The Great Gun Control Debate

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Good article and I keep saying to people that much of the US is quite safe, Chicago not so much....

Oh,..thanks,..I leave in the morning...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

this may help, crime map

http://spotcrime.com/il/chicago

 

[cupper]

KABOOOOOM! 

We really need to get a head exploding smilie. ;D

What I find fascinating, however, is to look at murder rates for Canadian provinces and compare them to their immediate American state neighbors. When you do that, you discover some very curious differences that show gun availability must be either a very minor factor in determining murder rates, or if it is a major factor, it is overwhelmed by factors that are vastly more important.

For example, I live in Idaho.  In 2011, our murder rate was 2.3 per 100,000 people.

I was surprised to find that not only Nunavut (21.01) and the Northwest Territories (6.87) in Canada had much higher murder rates then Idaho, but even Nova Scotia (2.33), Manitoba (4.24), Saskatchewan (3.59), and Alberta (2.88) had higher murder rates.  (Okay, Nova Scotia is just a teensy-weensy bit higher than Idaho for 2011.)

At this point, you’re going to point out that there are many American states that have very high murder rates, especially in the South, and on the coasts.

Nope. At this point I'm going to point out that the writer's sense of geography is total crap. :nod:

Last time I drove from Virginia to Nova Scotia, I don't recall driving through Idaho. In fact, I think I may have had to drive through another province to get to Nova Scotia. ;D

But there is a bigger problem with the data.

First, lets compare actual numbers of murders in 2011. Nova Scotia had 22, Idaho had 36.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/idcrime.htm    http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal12a-eng.htm

Second, He is comparing murder rates as a whole, not murders by firearms. In 2011 Idaho was listed as the 15th deadliest state for gun murders.

With 12.5 gun deaths per 100,000 people, and the second most permissive gun laws in America, Idaho came in at No. 15.

http://www.boiseweekly.com/CityDesk/archives/2011/01/11/idaho-15th-deadliest-gun-state-says-daily-beast

Nova Scotia by comparison (Halifax specifically):

The firearm homicide rate varies widely in Canada, depending on where one lives. The vast majority (91%) of firearm homicides that occurred in Canada’s census metropolitan areas (CMAs) in 2011 were concentrated in the seven largest CMAs and Halifax. In particular, Halifax (1.72), Edmonton (1.08) and Winnipeg (1.04) reported the highest rates of firearm homicide per 100,000 population in 2011

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11738-eng.htm#a2

Doing comparisons between US and Canadian murder rates and gun deaths data to substantiate pro or con on gun laws is crap.


Oh, and one other thing, Nunavut had 7 murders in 2011.  When you look at a population of about 32,000 it's going to look worse than it really is.

Remember the old adage, "There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics"

 

[Infanteer]

Nope. At this point I'm going to point out that the writer's sense of geography is total crap. :nod:

But there is a bigger problem with the data.

Oh, look.  Another crappy political blog!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Most blogs have a political agenda, otherwise why would someone do it?

 

[57Chevy]

Yahoo! Exclusive: Canada’s gun owners shouldn’t need licenses or background checks, NFA president says
Daily Brew
By Matthew Coutts, 27 Feb

As the United States continues to debate the merits of stronger gun control legislation, firearms advocates in Canada believe our own laws go too far. Sheldon Clare, president of Canada’s National Firearms Association, spoke with Yahoo! Canada News about the U.S. gun control debate, the National Rifle Association, Canada’s legislation and what changes should be made to improve our own gun culture.

In a condensed version of that interview, Clare said Canada’s gun laws should be moving toward America’s, not the other way around.

Yahoo! Canada News: Gun ownership has become a significant topic of conversation in the U.S. Let’s talk about our situation here in Canada.

Clare: I think it is important to understand that the lawful firearms owning public is a safer demographic than the general non-firearms owning public. That has been shown in research to be the case. … In terms of the situation in Canada, we have been operating under successive, oppressive firearms control regimens for decades. None of which have done anything whatsoever to have any effect upon firearms crime rates, or violent crimes at all. There are several articles in peer-reviewed journals which demonstrate that Canadian firearms control legislation does not work in doing what it claims it has been wanting to do.

Do you feel, then, that the Canadian gun laws are stricter than they need to be?

Quite a bit. We have many problems that have created all kinds of unintended consequences for otherwise innocent firearms owners. These problems include paperwork crimes, getting people charged with expired licences and getting their property seized. Or they lose various statuses to own various classifications of firearms. All of this has nothing to do with crime control, and all it is doing is trying to change a culture of firearms ownership – which is a long and proud one in Canada.

The issue most are familiar with is the now-dead long gun registry.

The long gun registry was actually a political construct, really. The registration of long guns was brought in by the Liberal government in their 1995 legislation. It did not occur until much later because it was an incremental approach. It has been shown quite conclusively that the registration of anything, including handguns, does really nothing whatsoever to prevent people from using them in crime or violent fashion. Putting a piece of paper next to a gun does not prevent its ill use.

[ Related: Canadian firearms advocate calls gun ownership ‘practical choice’ ]

Let me ask you a broad question. What is the No. 1 issue that is facing Canadian firearm owners at the moment? What would you change?

There are many things that need to be changed, but if I could get rid of one thing in the short term, beyond repealing Bill C68 and C17… the licencing requirement from the 1995 legislation, which required all firearms owners to have a licence merely to own their own property.

Clare: "I think owning a firearm is a practical choice. Firearms have a lot of utility."One thing being debated in the U.S. right now is the need for background checks. We have that in Canada, are you opposed to those?

Besides the fact they don’t really work? In effect they are a feel-good legislation. People feel they will stop someone somehow. They haven’t. Some of these people who have engaged in significant violent events have been licenced and had registrations for firearms. In effect that has done nothing.

Quite frankly we don’t have a huge problem with violence in Canada. It has been dropping over the years, mainly due to an aging population. That seems to be the main factor.

The NRA has been labeled as overly extreme on some of these positions…

They have only been labeled extreme by people who take extreme positions. The NRA — and I am not a spokesperson of the NRA or a member of the NRA — The NRA’s primary purpose and reason for being is to provide skills training for people. That is why it was founded back after the American civil war.

[Related: Firearms-makers to politicians on gun rights: You balk, we walk ]

Most of what the NRA does is teach people about shooting and giving them shooting skills. Advocacy came about because of misplaced efforts to try to regulate lawful citizens and their firearms use.

If you had your way, would you go to a U.S. situation, where there is more access to guns for the general public?

I think our criminal code stuff is in dramatic need of change. Most of the firearms regulatory provisions should not be in the criminal code. There are things like safe storage and so on, most of this should be handled by education, and skills-based training should be voluntary education. If they want to learn about a particular style of shooting they should follow the lead of hunter safety courses.

I want to touch on a couple more topics making headlines in the U.S. and get your take. For example, the argument that large magazine clips are not necessary.

I think the whole magazine thing is a red herring. It really doesn’t matter. If the effect is to stop people from doing mass shootings, well, people can do mass shootings against unarmed people with just about anything, and have devastating effects.

Semi-automatics, large capacity magazines are extremely common. Pump-action shotguns are extremely common and considerably more devastating in effect on a per-shot basis. High-capacity magazines really don’t matter. Magazine capacity is ridiculous, and we have magazine capacity limits in Canada, which should be repealed.

We have had our own school shootings here in Canada. Would armed guards help up here?

I think that armed guards are the only thing that would make a significant difference. The first thing that anyone does when they are confronted by a bad person with a gun is to call a good person with a gun to stop that person. Otherwise you have a person in a target-rich environment without opposition. The idea of armed guards in schools is not an NRA idea, by the way, it is an idea that originated with Bill Clinton, who is a Democrat and the president of the United States when he originated and funded it.

One thing I would say is that there shouldn’t be anybody armed that doesn’t want to be. It has been argued that there should be armed teachers and so on and so forth. Nobody should be armed who isn’t trained and willing to be trained. Otherwise you are just wasting your time, you are just going to cause more problems.

NRA head Wayne LaPierre recently said that owning a gun is about survival, and gave examples of gang warfare and terrorists and hurricanes — when chaos takes over. Do you agree with that?

I think owning a firearm is a practical choice. Firearms have a lot of utility. They are a tool, they are useful and clearly capable of providing protection from bad events and bad things. The key thing for firearms use is a voluntary education system, rather than anything compulsory or legislated. The heavy hand of the state doesn’t need to be doing this. We have worked well in Canada for over 100 years without a heavy regime, and we did not have the firearms crime that warrants the legislation that we now have.

                                            Article is shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

 

[alejo]

Common sense dictates that the more weapons available, the more weapon-related crimes there will be.

Now if everyone was to start having a gun, it would only increase the number of gun-related crimes. It is way easier to kill with a gun than with a knife or even bare hands.
It would be a very bad idea if we were to try and emulate what the US is doing. There is a reason why they are one of the top countries for gun related crimes (as a rate of population), and Canada has one of the lowest.

Giving more guns to the normal population, while it might make some of us feel safer, will only make it easy for criminals to get access to better and more powerful weapons.

Trying to fight crime with more crime will end up in senseless killing and homicides that the normal population should never experience.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Common sense dictates that the more weapons available, the more weapon-related crimes there will be.

Now if everyone was to start having a gun, it would only increase the number of gun-related crimes. It is way easier to kill with a gun than with a knife or even bare hands.
It would be a very bad idea if we were to try and emulate what the US is doing. There is a reason why they are one of the top countries for gun related crimes (as a rate of population), and Canada has one of the lowest.

Giving more guns to the normal population, while it might make some of us feel safer, will only make it easy for criminals to get access to better and more powerful weapons.

Trying to fight crime with more crime will end up in senseless killing and homicides that the normal population should never experience.

There's no such thing as common sense, but thanks for the hypothetical opinion anyway.

If you're going to try alter opinion some real world stats and arguments, vice your gut feeling, might help.

Some research on the actual subject wouldn't hurt either.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Common sense dictates that the more weapons available, the more weapon-related crimes there will be.

Now if everyone was to start having a gun, it would only increase the number of gun-related crimes. It is way easier to kill with a gun than with a knife or even bare hands.
It would be a very bad idea if we were to try and emulate what the US is doing. There is a reason why they are one of the top countries for gun related crimes (as a rate of population), and Canada has one of the lowest.

Giving more guns to the normal population, while it might make some of us feel safer, will only make it easy for criminals to get access to better and more powerful weapons.

Trying to fight crime with more crime will end up in senseless killing and homicides that the normal population should never experience.

I've read that  US states with the most lax gun control has the least amount of crime, compared to states with the highest levels of gun control having the highest amount of crime.  What do you think about that?

Some countries with extreme levels of gun control have very low crime. Some countries with extreme levels of gun control still have extreme levels of crime. When it comes to firearms and crime supply and demand doesn't seem to have an effect of stats.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

keep in mind ther is something like 200 million guns in the US and the civilian, police market consumed around 12 billion rds of ammo in 1 year. If guns caused crime, we would all be dead.

 

[alejo]

It is common sense, and it is very simple. If someone wants to hurt someone and they have a weapon available, they will use it. This has been the case since humans learned to use tools.

I am not saying that gun control will prevent gun crimes completely. However, the more guns that are available, the easier it will be for criminals to access them.

Think about this scenario. There is a shooting in a public place, due to gang violence. Now if a lot of people had guns, then they could easily attack back which is why many gun advocates defend. Now let's say other "good" guys come to the scene, and all they see is people shooting left and right. How are they to tell who are the "good" guys, and the bad guys? If it was me, I will see everyone as a threat, and probably others would see me as a threat since I am carrying an automatic weapon.

Another point that many of you seem to not understand, is that the more weapons that people have, the more armed criminals will get. If they know the population is armed, they will just use more efficient ways to commit mass killings (e.g bombs).

The gun issue is complex, and while I agree that gun control alone is not going to stop crime, it is the first step in preventing things from escalating.

Edit: Since you guys like references, here are some previous studies done on it:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries.  Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.


2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s.  We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.


3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.


4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide.  This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I am the owner of several long guns and shot guns.  I use them for hunting exclusively.  I believe our laws are just fine.  The courses teach safety and weapon control which as CF members we should all be able to agree is very important.

If we are to change the laws I say make types of firearms outright ileagal to own.  Such as pistols/sidearms/hand guns and Autos and Semi-Autos.  Just because you want to own something doesn't mean you should. 

As well, from what I have read, gun ownership has very little to do with crime.  Everything I have read points to economic and social demographics, guns are just the instrument of choice for some criminal's not the factor that pushes a person towards crime. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

keep in mind ther is something like 200 million guns in the US and the civilian, police market consumed around 12 billion rds of ammo in 1 year. If guns caused crime, we would all be dead.

Guns cause crime the same way pencils make spelling mistakes and spoons make people fat.

 

[Jed]

I am the owner of several long guns and shot guns.  I use them for hunting exclusively.  I believe out laws are just fine.  The courses teach safety and weapon control which as CF members we should all be able to agree is very important.

If we are to change the laws I say make types of firearms outright ileagal to own.  Such as pistols/sidearms/hand guns and Autos and Semi-Autos.  Just because you want to own something doesn't mean you should.  As well, from what I have read, gun ownership has very little to do with crime.  Everything I have read points to economic and social demographics, guns are just the instrument of choice for some criminal's not the factor that pushes a person towards crime.

Halifax Tar. I believe this to be a pretty hypocritical stand on your part. You are happy that you have what you want, a hunting shotgun or rifle but are willing to say ' That's alright Jack, I've got mine'. Pistols, semis, scary legal black guns, are just other tools with many uses.

From what I have personally witnessed with the impact of the stupid, repressive Canadian gun laws enacted over the past decades is that the law abiding citizen has greatly suffered and the criminals continue to get the tool they want. And, also, the LEO has had a harder time to get the tool he needs to do the job.

 

[NavyShooter]

That gun is bad because it has XXX attribute.

Wrong answer Halifax Tar.

Your hunting rifle is, in the eyes of an anti, as bad as any of the others that they want to ban.  It's a matter of target priorites.

They will go after the "bad looking" guns first, because everyone agrees that they're bad....

Except that, a gun has no will of it's own.  It's the person holding it who imparts THEIR good, or bad on those around them.

Ban my black rifles and my handguns, and they'll be back in a short time looking for your Sniper Rifles or "hunting guns" as you call them.

Stand together, or fall apart.  Your decision. 

Right now, you're falling apart because you can't see past the bridge of your nose because of the blinders you're wearing.

NS

 

[Halifax Tar]

Halifax Tar. I believe this to be a pretty hypocritical stand on your part. You are happy that you have what you want, a hunting shotgun or rifle but are willing to say ' That's alright Jack, I've got mine'. Pistols, semis, scary legal black guns, are just other tools with many uses.

From what I have personally witnessed with the impact of the stupid, repressive Canadian gun laws enacted over the past decades is that the law abiding citizen has greatly suffered and the criminals continue to get the tool they want. And, also, the LEO has had a harder time to get the tool he needs to do the job.

I think it comes down the purpose types of guns.  A semi-auto .223 AR-15 or look alike is an assult rifle, there is no reason a person in civilian population needs to own that IMHO.  If its target shooting you want to do then a bolt action is just fine.

As well don't use the "scary black guns" routine on me pal.  I am or have qualified on C7, C9, C6, 9mm, 870, MP5, Sig Sauer, Carl G and M72.  I understand and appreciate the purpose of "scary black guns".  They are for LEO and Military to carry out their duties.  If you want to own one then go for it but in my opinion they should be illegal for civilian population. 

I see a difference between my Remington .308 and a AR type rifle or a hand gun.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I think it comes down the purpose types of guns.  A semi-auto .223 AR-15 or look alike is an assult rifle, there is no reason a person in civilian population needs to own that IMHO.  If its target shooting you want to do then a bolt action is just fine.

A bolt action .308 is deadlier than an AR15 in a shoot out senario and a shotgun is far deadlier in a 'school shooting' environment than an AR15.

 

[Halifax Tar]

That gun is bad because it has XXX attribute.

Wrong answer Halifax Tar.

Your hunting rifle is, in the eyes of an anti, as bad as any of the others that they want to ban.  It's a matter of target priorites.

They will go after the "bad looking" guns first, because everyone agrees that they're bad....

Except that, a gun has no will of it's own.  It's the person holding it who imparts THEIR good, or bad on those around them.

Ban my black rifles and my handguns, and they'll be back in a short time looking for your Sniper Rifles or "hunting guns" as you call them.

Stand together, or fall apart.  Your decision. 

Right now, you're falling apart because you can't see past the bridge of your nose because of the blinders you're wearing.

NS

What would you say is appropriate gun control legislation then ?  Free for all ?  Own anything you want ?  You would have people setting up MG nests in the woods to hunt deer! 

 

[Halifax Tar]

A bolt action .308 is deadlier than an AR15 in a shoot out senario and a shotgun is far deadlier in a 'school shooting' environment than an AR15.

Hardly.  My ROF is much lower and my magzine capacity is much lower.  AR15s are meant for shoot outs/fire fights.  They were designed to produce a high volume of fire.

If a bolt action .308 is deadlier in a shoot out we (the CF) should have never left behind bolt action rifles. 

 

[Jed]

I think it comes down the purpose types of guns.  A semi-auto .223 AR-15 or look alike is an assult rifle, there is no reason a person in civilian population needs to own that IMHO.  If its target shooting you want to do then a bolt action is just fine.

guns" rAs well don't use the "scary black outine on me pal.  I am or have qualified on C7, C9, C6, 9mm, 870, MP5, Sig Sauer, Carl G and M72.  I understand and appreciate the purpose of "scary black guns".  They are for LEO and Military to carry out their duties.  If you want to own one then go for it but in my opinion they should be illegal for civilian population. 

I see a difference between my Remington .308 and a AR type rifle or a hand gun.

??? Scary black guns routine. ? Great, I'm glad you are qualified on our CF tools of the trade, so am I but that is not the point. I think Navy Shooter does a better job of pointing out why your current opinion does not sit well with me and many others of the firearms owning community.


Also, what is wrong with someone just wanting to have fun shooting up targets with an assault rifle? You know its fun to do, if it wasn't how many people would sign up for the military?