5 Comments

John, love your work. I have a few questions that are likely wording issues. (1) When you say "non-homicide rate" do you mean "non-firearm homicide rate"? (2) When you say "nonfatal homicides" do you mean something like "nonfatal shootings" or (more likely) "non-firearm homicides"? And when you say "proportion of firearm homicides" do you mean "proportion of homicides involving a firearm"? Again, love that you are doing this work and just want to check to make sure I understand what you are saying. -Don

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for the notes--your interpretations of my intent were right on, and I have edited accordingly. The upside and downside of Substack are the same--no editor!

Expand full comment

I love this guys work. Careful and thoughtful.

Expand full comment

Very methodical and worth the effort to get to the bottom line payoff in re reducing homicide.

Expand full comment

Great piece. Connects directly with a jaw-dropping stat I encountered recently:

"Research by the criminologist Martin Wolfgang on Philadelphia’s homicide patterns from 1948 to 1952 reveals that only 33 per cent of the city’s homicides involved a firearm. Today, 91 per cent of homicides in Philadelphia feature a gun."

https://aeon.co/essays/america-fell-for-guns-recently-and-for-reasons-you-will-not-guess?s=09

One underappreciated counter-trend (at least in Philly) is the rapid rise in multiple-victim shootings. Multiple victim shootings have roughly quintupled in Philadelphia recent years, presumably due to the proliferation of switches and extended magazines. It's now common to find double-digit cartridge casings at the scene of a shooting.

Expand full comment