Gun Statistics

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: More or Less – "Gun Statistics"

Host: Tim Harford (BBC Radio 4)
Episode Date: December 24, 2012

---

Overview

In this episode of More or Less, Tim Harford examines widely circulated statistics about gun violence in the United States and other countries, provoked by renewed debate following the Sandy Hook school shooting. The episode scrutinizes the accuracy of these numbers, their sources, and how statistics around gun deaths are utilized – or misused – in public debate and social media. The discussion highlights the importance of correctly understanding and interpreting statistical claims.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Viral Gun Death Statistic (00:21–03:24)

• Triggering Event: The Sandy Hook massacre in Connecticut (20 children, 6 women killed) rekindles the debate on gun ownership and control in the US.

  • “The massacre of 20 children and six women at a school in the United States has reopened the debate on gun ownership in the US.” – Tim Harford [00:24]

• The Circulated Statistic: A message posted widely online compares annual handgun deaths:

  • “Last year, handguns killed 48 in Japan, 8 in Great Britain, 34 in Switzerland, 52 in Canada, 21 in Sweden, 10,728 in the United States. Gun control.” – Tim Harford reads the meme [00:42]
  • Harford notes, “It does look plausible... but we thought we'd check out the numbers, all the same.” [00:48]

• Fact-Checking the Numbers:

  • Ruth Alexander investigates, using UN and FBI data. The FBI reports 12,664 firearms homicides in the US the previous year—almost 2,000 more deaths than the tweet.
    • “Those numbers show that there were 12,664 firearms homicides last year. But that doesn't match the statistic everyone's been posting.” – Ruth Alexander [01:39]
  • Delving deeper, Alexander finds US handgun homicides at just over 6,200, not almost 11,000 as claimed. Canada's figure is 94, not 52; England and Wales saw 30 such deaths, not 8—but those are older figures.
    • “Handguns were used to kill just over 6,200 people in the US last year, not almost 11,000. In Canada, it was 94, not 52. And the latest figures for England and Wales show 30 people died from handgun wounds, not eight.” – Ruth Alexander [02:08]

• Data Limitations:

  • Accurate, up-to-date, and comparable data is difficult to obtain; some stats are outdated or unavailable.
  • “The data for other countries is either not available or is also out of date.” – Ruth Alexander [02:27]

2. The Origin of the Statistic (02:32–03:24)

• Investigating the Source:

  • Joseph O’Leary (Full Fact) traces the viral numbers to a 1980s anti-handgun poster using 1979 FBI stats.
    • “We think we've tracked it down to a poster from the early 80s, ‘Stop Handguns Before They Stop You’. It was titled and it has exactly the same figures as was being tweeted about in the last few days.” – Joseph O’Leary [02:46]
    • “There's a very, very small print on the poster that says based on 1979 statistics... These are essentially 33 year old figures.” – Joseph O'Leary [03:00]

• Spread of Misinformation:

  • Notable people, such as British TV presenter Ben Fogle, retweeted the meme, with over 3,600 retweets. His correction tweet drew just three retweets.
  • “The next day he... discovered the handgun fact wasn't from last year, but the sentiments remain the same. This second tweet was retweeted by three people.” – Tim Harford [03:24]

3. The 30,000 US Gun Deaths Statistic (03:24–04:22)

• Misinterpretation of Numbers:

  • Arianna Huffington tweeted: “About 30,000 Americans alive right now won't make it to 2014 because of gun violence.” – quoting Ruth Alexander [03:57]
  • Harford questions this, as most assume gun deaths means homicide.
    • “In other words, guns kill 30,000 people a year in the US, which they don't.” – Tim Harford [04:06]

• Breaking It Down:

  • The 30,000 figure includes:
    • 12,500 firearms homicides
    • Almost 19,000 suicides by gun
  • Alexander points out this matches Huffington’s number, but not the public understanding of ‘gun violence.’
    • “Almost 19,000 people a year kill themselves with guns. Add that to 12,500 firearms homicides and you get to Arianna Huffington's number.” – Ruth Alexander [04:11]
    • “Although probably not what most people think of when they hear the phrase gun violence.” – Tim Harford [04:22]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Those numbers show that there were 12,664 firearms homicides last year. But that doesn't match the statistic everyone's been posting.” – Ruth Alexander [01:39]
• “Handguns were used to kill just over 6,200 people in the US last year, not almost 11,000. In Canada, it was 94, not 52.” – Ruth Alexander [02:08]
• “We think we've tracked it down to a poster from the early 80s... based on 1979 statistics.” – Joseph O’Leary [02:46, 03:00]
• “Almost 19,000 people a year kill themselves with guns. Add that to 12,500 firearms homicides and you get to Arianna Huffington's number.” – Ruth Alexander [04:11]
• “Although probably not what most people think of when they hear the phrase gun violence.” – Tim Harford [04:22]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:21] – Introduction of US school shooting and start of the statistical investigation
• [01:28] – Ruth Alexander begins breaking down the available data
• [02:32] – Analysis of the viral stat’s origins, with Joseph O'Leary (Full Fact)
• [03:24] – Social media amplification and correction by Ben Fogle
• [03:57] – Arianna Huffington’s 30,000 gun deaths statistic assessed
• [04:11] – Real breakdown of US gun death statistics

---

Tone & Language

• Objective, inquisitive, and gently irreverent. Tim Harford and his guests maintain a focus on accuracy and transparency, often gently exposing the persistence of misinformation and the ease with which outdated statistics take on new lives in modern debates.
• Memorable moment of irony: The correction tweet’s dramatically lower retweet count compared to the original viral post highlights the emotional momentum of misinformation.

---

Takeaway

This episode of More or Less underscores the importance of questioning viral statistics, referencing their sources, and understanding both the currency and context of such numbers. The presenters stress that, especially with a topic as emotionally charged as gun violence, accuracy and nuance are essential—and that what we believe are facts may be 30 years out of date.

---

Transcript

[A]

Thank you for downloading from the BBC. For details of our complete range of podcasts and our terms of use, go to bbcworldservice.com podcasts hello, and welcome to More or Less on the BBC World Service with me, Tim Harford. This week, the strange mathematical art of juggling.

[B]

So this is 4,440.

[A]

But first, the massacre of 20 children and six women at a school in the United States has reopened the debate on gun ownership in the U.S. here's President Barack Obama speaking at a vigil in Newtown, Connecticut, a few days after the killings.

[B]

Are we really prepared to say that

[A]

we're powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? The debate hasn't just been taking place in the U.S. but all around the world and across social media. A popular message that's been posted and reposted has been last year, handguns killed 48 in Japan, 8 in Great Britain, 34 in Switzerland, 52 in Canada, 21 in Sweden, 10,728 in the United States. Gun control. Now, it does look plausible. After all, the US Is a big country and we know there are a lot of murders there. But while we we thought we'd check out the numbers, all the same. And the numbers turn out to be quite a puzzle. Well, Ruth Alexander's here. What did you find out, Ruth?

[C]

Well, my first port of call was the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. It's got figures on firearms homicide for lots of countries, but not for last year. But I found the FBI keeps more up to date figures. Those numbers show that there were 12,664 firearms homicides last year. But that doesn't match the statistic everyone's been posting. It's actually almost 2,000 more deaths.

[A]

Well, that's firearms homicides. But the Post specifically mentions handguns, so maybe that explains the mismatch.

[C]

Yes, I thought this and I discovered that you can get data on this for some countries.

[A]

I can see from your face that the numbers don't add up.

[C]

No, handguns were used to kill just over 6,200 people in the U.S. last year, not almost 11,000. In Canada, it was 94, not 52. And the latest figures for England, England and Wales show 30 people died from handgun wounds, not eight. But that data relates to 2009-10, not last year. And the data for other countries is either not available or is also out of date.

[A]

So these endlessly retweeted numbers are very roughly the right magnitude, but they don't seem to have come from official sources. So where did they come from? Joseph o' Leary from Independent Fact Checkers Full Fact thinks he's tracked the source down.

[D]

We think we've tracked it down to a poster from the early 80s, stop handguns before they stop you. It was titled and it has exactly the same figures as was being tweeted about in the last few days.

[A]

Were the figures made up for the poster or were they once accurate?

[D]

We believe they were once accurate. There's a very, very small print on the poster that says based on 1979 statistics. And if you look a bit further into all sorts of US publications, magazines, etc. They all talk about the FBI's 1979 Uniform Crime Report, which we believe is the source of the figures themselves. So These are essentially 33 year old figures.

[A]

Joseph O' Leary from Full Fact. One of the people who tweeted the disco era claim about gun deaths was a British TV presenter, Ben Fogle. His tweet was then retweeted by others more than 3,600 times. The next day he I have discovered the handgun fact wasn't from last year, but the sentiments remain the same. This second tweet was retweeted by three people. And Ruth, from what we've learned, I think we need to take issue with another statistic. Arianna Huffington of Huffington Post fame has also misspoken on this issue.

[C]

On Twitter, she said about 30,000Americans alive right now won't make it to 2014 because of gun violence.

[A]

In other words, guns kill 30,000 people a year in the US which they don't.

[C]

Well, actually they do because almost 19,000 people a year kill themselves with guns. Add that to 12,500 firearms homicides and you get to Arianna Huffington's number.

[A]

Gosh. Although probably not what most people think of when they hear the phrase gun violence. Thank you, Ruth. Time for some juggling, I think.

[B]

So this is 4, 4, 4, 0,

[A]

because juggling is a mathematical art, really. Colin Wright is a mathematician who abandoned the traditional see and repeat approach to learning how to juggle and instead developed a sort of sheet music for juggling where sequences of numbers represent particular juggling moves.

[B]

So I do three vertical throws. A four from the left hand, a four from the right hand, a four from the left hand. I've run out of juggling balls. I've got none left. That's a zero. Click the fingers.

[A]

He came into the studio with his juggling balls, which he introduced to us as George Oliver, Penelope, Yolinda, Greg and William. Well, do you not name your Balls. I have names for mine. To explain how this mathematical system has helped him discover new juggling possibilities. I started our conversation by asking why he decided to do this in the first place.

[B]

When I was attempting to learn five, I gave up very quickly because it's phenomenally difficult. And I discovered that nobody in the juggling club actually juggled five. But what they were doing were a variety of tricks with just three. So I said to people, yeah, show me. Show me a trick with three. Some of them were really clean and obvious. But then they also started to do weird shapes in the air and patterns. And there was one in particular, which is called mills mass. And when I went to try and write it down, I couldn't. It was almost impossible to describe. And when I finally did get a description after a few days of working with one of the chaps, it took two and a half sides of a four. And I thought, for a juggling trick that lasts for one second, there must be an easier way. But it turned out that there wasn't. So the other guys and I decided we would try and figure out how to write down juggling tricks. And finally emerged this simple and elegant way of describing a certain class of juggling trick.

[A]

What does juggling notation look like on the page? Is it diagrams, Letters, numbers?

[B]

The first one that we came out with is actually a diagram. But then we realized that if you do stick to a perfectly metronomic beat and you don't move your hands around, then the only thing that matters about the juggling balls is when they come down the amount of time that they've been in the air. And so we could abstract away from the diagram and turn it into a string of numbers.

[A]

So if I give you a string of numbers, so 3, 3, 4, 2, 3, 3, does that. Is that a juggling trick?

[B]

That is a juggling trick. Now, not every string of numbers is a valid juggling trick. And so that became an interesting piece of mathematics. Then, if given a random string of numbers or a string of numbers from some other source without actually juggling it, is there a way of telling whether or not it corresponds to a juggling trick? And the one that you've just given me does it corresponds to doing the normal three ball cascade, which is like an infinity sign, a figure of eight lying on its side. Then the four is a vertical throw from one hand, and the two is hang on to the ball for a beat and then pick up where you left off. So 3, 3, 3, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3.

[A]

And why is the 4 throwing the ball high in the air. And why is the two holding onto the ball?

[B]

Well, if you're juggling four balls and you're juggling a ball on every beat and all of the throws are the same, then the balls will take it in turn. So that means you do red, green, blue, orange, red, green, blue, orange, red, green, blue, orange. And the red ball is thrown every fourth time. The amazing thing was that when we were developing this, we had several ideas that didn't work. And so when we finally got this one with the string of numbers, we thought, this looks quite promising. We started to write down all of the tricks that we knew to stress the system to see if it would work. And we noticed patterns between the different tricks. And when we arranged it in just the right way on the paper, we spotted that there was an overarching pattern to the juggling tricks, one which the physical juggling didn't expose, but the notation did. And then we thought, hang on a minute, there are gaps here. There are obvious things that should go in the gaps. So we would write that down and say, well, that should be a juggling trick. Any justice in the world? That should be a juggling trick.

[A]

And it's this string of numbers that fits the pattern.

[B]

That fits the pattern.

[A]

And is it a juggling trick?

[B]

Not only that, the one that we found at the time was an utterly superb juggling trick. It's known as the fake five. It's a four ball pattern and nobody had ever done it, as far as we can tell.

[A]

Colin Wright. And there's a video of Colin juggling on our website, bbcworldservice.com if you have a question you want to ask, you can email us at more or lessbc.co.uk There are dozens of different podcasts now available from the BBC, including news, documentaries, science, business, arts and sport. For details of them all, go to bbcworldservice.com podcasts.