The Great Gun Control Debate

[CH1]

Be careful now!  The government may decide to lock up the law abiding citizens to protect them from the bad guys ( legit gun owners). You never know when big brother is stealing ideas.
Cheers

 

[McG]

Firearms deaths on the decline
By SCOTT DEVEAU
Tuesday, June 28, 2005 Updated at 10:06 AM EDT
Globe and Mail Update

The rate of firearms deaths in Canada dropped by more than half between 1979 and 2002, according to a new Statistics Canada report.

The report, which is based on police records from around the country, shows that 816 people (767 males and 49 females) died from firearms injuries in 2002. Among males this represents a death rate of nearly 5 persons for every 100,000 people, down from 10.6 in 1979.

Of the female populations the rate dropped from 1.2 deaths in 1979 to 0.3 in 2002.

Homicides accounted for around 15 per cent of such deaths, and about 4 per cent were unintentional.

But, while the overall number of murders involving guns is declining, a higher portion of the murders committed in Canada involved firearms, up to two-thirds in 2000 from one-half in the 1990s .

In 1979, the rate of deaths related to firearms was highest among young people aged 15 to 24. By 2002, the differences between age groups had largely disappeared after the age of 15.

About 80 per cent of 2002 deaths were suicides. Among all the suicides committed throughout the 1980s, roughly a third involved firearms. By 2002, that proportion had declined to only about one-sixth.

There were tremendous differences between geographic regions. Firearms deaths were most common in the territories, which had death-by-firearms rates of more than 10, while Ontario recorded the lowest rate at 1.7.

New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Alberta all recorded death by firearms rates higher than the national average.

Among Canada's four largest metropolitan areas (Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver) the only significant difference in the rate of firearms-related deaths was between Montreal and Toronto: 2.2 compared with 1.3 deaths per 100,000 population.

Toronto police report the number of shootings and homicides involving firearms in the city have levelled off since 2001. The number of shootings went from a high in 2001 of 33 to a low in 2002 and 2004 of 27. The number of homicides involving guns in the city remained steady in the low to mid-60s, with a spike in 2003 with 67 deaths.

By mid-June, there had been 17 shootings and 27 homicides involving guns in Toronto, according to police statistics.

The risk of death from an injury related to firearms was a fraction of that in the United States. In 2000, the rate of homicide involving a gun in the United States was 3.8 for every 100,000 population, nearly eight times Canada's rate of 0.5.

In Canada, homicides accounted for 18 per cent of deaths involving firearms in 2000, compared with 38 per cent in the United States, according to the report.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050628.wfirearms0628/BNStory/National/

 

[KevinB]

Then we'll see an acceptable alternative to the Liberal's and the vote will go that way. And as always, the NDP will be a small minority.

And maybe one day the Alberta Tories will be knocked off too. Yeah right...

:

I'd rather blow the road at the border than cowdown to some Ontario soft and small C conservative.

PPALI  - its got a ring to it dont you think 

 

[TCBF]

In the battle of good versus evil, statistics are weapons of mass obfuscation.

So, if victims shoot and kill  ten knife-wielding home invaders in a year, it's a tragedy, but if we confiscate the evil guns from the victims, and thugs and pukes knife 50 unarmed and now defenceless victims  in a year, gun deaths are down and we are all that much closer to Utopia.

Make sense to you?

Tom

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Firearms deaths on the decline
By SCOTT DEVEAU
Tuesday, June 28, 2005 Updated at 10:06 AM EDT
Globe and Mail Update

The rate of firearms deaths in Canada dropped by more than half between 1979 and 2002, according to a new Statistics Canada report.

The report, which is based on police records from around the country, shows that 816 people (767 males and 49 females) died from firearms injuries in 2002. Among males this represents a death rate of nearly 5 persons for every 100,000 people, down from 10.6 in 1979.
...
The risk of death from an injury related to firearms was a fraction of that in the United States. In 2000, the rate of homicide involving a gun in the United States was 3.8 for every 100,000 population, nearly eight times Canada's rate of 0.5.

What's funny about this is that the US rate in 1981 (pre-1981 figures are harder to come-by) was 6.58, according to the CDC { http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate9.html }, which means the US Homicide by Firearm Rate fell by about the same amount (one-half) over the same period of time without the benefit of a multi-billion dollar registry! 

 

[TCBF]

Selective targetting saves lives.  The trick is to fine tune your justice industry to encourage productive members of society to defend themselves and their families to the detriment of the attacking non-productive members of society. 

Funny, but peopla allways talk about what it costs to incarcerate a malignant.  No one ever talks about what it costs NOT to incarcerate a malignant.

Tom

 

[Old Ranger]

Well Said TCBF

 

[Michael Shannon]

A much better stat to judge gun violence is homicides + attempted murder + aggravated assault. This figure shows an upward trend while the homicide figure is basically flat. Why? Victims are more likely to be hit by a pistol instead of a rifle or shotgun followed by someone using his cell phone to get better trained and equipped para medics to quickly haul the victim to a better equipped emergency ward which is probably closer because of urbanization. In judging violence rates it's the number of people shot that counts not how many die. The latter figure is a statement about the quality of trauma care much more than the availability of guns.

 

[Infanteer]

In essence, Mr Shannon, we should look at violent crime as opposed to murder.  The underlying theme of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" (which I've been guiding along for about 30 pages now) is that social tendencies to violence is the biggest factor in violent crime.  This is why Japan and Switzerland are both relatively tame, even when one is unarmed and the other is armed to the teeth.

 

[TCBF]

"number of people shot that counts not how many die. The latter figure is a statement about the quality of trauma care much more than the availability of guns."

- True, which is why Judges now take into consideration the locale of the crime; "Yes, you killed him, but he was shot in Lower Buttplug, New Brunswick, and did not have access to Toronto Health Care, so it's not your fault he died."

Tom

 

[Michael Shannon]

The amount of violence is directly linked to the number of undeterred violent felons at large. This number is primarily effected by demographics: the more 15-24 year old males you have the more violent crime you get. Also crucial is the ability of society to prevent young males from becoming violent (good homes, discipline, substance abuse, mental health care etc.) and to deter them when the former methods have failed: good police investigations, swift trials, harsh punishments, ridicule, and lastly fear of potential victims.

    Once a society passes a certain point of anarchy and lawlessness the ability to defend yourself becomes the most important deterrent. Most of the world is in this condition. Not surprisingly the countries where this is not true are the ones that allow widespread personal firearms ownership. Western countries that have recently restricted gun ownership (UK & Aus etc.) have seen an increase in crime and the US has had reductions in murders in conjunction with liberalizing (no pun intended) of gun laws. Go figure.

 

[TCBF]

It makes sense.  No right truly exists unless the ability to defend that right exists.  If we have a right to Life - and even the UN says we do - then that right is worthless without the ability to defend it (us) and the lives of those in our care.  Naturally, the MEANS to that defence should be the most effective one. 

Tom

 

[Marty]

"number of people shot that counts not how many die. The latter figure is a statement about the quality of trauma care much more than the availability of guns."

- True, which is why Judges now take into consideration the locale of the crime; "Yes, you killed him, but he was shot in Lower Buttplug, New Brunswick, and did not have access to Toronto Health Care, so it's not your fault he died."

Tom

Ill have you know that Lower Buttplug is not in NB ...its in NS.....we have much better trauma care here (couldnt find the smiley thing for extreme sarcasm )

 

[Brad Sallows]

I had a look at the actual StatsCan report (it's online).  Homicides in general have fallen by about one-half.  I didn't see a breakdown by means.  I suppose if homicides fell by one-half across the board, firearm homicides might fall by approximately that proportion without any influence whatsoever by gun control measures.  Apparently, it's still true that people kill people.  Who knew?

 

[pappy]

why all the money spent on gun control? duh... so goverments can better control unarmed citizens, using "crime control" as a smoke screen....
it ain't the criminals they want to control, if there was no crime there would be no money in prisons...

sent to me by a friend, I haven't confired the stats... so don't get your panties in a bunch, but I would have to say it makes sense.

From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia

"Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down
Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were
forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be
destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up
3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide,
armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of
Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note
that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did
not!--and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the
past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and
assaults of the elderly.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has
decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in
"successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this on
the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly (Congress) disseminating this information.

The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's too late!"

 

[pappy]

opps.... I'll have to find the article, I read a interesting peice about the drop (if even so small statically) in the homicide rate in the US being traced to legal abortions, less unwanted babies raised by moron parents that create lil criminals  Lower birth rates = less criminals...  One explaination maybe.

humm I read in Gandi's Bio he said the worse crime the Brits committed againest the Indians was gun control..... yeah I bet, think of how much sooner the brits would have been forced out if all the Indians had been armed....

An American Indian opps Native American friend of mine had a t-shirt with an Indian on horse back with an AK-47 rasied over his head, printed under it simply said "What If?"

 

[KevinB]

 

[TCBF]

Gun Porn! Gun Porn!  That your 1911A1 Clone?

Tom

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Does anyone know if the full narratives of the Canadian Firearms Saftey Course and the Restricted course are available anywhere online? Need to brush up before I challenge the tests. :

 

[OLD F of S]

    I have just finished reading tthe ctv news report about the conservatives have appointed 3 members toget rid of the gun registry. My question is how much opposition will come from the law enforcement  community.



                                    Regards OLD F of S