Nigeria’s Killings Offer Perspective for Policy Change

By Dr. Greg Cochran, ICC Fellow

Violence — particularly gun violence — features prominently in political debates across the U.S.

“Gun violence is an epidemic in this country, yet Congress remains hamstrung by obstructionists when it comes to passing meaningful gun safety legislation,” U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) said. Rep. Moulton serves as a member of the House of Representatives Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. He and many other politicians believe deeply that the U.S. displays a unique tendency toward violence on account of relatively lax gun laws, which allow average citizens to purchase, possess, and deploy high-powered rifles and ammunition.

While this essay will not attempt to stake a position on Second Amendment rights, the piece must at least note the problem of gun violence as it relates to homicide, especially to the kind of homicide that occurs in mass shootings. This discussion proves valuable for situating violence globally and for gaining perspective on fundamental aspects of anthropology — aspects that hopefully will prove capable of empowering common-sense policy proposals.

Why does Rep. Moulton believe the U.S. suffers from an epidemic of deadly violence? Are there statistics that warrant his diagnosing U.S. violence in such a manner? Second, how do these statistics illuminate a helpful perspective on violence and anthropology globally? Finally, how might this new perspective empower humane priorities in policymaking?

The numbers are sobering. According to the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, the U.S. experienced 44,447 gun deaths in 2024. These more than 40,000 deaths¹ can be subdivided as suicides, homicides, accidents, and criminal response:

• 27,593 deaths resulted from suicide using firearms.
• 15,364 deaths followed firearm homicides.
• 450 deaths occurred accidentally by unintentional firearm discharge.
• 636 deaths resulted from officer-related firearm discharge.

Sadly, the U.S. experiences tens of thousands of deaths each year due to violence. And the deaths listed here account for only one category of violent killings, namely, violent deaths resulting from criminal activity. More must be said below, but, for now, a question arises: How do these numbers compare globally? For the larger purpose of this article, the nation of Nigeria serves as a global juxtaposition.

Nigeria’s population hovers at about 70% of the U.S. population. For illustrative purposes, Nigeria’s population parallels that of the U.S. population living east of the Mississippi River.

How does Nigeria compare or contrast with the U.S.? In 2024, Nigeria also suffered tens of thousands of homicides. Settling on a precise number of homicides in this populous nation is akin to looking for a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. The hope is there, but the final product disappoints. Death toll numbers in Nigeria vary greatly. Consider this Grand Canyon of variant statistics: The statistical number for violent deaths in 2024 ranges from 6,018 (on the lower end) to 614,937 (on the upper end).

Here, the data present the first challenge for establishing a global perspective. The Nigerian government does not operate as the U.S. does with respect to accurate crime statistics. Instead, various groups are working to codify multiple reporting sources. These groups operate out of two disparate methodologies: (1) Incident-based and (2) perception survey. The incident-based number (6,018) counts only confirmed deaths in which corpses were physically verified. The numbers resulting from this methodology trend too low, almost certainly overlooking killings in rural areas and hard-to-reach places.

The perception survey, on the other hand, produces figures certainly way too high. This methodology relies on eyewitness accounts and family testimony regarding loved ones killed by bandits and other evil actors.

While this methodology undoubtedly captures some deaths missed by incident-based reporting, it also inherently increases the total figure by counting deaths multiple times. Consider a village raid, for example, in which different households say they know of four, five, or six people killed. How many times will the four people actually killed be counted?

If the 6,018 number were used, then Nigeria would compare favorably to the U.S. in terms of homicide rate, averaging about 2.6 deaths per 100,000. In fact, the U.S. homicide rate would almost double Nigeria’s rate, topping out at about 5.5 deaths per 100,000 in 2024 — not to mention the fact that in 2024 the rate fell dramatically from the prior year, a 15% decrease year over year. Obviously, given these numbers, one might make a case against the U.S. — and perhaps against the prevalence of guns — based on this global perspective offered by Nigeria. Such conclusions would prove dubious.

When numbers are compared across nations, the need for asterisks is almost always apparent. Such is the case when speaking of the homicide rate in Nigeria. As the methodological discussion above makes clear, the actual comparable homicide rate eludes researchers of annual deaths in Nigeria.

Perhaps the most useful number is the one provided by the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). According to their formula — which combines incident-specific data with perspective survey data — the number of homicides in Nigeria would likely fall in the 30,000 to 45,000 range. Using the midpoint of that range, the homicide rate registers at 16 per 100,000 — more than triple the U.S. rate. This more realistic number proffers a radically different perspective on the homicide rate between the two nations. And yet there is still much more to say.

The homicide rate by design counts criminal deaths. There are other killings not counted as homicides that are yet murderous crimes. Because of government policies and practices related to military function and terrorism, most mass casualty events get counted separately from police force crime statistics. Terrorist attacks and mass shootings don’t count, at least not as criminal homicide. When mass casualty events get counted, then another much more sobering rendering of violence unfolds.

The number of deaths from terrorist attacks in the U.S. is minimal. For various reasons, the number differs across research agencies. Nevertheless, the high-end calculation peaks at about 50 deaths per year in terrorist attacks in the U.S. Additionally, the number of people killed in the U.S. in mass casualty events tends to skew relatively low as well. In fact, the Rockefeller Institute of Government tracks mass shootings in the U.S. from 1966 to the present. What does their research say about the state of mass casualties on U.S. soil?

• Since 1966 (past 60 years), the U.S. has suffered 512 attacks (or about 8.5 attacks per year on average).
• A total of 1,731 victims died in these 512 attacks (about 29 deaths/year). (*Notice that the 9/11 attacks are excluded.)

How do these deadly statistics compare globally with Nigeria? The answer to that question reveals profoundly disturbing data. Following a country visit to Nigeria, the International Institute for Religious Freedom (IIRF) and the Observatory of Religious Freedom in Africa (ORFA) compiled and published a Joint Submission to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. Recall that the U.S. data goes back 60 years, and consider what the joint submission discovered in Nigeria in 1/10 the time (2019-2025). In the past six years in Nigeria,

• 79,323 people were killed in attacks (mass casualty/ terror events).
• 42,033 of the deaths were civilian deaths (not soldiers, terrorist fighters).
• These deaths followed 15,434 different attacks.
• On average, seven attacks that included killings occurred each day.
• In addition to being killed, civilians were abducted at an alarming rate: 34,773 civilians were abducted in 4,590 separate attacks — an average of two events per day with abductions.

During the past six years, Nigeria has averaged nearly as many mass casualty events per day as the U.S. has averaged per year. The U.S. has averaged about 29 civilian deaths per year in these attacks, while Nigeria has averaged more than 7,000 deaths per year. In fact, Nigeria’s daily death toll of 19 comes perilously close to the yearly total in the U.S.

What conclusions ought policymakers and humane leaders to draw from these grievous statistics? Is the U.S. a safe place without the need for further reforms? Certainly not. Even the relatively low number of deaths per year in the U.S. is tragic. The debate over how to make the number even lower should continue. Every person of the 29 killed on average each year counts as a valuable soul before God and before their families and friends. The point here is not to diminish good work being done to mitigate crime — especially murder — in the U.S.

The point turns out to be something more fundamental — an a fortiori argument for paying more attention to Nigeria in general and to Nigerian Christians in particular. The argument goes something like this: If violence is a serious problem in the U.S. and thus ought to be addressed, then how much more ought policymakers and leaders be concerned about the situation in Nigeria?

The U.S. Department of Justice (FBI, ATF, U.S. Marshals) spends much of its $17 billion budget each year fighting against homicides and mass casualty events. Local policing adds possibly $445 billion more. Few people balk at these mass expenditures. The death toll would undoubtedly increase without such funding. The U.S. rightly values life and spends its resources accordingly.

For some reason, the same does not appear to be true in Nigeria. Questions abound about whether the problem is a lack of interest, resources, or will. But the conclusion sits undeniably present in the joint report submitted to the U.N. special rapporteur.

Are the numbers in the joint report reliable? As noted above, statistics on death are difficult to parse in the Nigerian political environment. Nevertheless, the methodology of this report appears sound. The ORFA database, for instance, uses both incident-level data (from the ACLED database) and compiled perspective data to eliminate redundancy and double-counting. For its part, IIRF commits to academic research that refuses dubious data in favor of empirically defensible figures. In short, the numbers are reliable.

The report was submitted to the U.N. with great hope of shaping policy more humanely.

• Policy must be fact-based, indeed, truth-based. To that end, the special report calls for correcting false narratives — a call that International Christian Concern (ICC) has been broadcasting for some time: see more calls for narrative correction here and here.
• Policy must be based on meticulously researched data. The data compiled by IIRF and ORFA prove reliable rather than politically driven or designed with economic gain in view.
• Policy must elevate respect for freedom of religion and belief to the level of national discourse and structural reform.² Much of the violence in Nigeria is demonstrably tied to religious beliefs, with Christians suffering most of the violence.
• Policy must be tied to empowering human beings rather than empowering the state, which keeps people dependent. Policies that promote dependence on government funding, whether national or international, lead to long-term impoverishment and disempowerment, regardless of the short-term benefits. See other calls for government reform in Nigeria here and here.

Beyond these more humane policy proposals, Christians specifically ought to become more personally, congregationally, and politically engaged. If Christians of good conscience in the U.S. grieve at murder and support policies against such crimes against God and humanity, then — in yet further a fortiori fashion — how much more ought Christians to grieve over and fight by faith against the slaughter of fellow Christians? Christians must take policy proposals captive in obedience to Christ and fully support those policies that empower faith, free thought, and the essentials of life and liberty.

To finish the thought with which this paper began, the political banter against gun violence in the U.S. points to a more fundamental reality that ought to be foundational to all public policy, namely, that human life and flourishing ought to be the end that justifies the adoption of political policies. Where that end is not attained, the policies and practices deserve to die, so fewer people will be forced to suffer that fate.

___________________________________________________________

¹The report leaves 404 deaths unattributed to a category.

²This policy statement is adopted directly from the IIRF and ORFA joint submission to the U.N. Rapporteur.

To read more news stories, visit the ICC Newsroom. For interviews, please email us. To support ICC’s work around the world, please give to our Where Most Needed Fund.

The post Nigeria’s Killings Offer Perspective for Policy Change first appeared on International Christian Concern.