversy, especially after the mass

shooting in Aurora, Colorado, in 2012 and in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2013 at an elementary

school. The advocates of gun control claim that the availability of guns in the market lead to

more violence and gun-related crime. On the other hand, the opponents of gun control claim that

more availability of firearms in the market lead to less crimes because it deters potential

criminals from committing evil acts. Along with claiming that more guns lead to less crime, the

opponents of firearm control in the United States also state that purchasing guns to defend

oneself is a fundamental right and putting restrictions on this right would result in violating the

Constitution of the United States. In this paper, I will address the following research question:

What are the effects of gun control on a nation’s crime rate and the everyday lives of citizens?

It is important to understand the consequences, or benefits if there are any, of the

availability of guns in society. Researching this topic is important because it concerns with the

1

health and safety of citizens. Allowing guns to be easily purchased without studying the

consequences is detrimental to not just the lives of citizens but also to the image of the state in

the international community. If the research shows that the availability of guns lead to more

crime, then the elected representatives should think about altering this law so that the safety of

citizens is ensured. As we evolve over time, so do our laws and the way we interact in society.

Literature Review

Search Process:

To find the literature that is relevant to my research question, I used the “AOK Article

OneSearch” option available on UMBC’s library website. Furthermore, I searched the following

academic databases on EBSCOhost: Science Direct, SocIndex with Full Text, and Business

Source Premier. I chose only scholarly articles for my research. I made sure that results of my

searches were peer reviewed.

The terms that I used to search for material that is relevant to my topic were Gun control

effects, National crime, Crime rate, Availability of guns, and Consequences of firearms. I found

more than 250 results, but I chose seven papers that were most relevant. This topic has been

extensively researched, primarily because it is a sensitive issue and concerns with the lives of

millions of people.

Summary of Existing Literature:

In 1996, the government of Australia enacted the National Firearms Agreement (NFA),

which enforced gun control by putting in place strict regulations and authorizing the buyback of

2

nearly 650,000 guns. Benjamin Taylor and Jing Li studied the effects of the NFA on attempted

murder, armed robbery, and sexual assault. They collected criminal records from the Australian

Bureau of Statistics’ recorded crime reports, which consisted of data from 1993 to 2010. The

dependent variable used in their study was crime rates, which was illustrated “as the number of

crimes per 10,000 people.” Also, to better explain the effects of the NFA on Australia’s crime

rate, Taylor and Li used the difference-in-difference method. In the results, it was shown that a

few years after the NFA was put into effect, rates of attempted murder and armed robbery

significantly decreased, especially after 1998. However, it had no impact on sexual assault

because the vast majority of sexual offenses that took place involved no guns. On the other hand,

since armed robbery and attempted murder are offenses that almost always involve firearms,

there was a significant drop. Relative to sexual offenses, armed robbery was reduced by 30% and

attempted murder by 70% (Taylor and Li 2015).

When it comes to gun related crime, the United States ranks as one of the leading

countries. To understand the effect of the availability of guns in the U.S., Mark Gius examined

the relationship between firearm ownership rates and homicide rates. All the data collected was

state-level. Data on murder is expressed as “homicides per 100 000 residents.” Data regarding

gun ownership was collected using a large cross-sectional survey data set and data regarding

homicide rates was collected from the Statistical Abstract of the United States and Uniform

Crime Reports. The results indicated that there was a positive relationship between gun

ownership rates and homicide rates. The author found that around 66% of the homicides reported

were committed using a firearm. Since the results of Gius’ research indicated that there is a high

rate of gun perpetrated homicides in regions with a high rate of firearm ownership, he concluded

3

by saying that placing restrictions on the availability of guns would be an effective strategy in

reducing the amount of murders that take place with firearms (Gius 2009).

Jean Lemaire states in his study that the United States is far behind other industrialized

nations when it comes to life expectancy. Using a collection of U.S. and international studies, the

author analyzes the effects of the availability of firearms on the everyday lives of Americans.

Despite having the same resources as other highly developed countries, the United States’ life

expectancy is relatively low. According to Lemaire, a major reason for this is the availability of

guns in the U.S. market, which causes the majority of fatalities. To illustrate the impact of guns

in American society, Lemaire “compares the crude firearm homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants

in countries that have a population in excess of 3.8 million and a GDP per capita, adjusted for

purchasing power, in excess of $20,000.” The results showed that the U.S. is far ahead all other

nations when it comes to deaths caused by firearms, which include both murder and suicide. Due

to poverty and the environment they are raised in, African Americans are more likely than any

other group to be victims of murders caused by firearms. There is a 6.6 years gap between white

males and black males due to gun related homicides. It is estimated that by placing a ban on guns

and eradicating deaths caused by firearms, the United States’ life expectancy would increase

significantly. Its effect on life expectancy would be way more than finding a treatment or cure

for prostrate cancer (Lemaire 2005).

Wolfgang Stroebe reviews several researches conducted on the effect of the possession of

guns on murder and suicide. In the United States alone, there are “88.8 guns per 100 residents,”

making it the leading nation in firearm possession. When reviewing the empirical research on

firearms and its effects, Stroebe favored individual-level studies over macro-level studies,

because they more effectively illustrate the economic and cultural consequences of murder and

4

suicide. The data showed that in households with a gun, 86% of victims of suicide chose a gun as

their weapon of choice, whereas in households that had no firearms, gun was the weapon of

choice for only 6% of suicide victims This, as Stroebe describes, shows a strong positive

correlation between possession of guns and violent deaths. Although people do not commit

suicide and murder solely because of the availability of guns in the market, it would be safe to

say that due to firearms being an effective and easy way of taking a life, the rate of murder and

suicide in a state rises as its inhabitants obtains more guns (Stroebe 2013).

In another study, Michael C. Monuteaux, Lois K. Lee, David Hemenway, Rebekah

Mannix, and Eric W. Fleegler conducted research to assess the relationship between gun

ownership and crimes that involved firearms. They collected crime data from the FBI’s Uniform

Crime Reports for 2001, 2002, and 2004. Rates of gun ownership data were gathered at the state-

level from a national survey. The researchers then used regression analysis to estimate the rates

of criminal behavior in states while using household gun ownership as the independent variable

and controlling other demographic factors. The results illustrated that there was a strong positive

relationship between gun ownership and the following crimes: armed robbery, assaults involving

guns, and gun homicides. States with a high population of inhabitants with firearms were at

greater risk of having gun related violence (Monuteaux et al., 2015).

Irshad Altheimer tries to show in his research paper that the availability of guns in society

increases the chances of “gun crime victimization.” To conduct his study, Altheimer collected

data from the International Crime Victimization Survey for 1996 and 2000. The data used in this

study was only city-level from developing countries. This is because the data from the

International Crime Victimization Survey cannot be used to compare crime rates between

industrialized and less industrialized countries. Another reason why the researcher chose to only

5

focus on developing countries is because prior to this, no research was conducted on gun crime

victimization in cities of less industrialized countries. The dependent variables used in this study

were the following: gun robbery, robbery, gun assault, and assault. The independent variable was

the availability of firearms. The results showed that the availability of guns in cities drastically

increased the odds of an individual being a victim of gun robbery and gun assault in developing

countries. With all the evidence and statistics collected, the researcher shows that cities that have

a high population of gun owners are more likely to have assaults or robberies that end in a deadly

manner than cities that do not have a high population of gun owners (Altheimer 2008).

In a separate study, Irshad Altheimer, along with Matthew Boswell, reassesses the

relationship between violence and gun availability. In addition to that, Altheimer and Boswell

also study the impact of the socio-historical and cultural processes on the relationship between

firearm availability and crime in a state. To do this, the researchers chose three groups of

countries that have different cultural and social history and compare their relationships between

gun availability and crime. The following groups of countries were chosen: Latin American

countries, Western countries, and Eastern European Countries. National-level data was collected

on homicide rates and countries’ cultural and social characteristics. The dependent variable in

this study was gun homicide, which was measured as homicides per 100,000 inhabitants, and the

independent variable was gun availability. The results showed that homicide is influenced by not

just gun availability but also by urbanization, economic inequality, and proportion young males.

In Eastern European countries, there is a negative relationship between gun availability and

murder rate. Homicide rates decrease as the rates of gun availability increase in Eastern

European nations. Over there, citizens use firearms as a deterrent against hostility and potential

aggression due to the “weakened collective security.” In Western nations, the availability of guns

6

has a positive effect on violent activities that do not involve homicide. The results indicate that

Westerners choose guns as their weapons of choice for the sole purpose of using them against

aggression, not for causing others harm with evil intent. So, although the availability of guns

increases overall violence in Western countries, the rate of homicide decreases. At last, in Latin

American countries, there seems to be a positive relationship between gun availability and all

types of violence, including homicide. This clearly shows that a nation’s crime rate is influenced

by not just the availability of guns but also by cultural and socio-historical aspects (Altheimer

and Boswell, 2011).

Contribution to the Existing Literature

There has been extensive research done on gun control and the effects it has on society.

Six out of seven papers that I chose for this study indicate that crime rate, including homicide,

increases when there are firearms available in the market or when there is a high population of

gun owners in a state. This shows that enforcing gun control would lead to less crime and

violence. Australia is a perfect example in this case. However, there are other studies, like the

last one in my Literature Review section, that indicate that a state’s gun perpetrated assault and

homicide rate does not entirely depend on the availability of guns but rather on its cultural and

social history. The objective of my study is to research whether it is really the availability of

guns that lead to more crime or is it any other factor, such as culture or social background.

Theory

7

In this study, I will show how the availability of guns in a society affects its crime rate

and whether or not guns are the lead cause of homicide. Although simply the availability of

firearms does not cause homicide, it does influence it and plays a significant role in the process. I

propose that the most desired mechanism for murder is firearm, especially because it is

convenient and serves to be an effective method when it comes to putting an to end life.

Although it could be true that someone who wants to take a life will do so even when not in

possession of a gun, it is still very likely that having a firearm in sight will motivate that person

in going forward with his intentions. My research is guided by the following theory: there is a

high rate of gun-perpetrated homicide in a state where firearms are easily obtainable. In other

words, states that allow its inhabitants to easily obtain firearms are more likely to have homicides

caused by guns than states that have strict firearm regulations. This theory is also used as the

main argument by advocates of gun control, who argue that loose firearm regulations lead to

more gun related crime. According to this theory, individuals who want to commit murder will

be more inclined to do so when they have a gun available. I will use a sample of 16 countries to

my theory and hypothesis. The countries selected have different backgrounds (i.e. different

levels of gun ownership rate, income inequality, etc).

Assumptions

The theory stated above is based on three assumptions: (1) Firearms, such as handguns,

are easy to use and are effective in taking a life. This means that due to the lethal nature of

handguns and the convenience that comes along with using it, individuals are more likely to

commit murder when they have a firearm available. It is quite possible that the same individuals

who plan on taking someone’s life may not do so using other means, such as knives or bats, if

guns are not available. (2) More firearms lead to accidental shootings, which can be fatal. Under

8

this assumption, individuals who are in possession of a gun may draw their weapon during a

slight confrontation and accidentally pull the trigger without the intent of doing so. This leads to

believe that having a firearm at home or carrying a concealed firearm in public increases the

odds of an individual using it. (3) Due to lenient gun laws, there is a high chance of guns falling

into the wrong hands, such as individuals part of street gangs or members of organized crime

syndicates. Such groups are infamous for causing thousands of deaths and allowing them to live

in a society where guns are prevalent will only lead to more homicides. Although it is possible

for these kinds of people to still obtain guns via other means, such as smuggling or from the

black market, strict firearm regulations decrease the overall availability of guns in the market and

puts in place longer sentences for those who are caught in possession of firearms. Such penalties

may act as a deterrent and possibly prevent hostile individuals from obtaining guns even via

illegal means.

Variables and Hypotheses

The key independent variable in my study is the rate of gun ownership. This represents

the concept of availability of guns in a state. The dependent variable in my study will be the rate

of gun-perpetrated homicide. This represents the concept of gun crime. In addition to this, two

other variables will be used in my research to fully understand how the presence of guns affects

society.

In addition to the availability of firearms, there is one more thing that might cause a high

rate of gun-perpetrated homicide. And that is the legitimacy of the government. It may be

possible that when a state’s government lacks legitimacy and fails to provide the people with

enough physical security, people feel less secure and choose not to go to the authorities for help.

9

In this case, they take the matters into their own hands, which leads to more gun related crime.

This usually happens in weak or failed states, where the rule of law is weak. To test this

possibility, my additional independent variable will be weakness of the state. This represents the

concept of legitimacy of the government. The weaker the state is, the higher number of gun

perpetrated homicides it has. This independent variable will serve as an additional explanatory

factor.

It could also be possible that the number of guns in a state has nothing to do with the rate

of gun-perpetrated homicide. It may be some other social factor, such as income inequality. It is

possible that states with high income inequality have a higher rate of gun-perpetrated homicide

than states with low income inequality. This is based on the rationale that when a state has a

large economic or social gap, the number of people living in poverty is very high, which leads to

less people being educated. This, as a result, causes individuals to engage in criminal activities,

which may lead to a higher rate of gun-perpetrated homicide. To test this, I will be using an

alternative independent variable. This will be the rate of income inequality in a state, which

represents the concept of social gap between the rich and the poor.

Hypotheses

The following three hypotheses will be tested in this study:

H1: High gun ownership rate in a state leads to a high rate of gun-perpetrated homicide.

H2: The weaker the state is, the higher rate of gun-perpetrated homicide it has.

H3: A state with high rate of income inequality has more gun-perpetrated

…...homicides than a state with low rate of income inequality.

10

If my third hypothesis turns out to be true, we will get to see a different perspective on

the availability of firearms in a state. This, if true, will show that the number of guns in a country

does not necessarily lead to a high rate of gun-perpetrated homicide; rather, it is because of the

social and economic gaps between the rich and the poor.

Data and Methods

Key independent variable: To represent the availability of guns in a state, I will use the

rate of civilian gun ownership in a country. Data will be collected from the Small Arms Survey

website, which has estimates on civilian gun ownership for forty nations, represented in guns per

100 residents.1 Along with that, states are ranked in descending order based on the number of

civilian firearms they have. For our study, we will select sixteen countries and compare the

number of firearms they have per 100 residents to see what effect it has on the rate of gun-

perpetrated homicide.

Dependent variable: To represent the rate of gun-perpetrated homicide, data is collected

from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). The UNODC collects data every

year on homicide rates. Two datasets will be used to gather data for homicides caused by guns.

The first dataset is for years 2005-2011 and provides information on the percentage of homicides

by mechanism.2 Meaning, it also illustrates the number of times a specific kind of weapon was

used. The second dataset is for years 2006-2010 and is represented as “homicide by firearm rate

per 100,000 population.”3 This is a valid indicator of gun-perpetrated homicides because

UNODC is well known for regularly providing statistics and reports on homicide rate, drug 1 http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/H-Research_Notes/SAS-Research-Note-9.pdf2 https://stats.unodc.org/webcontent/dcm.uploads/downloads/GHS2013_Mechanism.xlsx3 http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Homicides_by_firearms.xls

11

trafficking, and other international crimes. The whole purpose of such data is to influence

policymaking.

Additional independent variable: To represent the weakness of states and to what

extent they lack legitimacy, data will be collected from the Fund for Peace’s Failed States Index

2011. Every year, the Fund for Peace publishes the Failed States Index to illustrate the overall

conditions of the state and to what extent they lack legitimacy in the eyes of the populace. A

scale from zero to ten is used to rank states in different spheres, such as poverty, uneven

economic development, etc. For our second hypothesis, we will only look at Legitimacy of the

State. According to the index, a rank of ten represents a state as totally illegitimate in the eyes of

the populace and a rank of zero represents the state as absolutely legitimate in the eyes of the

people. The Failed States Index is a valid indicator for the weakness of states because the Fund

for Peace gathers its information from thousands of reports and articles before ranking states. 4

Alternate independent variable: To represent the rate of income inequality in a state,

data will be collected from the World Bank’s Gini index. The Gini index measures a state’s

income equality by looking at its income distribution. Countries are given a value from zero to

one-hundred, where zero represents absolute equality and one-hundred represents absolute

inequality. Sixteen countries will be selected from this dataset and their rates of income

inequality will be compared to see the effects it has on gun-perpetrated homicide. 5 This is a valid

indicator of income inequality, because the World Bank is a reliable source and it carefully

measures how income is distributed among people in a particular state.

Measures

4 http://fsi.fundforpeace.org/rankings-2011-sortable5 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI

12

In order to test my hypotheses and see whether my theory is correct or not, I used a total

number of 16 countries in my study.6 To see the effects of firearms in society and how it

influences crime, especially homicide, data was collected from different sources. In addition to

availability of firearms, I also looked at other indicators to explain why rates of gun-perpetrated

homicide differ between countries

Gun ownership rates for all nations were collected from the Small Arms Survey website,

which gathered its information in the year 2007.7 This was used for my key independent variable.

The rate of gun ownership in my study is represented as guns per 100 residents. The median for

this indicator is 14.05, and the standard deviation is 21.03.

The dependent variable in study is the rate of gun-perpetrated homicide. The data for this

variable was collected for the years 2009-2010 from the United Nations Office on Drugs and

Crime. It is represented as “homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population.”8 The median for

this indicator is 2.9, and standard deviation is 19.01.

My additional independent variable is the weakness of states. Data on this was collected

from the Failed States Index 2011, which ranked each state on a scale from 0 to 10 in different

spheres, such as poverty level, uneven economic development, legitimacy, etc. To measure the

weakness of states for my sample, I only looked at how legitimate each state was considered by

the populace. 0 indicates that the people consider the state as totally legitimate and 10 indicates

that the people consider the state as absolutely illegitimate. Meaning, the higher a state is ranked

6 Australia, Peru, Canada, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, United Kingdom, United States of America. 7 http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf8 http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Homicides_by_firearms.xls

13

on the Failed States Index, the weaker it is.9 The median for this indicator is 6.15, and the range

is from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 8.6.

For my third hypothesis, my alternative independent variable is the rate of income

inequality, which is measured using a Gini index from the CIA’s The World Factbook for the

years 2009-2010.10 States are given a value from zero to one hundred, where zero represents

perfect equality and one hundred represents perfect inequality. As mentioned above, 16 countries

were used in this study. The median for this indicator is 45.4, and the standard deviation is

10.19.

Results

Hypothesis 1 testing strategy and results:

My first hypothesis was the following: High gun ownership rate (key independent

variable) in a state leads to a high rate of gun-perpetrated homicide (dependent variable) when

compared to states that have a low gun ownership rate. To test this hypothesis, I used the

correlation coefficient method because both of my variables, key independent variable and

dependent variable, are interval ratio. I measured the relationship between “guns per 100

residents” and “homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population.”

My result was not what I expected. The correlation coefficient formula revealed a value

of -0.328. This shows that there is slightly a moderate negative correlation between gun

ownership rate and rate of gun-perpetrated homicide. This result makes my first hypothesis

untrue. Upon seeing this result, it would be safe to conclude that the number of guns in a country

does not necessarily lead to a high rate of homicides caused by firearms. In fact, most of the

9 http://fsi.fundforpeace.org/rankings-2011-sortable10 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html

14

countries in my sample that have a high gun ownership rate have a lower rate of homicides

caused by firearms than countries that have a lower gun ownership rate. For example, Canada, a

state that has 30.8 guns per 100 residents, had a rate of 0.5 homicides by firearm per 100,000

population; on the other hand, Colombia, a state that has 5.9 guns per 100 residents, had a rate of

27.1 homicides by firearm per 100,000 population. This means that there could be other factors

involved other than simply the availability of guns that lead to a high rate of gun-perpetrated

homicide.

Hypothesis 2 testing strategy and results:

My second hypothesis was the following: The weaker the state is (additional

independent variable), the higher the rate of gun-perpetrated homicide (dependent variable) it

has. To test this hypothesis, I used the correlation coefficient method because my independent

variable is interval ratio and my dependent variable is ordinal. I specifically used this technique

because it more accurately illustrates the relationship between the weakness of states and rates of

gun-perpetrated homicide.

The correlation coefficient formula revealed a value of +0.470. This shows that there is a

moderate positive correlation between the weakness of states and rates of gun-perpetrated

homicide. It would be safe to say that my second hypothesis is true because there is some

evidence to support it. For the most part, the more illegitimate a state is or, in other words, the

higher it is ranked on the Failed States Index for legitimacy, the higher the rate of gun-

perpetrated homicide it has. Although this is not true for all countries, it is true for enough to

conclude that there is somewhat of a positive correlation between my additional independent

variable and dependent variable.

15

Also, it is important to note that Egypt, a state that is ranked highest for legitimacy (8.6)

in my sample, does not have the highest rate of gun-perpetrated homicide when compared to

other countries. In fact, it is Honduras, a state that is ranked 7.3 on the Failed States Index for

legitimacy, that has the highest rate of gun-perpetrated homicide per 100,000 population. This

shows us that the weakness of states only in terms of legitimacy is not the best indicator of gun-

perpetrated homicide. Although the result of this relationship does prove my hypothesis true, it is

important to look at other factors that might also lead to a high rate of homicides caused by

firearms.

Hypothesis 3 testing strategy and results:

My third hypothesis was the following: A state with a high rate of income inequality

(alternative independent variable) has more gun-perpetrated homicides (dependent variable)

than a state with low rate of income inequality. To this hypothesis, I used the correlation

coefficient method because my independent variable is interval ratio and my dependent variable

is interval ratio as well. For this third hypothesis, I measured the relationship between states’ gun

ownership rates, which is represented by guns per 100 residents, and levels of income inequality,

which is represented by the values given by the CIA’s Gini index.

The correlation coefficient formula revealed a value of +0.723. This indicates that there is

a strong positive correlation between income inequality and gun-perpetrated homicide. The

findings make my third hypothesis true. The majority of countries in my sample with high

income inequality have a higher rate of gun-perpetrated homicide than countries with low rate of

16

income inequality. As income inequality in a state rises, so does its rate of gun-perpetrated

homicide.

The findings also indicate that a country’s rate of income inequality has a greater effect

on its homicide rate than its weakness in terms of legitimacy or the amount of guns its citizens

possess. Income inequality increases the gap between the rich and the poor, which leads to more

people being uneducated and living in poverty. This, as a result, leads to more criminal activities,

which also include homicides caused by firearms. For example, the United States of America, a

country that has 88.8 guns per 100 residents and an income inequality rate of 45, has 3.2

homicides per 100,000 population that are caused by firearms; whereas Guatemala, a country

that has 13.1 guns per 100 residents and an income equality rate of 55.1, has 34.8 homicides per

100,000 population that are caused by firearms. Again, this shows that the number of guns in a

country is not positively related to the number of homicides caused by firearms.

However, despite the fact that the findings validate my hypothesis and show a strong

relationship between levels of income inequality and gun-perpetrated homicides, we cannot

claim based on the correlation coefficient alone that income inequality is the only thing that

impacts homicides caused by firearms. The purpose of this hypothesis was to only test whether

or not countries with high income inequality have more gun-perpetrated homicides than

countries with low income inequality. As mentioned above, there can always be other factors at

play that influence criminal activities, including homicides caused by firearms.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study was designed to research the effects that the availability of firearms have on

gun-perpetrated homicides. It was revealed that there are factors other than the availability of

17

guns that lead to homicides caused by firearms. The availability of firearms in countries was

measured by their gun ownership rate. In addition to this, other variables, such as states’ levels of

income inequality and weakness in terms of legitimacy, were also measured to see what effect

they have on homicides caused by firearms. All three of my hypotheses were tested using the

correlation coefficient method because it was the best way to show covariation and illustrate the

relationship between my variables.

My main hypothesis did not turn out to be true. No positive correlation was found

between rates of gun ownership and rates of gun-perpetrated homicide. In fact, a slight moderate

negative correlation was found between these two variables. This was contrary to what was

expected. This indicated that the number of guns in a country does not really influence its

homicide rate. The United States of America has the highest rate of firearm ownership in the

world but not the highest rate of homicides caused by firearms. There are many countries with a

way lower rate of firearm ownership that have a higher rate of gun-perpetrated homicide than the

United States of America.

The Findings also showed there that is a moderate positive relationship between the

weakness of states in terms of legitimacy and gun-perpetrated homicides. There was some

evidence to show that the weaker the state is, the higher the rate of gun-perpetrated homicide it

has. In other words, the higher it is ranked on the Failed States Index for legitimacy, the higher

rate of homicides caused firearms it has. This was not true for all countries, but the result was

enough to conclude that the legitimacy, or weakness, of countries does play a role in their rates

of gun-perpetrated homicide.

The strongest relationship was found between income inequality and gun-perpetrated

homicides. The results indicated there was a strong positive correlation between states’ levels of

18

income inequality and their rates of homicides caused by firearms. States with high a level of

income inequality tend to have a higher rate of gun-perpetrated homicides than states with lower

of income inequality. This was true for most of the countries in my sample.

For this study, I chose a sample of 16 countries. The sample does represent the

underlying population because states from all backgrounds were chosen for this study. All states

had very different rates of gun ownership and levels of income inequality. Not only that, but their

level of weakness, meaning rankings on the Failed States Index, was also quite different from

one another. In other words, nations from different social settings were selected.

However, this study is not without its limitations. Although states from all different

backgrounds were chosen, they were not enough. Also, cultural factors were not taken into

account to explain the effect they might have on homicides caused by firearms. It might be

possible that the negative relationship between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of gun-

perpetrated homicide was due to cultural factors. Maybe, if more states were selected for my

sample, we would have able to see a stronger relationship between the weakness of states and

homicides caused by firearms. Future studies should take all of this into account before studying

the effects of the availability of guns on homicide.

Works Cited

19

Altheimer, Irshad. "Do Guns Matter? A Multi-Level Cross-National Examination Of Gun

Availability On Assault And Robbery Victimization." Western Criminology Review 9.2

(2008): 9. Supplemental Index. Web. 12 Apr. 2015.

Altheimer, Irshad, and Matthew Boswell. "Reassessing The Association Between Gun

Availability And Homicide At The Cross-National Level." American Journal Of

Criminal Justice 37.4 (2012): 682. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 13

Apr. 2015.

Gius, Mark. "The Effect Of Gun Ownership Rates On Homicide Rates: A State-Level Analysis."

Applied Economics Letters 16.17 (2009): 1687-1690. Business Source Premier. Web. 13

Apr. 2015.

Lemaire, Jean. "The Cost of Firearm Deaths in the United States: Reduced Life Expectancies and

Increased Insurance Costs." The Journal of Risk and Insurance 2005: 359. JSTOR

Journals. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.

Monuteaux, Michael C., et al. "Research Article: Firearm Ownership And Violent Crime In The

U.S.. An Ecologic Study." American Journal Of Preventive Medicine (2015):

ScienceDirect. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.

Stroebe, Wolfgang. "Firearm Possession And Violent Death: A Critical Review." Aggression

And Violent Behavior 18.(2013): 709-721. ScienceDirect. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.

20

Taylor, Benjamin, and Jing Li. "Do Fewer Guns Lead To Less Crime? Evidence From

Australia." International Review Of Law & Economics 42.(2015): 72-78. ScienceDirect.

Web. 13 Apr. 2015.

21