To delegitimize Canada's long gun registry, a concerted disinformation campaign has been mounted by those ideologically opposed to it.
Myth 1: gun death is an urban, gang-related problem. The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians points out nearly 75 per cent of gun deaths are suicides. Here’s the perspective of a small-town doctor and coroner in rural Ontario:
My own personal experience with gun-related death has mirrored the national statistics. Most are suicides, the great majority have involved long guns and, of course, they live in rural environments. I have never seen a death with a handgun and have never seen a death committed as a criminal act, with one notable exception of a murder as a result of domestic violence. Typically, I am called to a rural property or farm, where some headless corpse lies with blood and brains bathing the hunting rifle or shotgun that lies by the motionless body. As if this image wasn't soul-wrenching enough, I then have to deal with the anguished cries and the shattered lives of the loved ones of the deceased huddled in the family kitchen…Those who have voted to repeal the long gun registry clearly have a sterilized view of gun-related deaths. How else to explain their callous disregard for the health and safety of rural Canadians?
--Alan Drummond, Perth ON, The Ottawa Citizen, November 9, 2009.
Myth 2: the gun registry does nothing to prevent gun deaths. In the words of a rural psychiatrist in an area of B.C. where guns are prevalent:
I have invoked the gun registry…to either get someone’s guns removed or prevent them from getting guns because of mental illness. I am sure this has prevented tragedies but, unfortunately, none of those events make headlines…Before the gun registry was available…it was difficult…to have guns removed. There have been some 22,000 licences denied to date, and a recent Ottawa Citizen article reported that the number of firearms surrendered and confiscated…is 8,281 — 74 per cent of which were nonrestricted shotguns and rifles…the reason for these confiscations is usually that the individual has threatened or used violence. So, are we really comfortable with allowing these people to arm themselves by removing the mechanism which allows authorities to locate and remove firearms…?
--Dr. Barbara Kane, the Guelph Mercury, July 3, 2009.
The long-time psychiatrist also notes gun deaths and injuries are at their lowest levels in over 30 years, that the rate of homicide with rifles and shotguns is half what it was in 1995 (when the long gun registry was introduced), and that gun-related murders of women have fallen by two-thirds. The gun registry may be an inconvenience for hunters, farmers and other gun owners, she says, “but it helps people like me and the police prevent tragedies.”
Myth 3: the long gun registry has cost $2 billion. Two-thirds of the costs opponents attribute to “the Registry” are related to screening and licensing all gun owners, not to the registering of long guns. These costs will remain even if the registry is shot down. Between 1995 and April 2005, net costs for the Canadian Firearms Program were $946.4 million, or about $95 million per year. In 2006, the auditor general found eliminating the long gun portion of the registry would only save a projected $3 million annually. (http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2009/11/04/gun-registry-vote004.html).
To put this in perspective, not long ago, the federal Government invested $400 million to widen a stretch of highway in New Brunswick where 43 people had died over 5 years. In the same period, guns killed 5,000. In any case, the cost issue is easily solved: make the gun owners pay.
Myth 4: Long guns are not associated with criminal activity. The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians points out that last year, 34 per cent of Canadian gun-related homicides were committed with rifles or shotguns, as were 72 per cent of firearm-related spousal homicides. Between 1995 and 2004, the drop in the use of firearms in spousal homicides was 36 per cent.
We register our cars, boats, trailers, dogs and bikes: why is the
registration of long guns such a hardship? And how does ignoring the
opinions of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian
Police Association, the Canadian Association of Emergency
Physicians, the Quebec Public Health Association, the Canadian
Paediatric Society, the civic administrations of Toronto, Montreal and
Winnipeg advance the Conservative government’s devotion to "law
and order"? Not to mention their duty to protect Canadian women,
children, and of course men, who make up the lion’s share of gun
violence victims.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Claudia Sternbach
Myriad
Mary Stanik
FusunA
Amy McMullen
Steven Rockford
Salon.com
Comments
As you probably know, Doctor Drummond is far from been the most impartial individual around... since he was part of the consulting committee's that made presentations put C-68 together.
Thank god for the internet and government archives:
Meeting No. 133
Thursday, May 11, 1995
This morning we have before us the Canadian Medical Association,
represented by Dr. Bruno L'Heureux, the president, and Dr. David
Walters, the director, Department of Health Care and Promotion. We
also have the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians,
represented by Harold Fisher and Dr. Alan Drummond, the past
president.
+_+_+_+_+_
Personnaly, I wouldn't trust a doctor to come up with a meaningful firearm legislation no more then I would trust the NRA to come up with a meaningful healthcare program.
Using the Dr. Kane interview, eh? I can understand why, as finding "experts" whose opinions don't contradict your agenda must be getting increasingly difficult... So might as well recycle some old Mandelman material...
And Dr. Kane may want to consider how many tragedies have failed to have been prevented by the loss of $2 BILLION of our taxpayer's dollars. $2 BILLION that could have been put toward addressing the real issue of mental health, not placing a piece of paper next to an inanimate object. But those tragedies likely also didn't make the 6 o'clock news.
1. Guns are easier to use. Far easier.
2. Guns suit the impulse of the moment.
3. Guns are the leading method of suicide involving trauma.
4. Rope is handy for things other than killing.
5. Guns and suicide go together like pickups and a shotgun.
Myth #1:
Suicide is a very personal thing. Anyone who committs suicide does so by virtue of their own decision. Nobody forces you to do it, otherwise that would be murder, wouldn't it? According to Statscan, in 2004, 568 people committed suicide by firearm, while 1590 hung themselves. This is 1 year after mandatory registration became law. In 2002, the year before mandatory registration, the numbers were 633 by gun and 1570 by hanging. If you are using this set of stats as a basis for the effectiveness of the gun registry, you are either mistaken or lying. The same stats show total suicides by rope or gun or other means in 1991 to be 3593 (many years before mandatory registration) and in 2004 to be 3613. This is statistically an irrelevant difference. The conclusion: if a person intent on suicide has no access to a gun, they will use a rope, poison, drowning, jumping, whatever. A gun registry makes no difference, end of story.
Myth #2
There is nobody in Canada who can invoke the gun registry for anything. To say otherwise is a flat-out lie. The registry is a list of guns, a very error-filled and grossly incomplete list, nothing more. A list that has been hacked over 300 times, with info found in the possession of a Hell's Angels member. Very comforting this registry is. Barbara Kane can call 1-800-736-4000 like any other citizen of Canada to report dangerous or troubling behaviour in any one, whether they suspect them to be a legal gun owner or not. Or you could just call 911. My, how we need that registry.
Myth #3
The cost of the Registry and the licensing system listed at $1B did not include any secondary costs, like enforcement, nor did the Auditor General find out the true costs. She mentioned quite explicitly that many dollars were hidden within the budgets of other departments, and that the Liberal goverment was not forthcoming with the true figures. This accounts for, at best, 1/2 of all the guns known to be in Canada in possession of at best 1/2 of gun owners. The ones who got properly licensed and registered their guns were those willing to do so. Forcing compliance on the rest (you have to find them first) will cost untold billions of dollars more. Or, we could just scrap the registry and it's future costs and put some more cops on the street, or buy some MRI machines for hospitals, or hell, even put some damned doctors and nurses in the ones we have. Those are proven to make a difference in people's lives, not a bloated bureacracry of lists. And FYI, it was the CBC that came up with the $2Billion figure after it's French-language stations sent in an Access to Information request.
Myth #4
In 2006, Statcan reported a total of 2534 instances of spousal violence causing serious injury as a result of a weapon. Of those weapons, 40 were a firearm. That means that 98.4% were committed with a weapon other than a gun. If you think that $2Billion is worth 1.6%, then it would cost $98Billion to stop spousal violence with weapons. Seeing as how the $2Billion we have spent still amounted to those 40 cases, it was a waste. I hope you have that money ($98Billion) to put where your mouth is, because the people of Canada sure don't.
As for spousal homicide stats, Statscan reports that between 1997 and 2004, 30% were shot, what about the other 70%? Of those, how many were with a legally registered rifle in possession of it's legal owner? It's funny that you cite falling death stats between 1995 and 2004, as those years the Registry wasn't even mandatory. It didn't become mandatory until April 2003. You sort of shot yourself in the foot there, and I find that ironic.
As for the minor inconvenience of registering a gun, it isn't minor. You sometimes have to spend months between your house, phone and post office, with the CFC screwing up your registrations or misplacing documents, and you are legally liable for them doing it, through no fault of your own. I bought a new vehicle this summer, my registration took 7 minutes, and that counted my standing in line. Registering a gun is nowhere near that easy, not even close. I can park my vehicle in my driveway, unregistered. Perfectly legal. The CFC lost my gun club card fax, and as such, all my registrations were null and void for months. I risked no less than 55 years in prison for their mistake. Not very "inconvenient", is it? Only my constant hounding by phone over 13 weeks pushed them to correct it. We spent $2Billion for that?
If you want to equate vehicle/pet registration to gun registration, I'm all for that. I could buy any gun I want, any number I want, I can take them anywhere at anytime, and at most I would face a small fine for not having it registered when it is off of my property. I can use them anwhere I want. I don't need to carry all my paperwork with me all the time, and if I didn't I would get a small fine, not a criminal record. Are you sure that's what you want? I didn't think so. So, to state the ease of gun registration is ignorant, useless tripe.
Do some research.
Myth #2: Dr. Kane has certainly NEVER invoked the registry to remove guns from a house, that is a separate section of the firearms act completely and is part of the licensing portion. It was not difficult to remove guns before C-68, there have been provisions in the criminal code for more than 30 years to allow the police to remove guns from situations where someone feared harm.
It is also nice that you attribute the dropping rate of long gun use in homicide from 1995 onward to the registry, considering it did not come into effect until 2002. If you look at the homicide rates from the early 70's onward, they have shown a steady decline from at least 1974 to around 2005, with no change in the slope of the curve when the registry was brought into effect. In fact, the rates leveled off around 2005 for a number of years, and have begun to climb again, so you could say the registry was responsible for halting the slide in murder rates and now has caused it to increase again.
Myth #3: I would like to see the actual report where the AG said that, it has always been mythically referred to by the pro-registry groups without ever a hard reference. I do know that the AG could only find $1B in expenditures before being stonewalled by bureaucrats at the CFC and she commented that the true cost will never be known because the Liberals were very clever at burying the costs in multiple budgets around numerous departments.
Considering that around 200 people per year are killed with firearms, 98% of which are unregistered, your 5000 killed in 5 years number defies conventional mathematics. The total number of homicides per year (of all methods) is around 600, which will still total up to far less than 5000 in a 5 year period.
Myth #4: If 34% involve long guns (the vast majority of which are unregistered), then 66% involved handguns, which have been severely regulated and registered since 1934. It would appear that the handgun registry is doing as well as the long gun registry in preventing crime. If registration offered any real crime reduction benefits, then 75 years of handgun registration should have driven handgun crime to zero by now. Since the opposite is true, it should be seen as the best evidence available that registration is a waste of time and money if violent crime reduction is your goal.
Yes, we register vehicles. As a way to collect taxes to help pay for the public road system infrastructure. No one has EVER suggested that registration of vehicles will help reduce drunk driving, speeding, theft or other misuse of vehicles, yet registry proponents somehow attribute magical crime reducing properties to the same scheme with regards to firearms.
The CACP is nothing but a corporately sponsored political lobby group and the CPA certainly does not represent the feelings of all of it's members who actually do the police work on the street. I am not sure how being a doctor, health administration or civic planner makes you an expert on gun control or makes your opinion any more relevant than any other citizen of Canada.
Mark
What difference, pray tell, does it make whether someone commits suicide with a firearm or a rope?"
1. Guns are easier to use. Far easier.
2. Guns suit the impulse of the moment.
3. Guns are the leading method of suicide involving trauma.
4. Rope is handy for things other than killing.
5. Guns and suicide go together like pickups and a shotgun.
The stats don't bear it out. Best hang up your bigot apron now.
I can tie a knot in a rope in seconds. It takes me minutes to access my guns and ammunition.
Guns might suit an impulse, but so does poison, a knife, jumping. Better luck next time.
Ever see a jumper? Ever see a knife death, a throat cut perhaps? Nice try again.
Rope is handy for many things. So is a gun. Because you can't think of any doesn't mean they don't exist. My guns have killed nobody, and I've had some for decades. Nice try again.
As for guns and pickups, nice attempt at being a bigot. Maybe learn some manners, and some statistics.
1. Guns are easier to use. Far easier.
2. Guns suit the impulse of the moment.
3. Guns are the leading method of suicide involving trauma.
4. Rope is handy for things other than killing.
5. Guns and suicide go together like pickups and a shotgun.
---
You sir, are so tragically misinformed that it is imperative I correct you for the sake of sanity, though I find it highly unlikely that you will come back to see this most perfect retort to your sad outlook.
1. Guns are easier to use? Not easier than a toaster. Guns have a saftey, toasters do not.
2. Toasters suit the impluse of the moment even better than a Gun. Fun fact: The number of familes that own toasters outstrips those that have guns by a ratio of over 1o to 1.
3. The only reason guns are the 'leading cause' is because the studies that cite that kind of 'conclusion' are funded by anti-gun groups with anti-gun slants to their statistics. Who is tracking toaster deaths? Who wants to upset that particular apple cart? No one. General Electric and their corporate cohorts won't allow that kind of study to even be done with any kind of objectivity.
4. So are guns. I use my .22 caliber rough rider single action revolver for: hammering nails, practicing quick draw in the mirror (hours of fun), making clicking sounds, making tin cans dance, terrorizing the damn squirrels in the yard and thus saving feed for the innocent birds, poking weird objects in the woods that are at first unidentifiable but later turn out to be old logging camp tin cans, paperweight, wall decoration, something to hold while watching Maverick, etc. None of those things, with the possible exception of the squirrels if you consider them life forms, involves killing.
Toasters on the other hand are only good for one thing. Killing people. With carbs from toast that leads to fat which leads to heart attacks (number one killer) or by tossing them in the tub with grandma or by the old 'fork of death,' they are deadly instruments that will kill us all, given enough time. Ban them now.
5. Toasters and suicide go together like anti-gun bigots and calling 911 while their family is murdered by criminals that don't run away like the idiots on the brinks commercials.
Do you really think any man with a functioning survival instinct would dare even try violence against a woman who is more heavily armed then he is?
""What difference, pray tell, does it make whether someone commits suicide with a firearm or a rope?"
Steve Klingaman said:
"1. Guns are easier to use. Far easier.
2. Guns suit the impulse of the moment.
3. Guns are the leading method of suicide involving trauma.
4. Rope is handy for things other than killing.
5. Guns and suicide go together like pickups and a shotgun."
Well, Steve, perhaps you could re-read the question and actually answer it.
Whether one uses a rope or a gun, dead is dead.
Please, do check your fact before making false assumption.. the 'current' leading method of suicide in Canada is 'hanging'... Followed by poisoning...
The number of 'firearm' related suicide has been going done over the last decade... but there are still just as many suicides as before.
That's what happen when you deal with the 'object' instead of dealing with the root of the problem.
"Guns and Suicide
Although most gun owners reportedly keep a firearm in their home for "protection" or "self defense," 83 percent of gun-related deaths in these homes are the result of a suicide, often by someone other than the gun owner.
Firearms are used in more suicides than homicides.
Death by firearms is the fastest growing method of suicide.
Firearms account for 52 percent of all suicides.
Above figures from the National Center for Health Statistics for the year 2005.
Source: American Foundation for Suicide Prevention"
As for the rest of it, I am always pleased and intrigued to see who can discuss the issue without cheap rhetoric.
To further my peer's point, both South Korea and Japan high suicide rates three times that of Canada's and both countries practice strict gun control. None besides conservation officers, military, and paramilitary police are allowed to be in possession of a firearm (less then 1000 licenses for both countries). If you have an illegal gun in those countries... wait for it...
It's the death penality. That's right, you're executed in short order with (ironically) a bullet to the head if you're caught with a gun in Japan or S-Korea. If that isn't a deterrent to gun ownership I don't know what is.
There is no statistical evidence saying that gun ownership has any significant impact on the overall suicide rate, for better or worse. Multiple universities have studied and comcluded that gun control only affects -gun suicides.- Unless somehow gun suicides are more important then other means of killing one self.
From guncite.com:
In Japan, "The maximum penalty is ten years in prison and a one million yen fine."
BTW:
"With no legal civilian handgun possession, Japan experiences in an average year less than 200 violent crimes perpetrated with a handgun, of which almost all are perpetrated by Boryokudan, organised crime groups."
Tokyo is the safest city in the world.
Actually, I think doctors ARE qualified to comment on gun policy, given that they're the ones who see the consequences.
The registry criminalizes people for lapses in paperwork. If I forget to register my dog or car, I do not face 5 years in jail. The old farmer with the shotgun behind the door isn't the threat, yet that is where the resources are being directed.
If you want to reduce suicides and homicides in a meaningful way, push for better mental health services and more policing -- programs that have been PROVEN effective-- unless that isn't your real goal.
The flimsy bits of paper they hand out as registration certificates haven't saved one life. How can they?
Since we are talking about Canadian gun laws... Wouldn't it make sense to use Canadian statistic?
As you probably know, the US have a very different demographic then we do, with very different values and very different social safety net.
"Actually, I think doctors ARE qualified to comment on gun policy, given that they're the ones who see the consequences."
That statement is about as logical as aking plumbers for advice on food quality and additives, as they are the ones who see the result. Typical ignorant tripe.
@ Steve Klingman
You face 5 years in Canada per count, so if you have 10 firerams that the CFC has failed to register accurately, you face 50 years in prison. And yes, I know a fellow who got 3 years and his wife (because she knew) got 18 months.
Perhaps before commenting on Canadian law you should research it a bit first.
And BTW, since when is suicide preventable by limiting means? Guns are not the #1 method in Canada, not by a long shot. So, we obviously need to regulate rope, cleaning chmicals, fire-starting devices and accelerants, tall buildings and vehicles.
Lol!!!
---
"With no legal civilian handgun possession, Japan experiences in an average year less than 200 violent crimes perpetrated with a handgun, of which almost all are perpetrated by Boryokudan, organised crime groups."
Tokyo is the safest city in the world.
---
This is wrong; according to at least two surveys I found online the safest city in the world is Luxembourg followed by Bern, Zurich, and Geneva (all tied with Helsinki).
Tokyo is actually at #35 behind cities like Calgary and even Toronto.
Sources:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/worlds-most-safe-dangerous-cities
http://best-city-reviews.com/index.php/2008/09/safest-cities-in-the-world-mercer-2008/
Oddly or ironically three of the top five safest cities in these lists are in the country with one of the largest propagation of firearms per capita (Switzerland).
Which suggests that the tighter the gun control the less safe you actually are.
http://www.garymauser.net/pdf/KatesMauserHJPP.pdf
As you can see - he was able to prove quite conclusively that there is absolutely no correlation between how many guns there are, and how much crime or violence there is.
Once again, Ms Ackermann plays fast and loose with the facts. What a shame - millons of women have gone without help from women's shelters or other groups that could have helped protect them due to a lack of funding in the time when the gun registry consumed over 2 billion dollars in resources. Every penny spent on the gun registry is a penny taken away from REAL solutions to violence.
I didn't comment on Canadian law, I asked a question to get a sense of how stringent the enforcement was.
Otherwise, I did use a U.S. statistic, but I did with a point: I suggest that if Canada had looser gun laws, guns would overtake hanging as the most popular method, at least for men, who generally prefer guns.
My point was guns are just so easy to use, unlike toasters.
Tokyo as safest city came from guncite.com.
Guns are not easy to use in Canada. They must be behind a minimum of 2 locks for non-restricted rifles and 3 locks for handguns and restricted rifles and 3 locks plus disassembly for prohibited firearms. The ammunition must be stored and locked up seperately. This virtually negates the ability to use a firearm for self defence (as seconds count) and requires minutes to access both gun and ammunition in Canada, legally. Like I said, I can tie a knot in seconds, it takes me seconds to jump in the shower with a toaster, or seconds to down a bottle of sleeping pills. Guns are not a convenient method for suicide in Canada (legally stored guns anyways), anyone who says different is NOT a gun owner and has no idea what they are talking about. You wouldn't ask a bicyclist who has never owned a car for advice on driving skills, nor licensing, registration procedures and requirements, nor storage of an automobile.
I suspect that storage regulations in the U.S. are alot less stringent than here, in which case your point "may" have some merit.
But on the flip side, we can all agree that a firearm would make for an effective way to end your life, should one decide to do it. If they have taken it upon themselves to make their end, is it better that it be done, truly, or that the person survives with severe mental or physical disability? This is not a cold and unfeeling comment, but rather a simple fact as to the result of attempts. I used to work with a fellow who's whole family had problems with depression and suicide. His older brother attempted many times, and the toll it took on his mind and body were horrendous.
Suicide is a personal decision, just like abortion or euthanasia, and it is not for me to judge the how or the why, but as a society, we need to be able to offer people the tools and help they need to battle their demons. Sadly, the $2Billion wasted (it is alot of money in Canada) could have gone to programs not only for suicide, but for abused spouses (male and female), addictions treatment and homelessness. What we got was a grossly over-cost, grossly innaccurate, grossly incomplete list of who owns what firearms, when we had lists for 73 years already on handguns, we already had a licensing program in-place and paid for since 1977, and already had automatic weapons banned since 1968. Safety training was made available in the 1980's, so really, our registry has gained us nothing except the diversion of much needed funds from programs that dealt directly with people (all people) at risk.
This is the real tragedy. Our registry makes those ignorant of it "feel good" but it accomplishes none of the crime-fighting it was sold to Canadians as doing. Cops on the street fight crime, gang-busting task forces fight crime, drug enforcement fights crime. A list of guns is nothing more than a list, and unless it is 100% accurate and complete, it is worse than useless, it is dangerous. Our registry will never be complete or accurate, it is impossible to fix because it was set up and operated by people who know little to nothing about firearms or firearms owners.
"I suggest that if Canada had looser gun laws, guns would overtake hanging as the most popular method, at least for men, who generally prefer guns.
My point was guns are just so easy to use, unlike toasters."
And I ask again, what difference does it make what the conveyance of suicide is? If last year we happened to have 2000 suicides and they all were by poison pill, then this year we again had 2000 suicides and they were by
Perhaps I should instead focus my efforts on creating a world where we have no firearms at all, then we would be safe from firearm related deaths.
A 'anti-gun ray' or perhaps a 'magic gun legislation wand' that would sweep them all into a black hole.
Of course if we keep eliminating weapons we'll be down to using pipes and bricks, like those thugs used to murder that poor kid in Chicago recently.
We could then pass legislation that would make such things impossible, by removing our limbs.
With robots or other devices we could have ourselves fed and taken care of, and have no worries of violence.
Of course we could always offend someone or tell the robots to kill somebody.
I'm sure we'll come up with something to stop that. Tape perhaps?
The fact is, no one will ever be 'convinced' by so called rational arguments on either side of this case because of the base emotions inovled.
Those that advocate guns and gun rights have an emotional component to that and it is love. Mine is seated in 50's westerns, warm hunting memories, hours at the range as a kid, military service and involvement in a manhunt in the swamps of Georgia.
Those that feel guns need to be controlled, regulated or even banned altogether also have an emotional component to that and it is hate. A memory or series of experiences or exposure to media caused them at some point to fear of these dangerous devices that do nothing but cause death in their eyes.
The truth? Both sides are right in their feelings because feelings are simply emotions with no factual value. Statistics can be spun around all day but when the sun sets we're either afraid of inanimate metal or we're afraid of being defenseless and controlled.
We either love the idea of a world without violence (seemingly absurd) or a world where applied violence can solve problems (seemingly absurd)
Which is why I argue not only from the position of authority, but also with the emotional fervor of the absurd. We are not vulcans, Steve, we're chimps without the proper incisors.
Your supporters will support you, your detractors will not, and no one's mind will change with the boring repetition of 'studies and stats,' from either side.
You missed my point. Firearms do not contribute significantly to overall suicide rates. In fact there's too many factors to say that guns really have an overall impact on anything.
@ Myriad
There are proud law abiding Canadians that see exactly what gun violence can do everyday. Seeing mutilated bodies is part of their daily routine and probably more then a few of those bodies met their end at the muzzle of a Canadian rifle.
Yet it seems odd that a Canadian Forces Soldier is never asked by anyone in authority whether he thinks gun control.
Whether it be a gun, a rope, a jug of pills, or a hose from the exhaust pipe...they will.
Failed attempts are generally a cry for help.
People who want to be dead, will be dead. Plain and simple.
_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_
hanging, shouldn't we be asking "why are 2000 people killing themselves?" rather than "why did they choose this particular method?"?
_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_
Best comment I've read in quite a while!
I had a similar discussion with a guy who was saying the new fence they put up on the Jacque-Cartier bridge in Montreal had saved so many lives...
He got quite upset when I told him that it was nothing more then smokes and mirrors... since there was still just as many Quebecers killing themselves as before... they just chose a different bridge/mean to their ends.
Ignoring the root of the problem will not make it go away.
Steve, sometime in the near future, I will tackle this subject. I can tell you that it won’t be pretty.
The results show very strong correlations between the presence of guns in the home and suicide committed with a gun, rates of gun-related homicide involving female victims, and gun-related assault. The picture is different for male homicide, total rates of assault, and generally, for robbery (committed with or without a gun). With the exception of robbery, most correlations are similar or stronger when all types of guns are considered, rather than handguns alone. Interestingly, no significant correlations with total suicide or homicide rates were found, leaving open the question of possible substitution effects. It is concluded that guns in the home are an important risk factor in suicide with guns, as well as a threat to women (especially female partners), whereas their role in homicide of male victims and street crime (such as robbery) may be much less prominent. Finally, the usual focus on handguns may lead to underestimate the role of other types of guns.
Killias, M., Van Kesteren, J., Rindlisbacher, M. (2001) Guns, violent crime, and suicide in 21 countries. Canadian Journal of Criminology, Vol. 43 Issue 4, pp. 429-448.
However, this is not to mean that you can't stab, beat or strangle your spouse. The means of death or injury is hardly relevant. Substitution will and does occur. There are not enough bans to ever take that away. But when you divert resources from fighting the disease by only treating the symptoms, failure is inevitable as evidenced clearly in Canada, and around the world. The genocide in Rwanda was perpetrated with machetes and clubs, too bad a few armed men weren't available to put down a couple roving bands of thugs, how quickly it would have ended.
As for suicide, the Statscan data is quite clear that reduced access to firearms has reduced suicide by these means. It does show that the suicides occurred by other means. This is unequivocal proof of the failure of our system.
Licensing and registration were sold to Canadians as being a $2 million program to reduce crime. Neither of which has happenned, and now the focus is that registration is used by police to solve crime (with no cases where this is proven to have occurred) and as a matter of public and women's safety. Again, this is a big claim with no facts to support it whatsoever. Our rates of gun crime are increasing, we are currently #6 for violent crime in the developed world, far ahead of the U.S. (#11) with it's much less stringent gun laws, but thankfully back of the #1 UK with it's virtual ban of firerams. How can this be, our registry was supposed to deal with this? The answer is it can't, it won't, no matter what media or gun-control spin you want to apply.
If we don't remember history, we are doomed to repeat its mistakes. In the age of the internet, apparently our memories are not what they used to be.
First, it is important to point out that my comments above are not targeted towards the Canadian long gun registry, but to comments suggesting that the number of firearms (per capita or actual values) has no relationship with violent crimes, as discussed by people above and in other recent comments I read on other posts.
Second, I’m sure you’ll agree that it is much more difficult to kill a human being with your bare hands, than with any kind of firearms. Furthermore, I assume you’ll also agree at it is more difficult to go on a killing spree and kill as many as people with a firearm, especially with a semi-automatic weapon as many people have in the U.S., than with a knife or machete (note: the prevalence of cold weapons is probably very low in both Canada and the US compared to Rwanda). For instance, I am wondering if Seung-Hui Cho on April 16, 2007 at Virginia Tech would have been able to kill 32 people in about 15 to 20 minutes (the total time he spent shooting at people). The same question can be asked about Marc Lépine on Dec 6th, 1989.
The more firearms you have (I understand this is dependent upon the kind of regulations put upon by the government of a country), the greater the exposure, the greater risk that people will get hurt (either being self-inflected, committing a crime or involved in an accident); this also includes legit guns being stolen and sold on the black market (as it happened to some I knew). You may have heard about the man who killed his fiancé in the middle of the night thinking that it was burglar entering his house; both were to get married within the next two or three days. If the man had a knife, perhaps he would have noticed that it was his fiancé coming in. I can also list numerous occasions where I read that a child was killed or killed another sibling when the kid played with the parents’ firearm. None other yesterday, a man killed four of his relatives in a family dispute. I am sure you get the point.
As I said above, I intend to write something on this topic based empirical evidence (if I have the time).
Some other things to think about:
Data reveal that people in the United States are three times more likely than Canadians to own firearms on a per-capital basis and are five times more likely to own a handgun. At most, only 5 percent of Canadians obtain a firearm for self-defense. In contrast, about one-third of gun owners in the United States cite self-defense as the main reason for keeping firearms. The rate of firearm homicides is 7 times higher in the United States than in Canada, and the handgun homicide rate is 15 times higher. The rate of robberies involving firearms in the United States is almost 3.5 times the Canadian rate; the firearm suicide rate is 2 times higher; and the rate of deaths from firearms accidents is 3 times higher. In addition, police officers in the United States are seven times more likely than Canadian police officers to be killed in the line of duty; they are almost always killed by firearms. The data also suggest that people in the United States are generally more supportive than Canadians of civilian gun ownership and the use of firearms for self-defense; they also place a higher value on individual rights, while Canadians are more likely to value the collective good. Canadians are authorized to carry handguns for self-defense only in rare circumstances; the majority of States in the United States allow citizens to carry concealed weapons. Both countries maintain a strong tradition of firearms use for hunting and sport shooting. Tables, list of cases, fact sheet, separate report presenting firearms statistics, and 70 references.
From: Firearms and Self-Defence: A Comparison of Canada and the United States: Working Document. Prepared by the Canada Department of Justice (1997).
None other than yesterday, a man killed four of his relatives in a family dispute. I am sure you get the point.
As I said above, I intend to write something on this topic based empirical evidence (if I have the time).
Some other things to think about:
Data reveal that people in the United States are three times more likely than Canadians to own firearms on a per-capital basis and are five times more likely to own a handgun. At most, only 5 percent of Canadians obtain a firearm for self-defense. In contrast, about one-third of gun owners in the United States cite self-defense as the main reason for keeping firearms. The rate of firearm homicides is 7 times higher in the United States than in Canada, and the handgun homicide rate is 15 times higher. The rate of robberies involving firearms in the United States is almost 3.5 times the Canadian rate; the firearm suicide rate is 2 times higher; and the rate of deaths from firearms accidents is 3 times higher. In addition, police officers in the United States are seven times more likely than Canadian police officers to be killed in the line of duty; they are almost always killed by firearms. The data also suggest that people in the United States are generally more supportive than Canadians of civilian gun ownership and the use of firearms for self-defense; they also place a higher value on individual rights, while Canadians are more likely to value the collective good. Canadians are authorized to carry handguns for self-defense only in rare circumstances; the majority of States in the United States allow citizens to carry concealed weapons. Both countries maintain a strong tradition of firearms use for hunting and sport shooting. Tables, list of cases, fact sheet, separate report presenting firearms statistics, and 70 references.
From: Firearms and Self-Defence: A Comparison of Canada and the United States: Working Document. Prepared by the Canada Department of Justice (1997).
The truth based on surveys is that it's also far easier to defend yourself with a gun than with you bare hands.
Fact is that in both Canada (yes Canada) and in the US guns are used defensively far more frequently than they are actually used to kill.
Not by a small margin either in both cases.
Yes on a mathematical abstract level fewer guns will mean fewer gun deaths but on a practical level as has been demonstrated two things happen:
1) There is no correlation between gun control and public safety; as has been pointed out countries with tighter gun control such as Russia (absolute gun ban), UK (absolute gun ban), and Mexico (people can only by .22 rifles) all have higher rates of not only gun violence but of violence than countries with less gun control.
2) Substitution occurs in almost every case where violence is involved, i.e. remove the guns and people find other means to do wrong. Fewer guns = few gun suicides but the suicide rate remains the same. Few guns = fewer spousal shootings but the overall spousal homicide rate remains unchanged, Rwanda, etc...
So from where I sit neither the government nor the gun control lobbies have met any kind of burder of proof in support of either the Firearms Registry in Canada nor the (potential and real) abuses of our Charter Rights enabled by bill C68.
The means are not the reason to legislate, it is irrelevant and dangerous public policy, as evidenced by the societies where this has occurred. What is needed is defense against attack, and punishment for the attackers.
Would it make sense for a government to shelve it's military because it wants to be seen as a peaceful nation? That invites attack from those that have kept their military. This happens everyday on a personal level in society. Becuase someone has access to guns does not mean that they will die by them, but they can. It also means that they have an effective defense against criminals, who are in fact armed, no amount of legislation is ever going to change that. That choice needs to rest with each person, not with lobbyists thousands of miles away.
HappyPappy,
First point: The studies I read so far (the original peer-reviewed documents, not the numbers based on websites; given my line of work I have access to them) actually say otherwise. See the examples I listed above.
Second point: So far, only one study claimed a substitution, but only for suicide. Similar to the first point, all the other studies I have seen do not show a 1-to-1 substitution, including for domestic violence; it is much more personal to kill someone with a cold weapon BTW. This reminds me of the whole debate about the Risk Homeostasis theory: if you try to improve traffic safety, people adjust their behavior and consequently go back to their previous risk level. It was easily shown that was not true, which I won't get into here.
If one can show me that someone can kill 32 people and injure another 25 in the same amount of time it took Cho to do it, I’ll concede this point.
On a side note, comparing Rwanda with Canada and the US about spousal murders is not a valid comparison. Note: I worked in Western Africa.
Brad E.,
First, I refer you to Bill Beck’s post who is a former Marine, expert marksman and former police officer about such scenario. Make sure to read his comments below the article about the consequences of being hit by a bullet when you are trying to save the day. It is very fascinating.
Second, I am anticipating a scenario where a shooter starts his rampage (since most are males). Then, a person nearby with a concealed weapon starts firing at the first shooter, misses him and hits somebody who fleeing the scene (with a lawsuit pending afterwards). Soon thereafter, another person with a concealed weapon shows up and is confused by the commotion and then starts shooting at the second individual thinking he is the “real” shooter. Perhaps a third bravado shows up, which could complicate things even more.
Third, you may have heard about Meleanie Hain who was an open carry firearm enthusiastic. Although she had her weapon ready (with a bullet in the chamber) for any encounter, she was killed by… her husband who used his own weapon against her.
As for the military, I am not where this comes from, since we are not talking about invading countries. As far as I know, military personnel are not allowed to carry weapons on and outside military bases (except for the MP). I invite you to read a comment made by a Russian writer about using firearms in the context of an invasion:
Malusinka
That will be it for me on this post. Here’s another relevant quote:
"Despite significant progress, gun violence remains a national tragedy. In 1998, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 30,708 people died from gun-related injuries in this country, and over one-third of a million violent crimes were committed with firearms. Every day, on average, 84 people-including 10 children-are shot and killed in the United States. In the last two years alone, more American civilians died from gunfire than all of the American soldiers killed during the nine years of the Vietnam War. And for each fatal firearms injury, there were nearly three non-fatal injuries.
The carnage caused by guns in the United States is unique among developed nations. Children under age 15 are murdered with guns in our country at a rate 16 times higher than in the 25 other wealthiest industrialized countries combined. Firearms injuries are the eighth leading cause of death in the United States, and a leading cause of injury-related death. The economic impact of this violence is staggering. The medical costs of gun injuries have been estimated to exceed $2 billion each year, and work loss costs have been estimated at $20 billion or more per year."
Source: http://www.justice.gov/archive/opd/ExecSum.htm (Taken from Steve’s post)
4 police officers shot dead in coffee shop
As I discussed above, even if you are armed, you can also be an easy target. This is what Bill Beck, a former police officer, explained in his post and subsequent comments.
My thoughts are with the officers’ families. Very tragic.
Wow. I'm not sure I've met any gun owners who are able to hit a target at 2000 metres with the first shot. But that doesn't mean they should just put down their guns and walk away.
I also own a scalpel, and have had to perform minor surgery to remove embedded objects (usually steel) from my hands. I wouldn't attempt brain surgery.
Nice try.
@ Kanuk
Do you want to tell me why the crime rate in the U.S. is dropping at a rate much faster than in Canada? Since the advent of carry laws down south? Is it a "gun" thing or a "society" thing? And could you explain why the states that don't have carry (concealed or open) have crime rates much higher than neighbouring ones with carry?
Now, for the dead officers, a gun is only as good (or as bad) as they guy that uses it. A handgun is not meant to hit a target at 200 metres, most handgun shootings take place at 21 feet or less. Now, if you are part of a battle which one party has a knife, and the other a gun, is the knife going to win at 21 feet or less, or is the gun? Which side of that euqtion would you like to be on, and with which weapon?
I live way up north, and violent crime is everywhere, armed or not. It took the RCMP 6 full minutes to arrive at my house to take down a man trying to break in late on a Saturday night 6 weeks ago. Had he succeeded in gaining entry, or had accomplices, what havoc could have been wrought in 6 minutes? Luckily, I have chosen to defend the borders of my home and my family with every means at my disposal. If I am forced to face a gun by a criminal, I will respond appropriately, as is my right under law. This is not a delusion, but a cold, hard reality.
In summary, there was one research paper by an American criminologist that for a short time supported gun control but was later withdrawn by the publisher as it could not stand up to peer review (don't remember the name).
Other reports by Kleck however strongly suggest that defensive gun use outstrips gun homicide by a large factor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck
To date I haven't seen or heard of any valid rebuttals.
A similar study done in Canada by Gary Mauser also states that defensive gun use outstrips gun homicides, only the proportions are different.
http://www.garymauser.net/papers.html
There was also other papers by John Lott.
Going further, reading various international surveys one finds that three of the safest cities in the world are in Switzerland which has a higher proportion of gun ownership than the UK which has seen increasing rates of gun and violent crime ever since they implemented their absolute gun ban in 1998 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6372717.stm).
So at best I still see no correlation between gun control and public safety and at worst I see a decrease in public safety with tighter gun control.
The answer is very easy: demographic.
Did you know that the following two authors predicted the huge drop in violent crime rate from the mid-90s onwards?
Steffensmier, D.J., and M.L. Harder (1987) Is the crime rate really falling? An “aging” U.S. population and its impact on the nation’s crime rate, 1980-1984. Journal of Research Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 24, No.1, pp. 23-48.
This was based on a study done 13 years before the projected crime rate. Interestingly, they predicted a drop of about 12% and 15% was observed between 1980 and 2000.
Did you also know that the violent crime rate has actually plateau’d since 2004 in the US? According to experts and criminologists, we should have seen more reduction in the crime rate. In their words, this means that the crime rate has actually increased.
In short, no gun voodoo here.
Overall, I find this very puzzling. Over the last few days, we witnessed people being murdered left and right with firearms, and you are still here arguing that more guns make a safer society .
HappyPappy,
Some researchers at Ryerson University (her name escapes me) and University of Ottawa (http://thomasgabor.com/about_us.htm) among others would beg to differ.
I checked a website recently that said one thing about a study, but when I went to read the original study, the authors actually said the opposite.
As I said before, I may try to write a detailed post about it. If you want a sample about how much research I put into my posts, here are a few:
Living in a Third World country (aka The United States)
Global Warming: A 'figure' is worth 1,000 words
Advocating personal responsibility in health: Bullshit!
It is puzzling because you don't understand people or human nature. The 2 largest acts of mass murder committed in the U.S. used airplanes and explosives.
Had an armed air marshall been on those planes, would 9/11 have happened?
People get murdered all the time, in a variety of ways. Why is this shocking? Our guns laws in Canada (which is what we are talking about here and you are puzzled because you don't understand them whatsoever) have been getting more restrictive since they were enacted. How can this be? How do laws become more restrictive since they were written? Easy. When you have laws which are almost solely discretionary, one simply needs to get the administrator of such laws to use more stringent discretion. The registry uses less discretion than our licensing system, but it exists nonetheless.
Considering how handguns have been registered in Canada since 1934, and since the coming into force of Bill C-68 in 1998 for handguns (making them virtually prohibited except for 1 heavily regulated loophole), why is handgun crime on the rise in Canada? It is only from the criminal element. Now, they have guns, and always will, period, end of story. The convicted criminal in Washington who killed 4 police officers is proof of that. Should society as a whole be made to be victims of criminals simply because guns are "bad"?
Time to step out of the academia and look at the real world.
If guns were the problem, there would be none, but obviously that isn't the case. Crime is not a gun problem, but a people problem.
27 Mar 2002
Netanya, Isreal
30 fatalities, 140 wounded. A Palestinian suicide bomber passed a security guard at the hotel's entrance, walked through the lobby passing the reception desk and entered the hotel's dining room where he detonated an explosive device he carried in a suitcase during Passover.
Jan. 18, 2003
US Coalition HQ in Iraq
31 fatalities, 60 wounded. Suicide bomber with 1000 lbs of explosive material in his truck detonates at the front gate of the base.
17 Jun 2004:
Baghdad
35 fatalities, 155 wounded. Suicide bomber that drove into a crowded Iraqi army recruiting center before detonating.
28 February 2005:
Hilla, Iraq
120 fatalities, 130 wounded. A suicide car bomber explodes his vehicle amongst a crowd of people applying for jobs in Iraq's new security forces.
10 March 2005:
Mosul, Iraq
47 fatalities, 100 wounded. A suicide bomber attacks a funeral being held at a Shiite mosque.
4 Jan 2006
Baghdad
32 fatalities, 40 fatalities. Shiite funeral of which the bomber merely walked into the middle of before detonating.
12 November 2006:
Baghdad
35 fatalities, 58 wounded. A suicide bomber walked into a police recruiting centre in Baghdad and blew himself up.
18 July 2006:
Kufa, Iraq.
59 fatalities, 100+ wounded. A suicide car bomb in the middle of a busy marketplace.
23 July 2006:
Sadr City, Iraq
34 fatalities, 70 wounded. A suicide bomber driving a minibus blows it up near a market.
10 August 2006:
Najaf, Iraq
35 fatalities, 122 wounded. A suicide bomber detonates a belt of explosives at a police checkpoint.
16 January2007
Mustansiriya University, Iraq
70 fatalities, 180 wounded. A double car bombing on the university campus, including one suicide attack (the other was just a bombing).
3 February 2007
Baghdad
135+ fatalities, 339 wounded. A large truck bomb detonated in the middle of a crowded Iraqi market.
24 February 2007:
Habbaniyah
42+ fatalities, 60 wounded. A suicide truck bomber rammed into a mosque and detonated.
25 February 2007
Baghdad
41+ fatalities, 46 wounded. A suicide detonates a belt bomb on a local college. Majority of killed and wounded were business students.
5 March 2007
Baghdad
38 fatalities, 105 wounded. A suicide bomber in a crowded book marketplace.
24 March 2007
Baghdad
33 fatalities, 44 wounded. A suicide truck bomb attack on a police station.
27 March 2007
Tal Afar, Iraq
152 fatalities, 347 wounded. Two truck bombs targeting the Shia areas of the Tal Afar.
March 29 2007:
Al-Shaab market, Iraq
82 fatalities, 138 wounded. Two suicide bombers on foot killed in a market.
14 April 2007
Kerbala, Iraq
44 fatalities, 224 wounded. A suicide car bomber detonates at a crowded bus station near a major Shi'ite shrine
18 April 2007
Sadr City, Iraq
44 fatalities, 76 wounded. A suicide bomber walked into a crowded marketplace
30 April 2007:
Khalis, Iraq
32 fatalities, 52 wounded. A suicide vest bomber targeted a Shi'ite funeral
13 May 2007
Mahkmoor Iraq
50 fatalities 150 wounded. Suicide truck bombing targeting a KDP office.
19 June 2007
Baghdad
87 fatalities, 200 wounded. Truck bombing targeting a Shiite shrine
7 July 2007
Amirli, Iraq
156 fatalities, 255 wounded. A truck bomber targeted a busy marketplace
16 July 2007
Kirkuk, Iraq
85+ fatalities, 183 wounded. A double car and truck suicide bombing targeting the headquarters of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and the Haseer food market
1 August 2007
Baghdad
50 fatalities, 60 wounded. A suicide bomber driving a fuel tanker blew his vehicle up near a petrol station
1 February 2008
Baghdad
99 fatalities, 200 wounded. Two bombs explode in Baghdad animal markets The Iraqi government claims that the bombs were carried by women and detonated remotely.
17 June 2008
Baghdad
63 fatalities, 75 wounded A car bomb at a busy bus stop in northern Baghdad
17 Feb 2008:
Just outside of Kandahar, Afghanistan
80 fatalities, a further 90 wounded. Suicide bomber in a crowded dog fighting arena.
13 February 2009
Hilla, Iraq
35 fatalities, 76 wounded. A female suicide bomber attack on Shia pilgrims.
23 April 2007
Diyala, Iraq
57 fatalities, 55 wounded. A suicide bomber attack on a restaurant targeting Iranian pilgrims.
Shall I go on?
starscream: please go back and read the main topic of this post above. Furthermore, given your extensive list, you should also ask yourself why a firearm was useless in preventing the event listed. Remember, according to Brad E., the prevalence of firearms would have prevented these events. Could you? Bear in mind the HQ in Iraq was guarded by trained and armed military personnel. Go read this comment about how difficult or impossible it is to identify people who would carry these kinds of acts. Back to square one…
(Setting aside the illogical comparison between the topic of this post and suicide bombers in the Middle and Far East)
How many spouses blew themselves up, using an explosive strapped vest, to kill their partner in the US and Canada over the last twenty years?
How many people did the same thing, that is kill themselves using an explosive device, in order to kill law enforcement and military personnel over the last twenty years?
If we were to remove all firearms in the US and Canada (other than law enforcement and military people), how many people would now use explosive device to kill the person they intended to kill? (note: remove mafia style hits)
On the same topic, there were exactly 30,896 people killed by a firearm, of which about 12,791 was the result of an homicide, in the US in 2006. Do you think that about say 10,000 criminals (1.3 people killed per criminal) would suddenly switch to using an explosive device to kill the person they intend to kill? Explain to me where all these folks (10,000) would be able to get their material in addition to know how to build their device.
The government went to the pro-gun control crowd to create the laws Canada has now, and they are nothing but a mess. This is what happens when you get people who have ZERO knowledge of people and firearms making law controlling both. It is one thing to look at data and think you know what is going on, and another to be a gun owner living in society, who is also looking at the same data. Who do you think is more qualified to make a judgement on the validity or utility of a law regarding firearms? I promise you it is not the hoplophobic academic.
Aapparently, you have not taken the time to even look at Canadian gun laws, and have not had to deal with the crap that is involved if you actually attempt to get a license or register your guns in Canada. If you did, you would not be commenting. It is very easy to comment when you don't own a gun.
This is the topic of this blog after all.
How many people died in Rwanda as a result of guns during the genocide there? Virtually none, machetes and clubs were the weapons of choice.
Criminal, especially gangs, are not going to stop killing each other or innocent people simply becasue they can't get any guns. How many people died during the bombing in Montreal during the Rock Machine/Hell's Angels war?
I can get the material for very powerful explosives at any hardware store or gas station, no permit or license required, and it takes a matter of seconds to manufacture. Timothy McVeigh killed over 160 people in Oklahoma City this way, think of how easy it is if you only want to kill a couple dozen or so.
Kind of a lame-duck theory about "no guns = no murder".
Sorry but I didn't see or have access to any reports or papers from the second link (Gabor) .
If you could point me to any valid and reviewed research that actually demonstrates an increase in public safety with tighter gun control I'd be happy to read it.
On an anecdotal note, before the kids came along I volunteered with the police service in Calgary and was fortunate enough to go on a ride along.
Talking to front line officers I can unequivocally say that they don't use the firearms registry in Canada because they don't trust it which if anything else confirms that the registry is useless.
The other thing I can also unequivocally say is that the officers I talk ed to actually support private firearm ownership.
My apologies, I did not realize that those that foreigners didn't count as people. I was merely attempting to answer your point asking to be shown someone could kill 32 people and injure an additional 27 in the same amount of time it took Cho to do so.
"please go back and read the main topic of this post above. Furthermore, given your extensive list, you should also ask yourself why a firearm was useless in preventing the event listed. Remember, according to Brad E., the prevalence of firearms would have prevented these events. Could you? Bear in mind the HQ in Iraq was guarded by trained and armed military personnel. Go read this comment about how difficult or impossible it is to identify people who would carry these kinds of acts. Back to square one…"
The answer is simple: time. Suicide bombers don’t give you time to react. If they do they made a mistake.
And Brad E isn’t saying that firearms would’ve prevented a suicide bombing. They probably would not have even prevented any of the current shootings. But can you honestly say that there is a 0 probability that the presence of a well trained and alert person discreetly carrying a pistol that was nearby when the shooting started would not have affected the overall outcome? Probably quite a few would’ve still died, but can you say with complete certainly that Cho would’ve been able to shoot and all 60 people with complete impunity had someone started firing back?
As for your questions:
Answer 1: That’s literally impossible a task. Not even Columbine or Ecole Polytechnique was exactly the same, only vaguely similar.
Answer 2: None. May I ask how many spouses were stabbed, bludgeoned, drowned, or otherwise murdered in a violent fashion that did not involve firearms in the last 20 years?
Answer 3: Quite a few actually, but since those of Middle Eastern ethnicity obviously are not counted, then I’ll probably have to go looking around.
Answer 4: Probably none, they’d use another means if they were so determined. Of course, getting rid of all the guns in the US and Canada is a pipe dream at best, completely and utterly impossible at worst.
Answer 5: Oddly enough… something called the internet and/or high school chemistry. Low explosives are extremely easy synthesize (black powder comes to mind) and can be ignited easily using a small electronic heating element, 4xAA batteries and a N.O. switch. An even better primary explosive would be acetone peroxide that can be made using acetone (paint remover), hydrogen peroxide (grocery store), and muriatic acid (Rona, Home Depot, it’s just renamed hydrochloric acid. Although I’ve been told you can substitute almost any strong acid for it). I can’t remember the exact stoich reactions off the top my head though. Combined with a secondary explosive with a strong oxidizing agent such as ammonium nitrate (ground fertilizer) or urea nitrate (yes…it’s made from urine) makes for an effective explosive. Course that’s just one possible combination, I’ve seen all sorts of neat explosive mixtures that I would never of dreamed of.
If you’re not so technically inclined or just plain lazy, get a drivers license, walk to your local welding supply shop and pick up cylinders of acetylene and oxygen (yes it’s that easy, I did gas welding on and off as a hobby). Acetylene can detonate all by itself if you let too much flow out of the tank over a given period of time, mix in with a cracked oxygen tank and confined space, and boom.
My apologies too, I did not know either that you do not care about your fellow Americans and Canadians (we’ll include the Europeans too, but I’ll get to it later). Hey, what’s a few more killed by a firearm. They’re just people after all.
You see, me too I like to put words in people’s mouth. (Brad E.: Speaking of putting words in people’s mouth, I need to point out that I never said “no guns = no murder”)
BTW, I am still waiting on an event of the magnitude of Cho that was done with a knife, which was always the intent of my initial statement.
Since we all are on the theme of terrorist acts done in a time of war, as well as genocides that occurred across the world, don’t forget to add the bombs dropped on Hiroshima on Aug. 6th, 1945 (~80,000 people) and Nagasaki on Aug. 9th, 1945 (~45,000). In theory, these airplanes could have been brought down using gun fire. Perhaps we should add Pol Pot to this list. He and his regime killed more than 1.5 million people, using various methods including pistols, machetes, blunt weapons, and even torture instruments (gosh we almost forgot that one).
While you spend your time continuing listing different methods for killing people in North America and abroad, I’ll get back to my original argument. Thus, let’s get back to business shall we?
But can you honestly say that there is a 0 probability that the presence of a well trained and alert person discreetly carrying a pistol that was nearby when the shooting started would not have affected the overall outcome?
I’m happy to see that we agree that a well trained and alert person, such as a police officer (both in uniform or undercover) (perhaps we could include a security guard, but I’ll leave this one alone), could have affected the outcome, unlike amateurs such as yourself and Brad E. (see the scenario above about amateurs trying to take care of business)
They probably would not have even prevented any of the current shootings.
You claim that professionally trained people cannot prevent shootings. Thus, by your logic, there is no need for amateurs to carry a weapon, since they are even less able to prevent shootings, even after it started.
(Do not worry, I’m already anticipating that you are well-trained and are able to shoot the wings of flies blindfolded)
Yet it seems odd that a Canadian Forces Soldier is never asked by anyone in authority whether he thinks gun control.
I have and this person participated in two wars as well as killed people on the battlefield. Yet, he agrees with me.
There is no statistical evidence saying that gun ownership has any significant impact on the overall suicide rate, for better or worse. Multiple universities have studied and comcluded that gun control only affects -gun suicides.- Unless somehow gun suicides are more important then other means of killing one self.
We’ll see below.
Okay, ready?
Let’s go!
First, let’s see between Canada and the US. When major cities are removed, the homicide rate is still two (location with less firearms) to three times higher (location with more firearms) in the US than in Canada rather than the raw rate of 3.5. How about that? I suggest you open a series of businesses in Canada to help potential criminals sharpen their killing methods (machete, putting pipe bombs together, etc.), as a substitution for the lack of firearms. You would make a killing (money wise that is). This could even out the ratio of homicides between both countries.
In the past three decades, a number of researchers have undertaken the comparison of American and Canadian crime rates. Among them, Lipset (1990) and Hagan (1991) have shown that violence was more frequent south of the border than in Canada. Using infra-national disaggregated crime rates, this article shows that differences in the two countries' crime rates are not univocal. First, there is no significant difference in the prevalence in burglaries and in car thefts between both nations. Second, differences in the robbery rate and the homicide rate shrink dramatically when controlling for the region and removing the effect of metropolises. What makes U.S. crime rates appear much higher than Canadian ones can be attributable to a small number of states and cities that have extraordinarily high crime rates. Two factors are proposed to account for this situation: residential segregation of the poor within cities and the availability of firearms.
Crime in Canada and in the United States: A Comparative Analysis. Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology Aug99, Vol. 36 Issue 3, p389-408
More to follow! I’m just getting started.
BACKGROUND: The availability of firearms in homes and at aggregate levels is a risk factor for suicide and homicide. One method of reducing access to suicidal means is the restriction of firearm availability through more stringent legislation. AIMS: To evaluate the impact of firearm legislation reform on firearm suicides and homicides as well as on the availability of firearms in Austria. METHOD: Official statistics on suicides, firearm homicides and firearm licences issued from 1985 to 2005 were examined. To assess the effect of the new firearm law, enacted in 1997, linear regression and Poisson regressions were performed using data from before and after the law reform. RESULTS: The rate of firearm suicides among some age groups, percentage of firearm suicides, as well as the rate of firearm homicides and the rate of firearm licences, significantly decreased after a more stringent firearm law had been implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide evidence that the introduction of restrictive firearm legislation effectively reduced the rates of firearm suicide and homicide. The decline in firearm-related deaths seems to have been mediated by the legal restriction of firearm availability. Restrictive firearm legislation should be an integral part of national suicide prevention programmes in countries with high firearm suicide rates.
Firearm legislation reform in the European Union: impact on firearm availability, firearm suicide and homicide rates in Austria. British Journal of Psychiatry 191:253-7, 2007 Sep 191:253-7, 2007.
Where did I say this again? Brad E., read this one carefully. There is more below. Don’t worry.
This article reviews the most commonly cited, representative, empirical studies in the peer-reviewed literature that directly investigate the association of gun availability and homicide victimization. Individual-level studies (n=4) are reviewed that investigate the risks and benefits of owning a personal or household firearm. The research suggests that households with firearms are at higher risk for homicide, and there is no net beneficial effect of firearm ownership. No longitudinal cohort study seems to have investigated the association between a gun in the home and homicide. Two groups of ecological studies are reviewed, those comparing multiple countries and those focused solely on the United States. Results from the cross-sectional international studies (n=7) typically show that in high-income countries with more firearms, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. Time series (n=10) and cross-sectional studies (n=9) of U.S. cities, states, and regions and for the United States as a whole, generally find a statistically significant gun prevalence-homicide association. None of the studies prove causation, but the available evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that increased gun prevalence increases the homicide rate.
Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA
Well, well, this one indicates that a higher gun ownership is associated with higher homicide rates. According to starscream, this is called a safer society.
This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993.
More guns, more crime, Journal of Political Economy v. 109 no. 5 (October 2001) p. 1086-114
These researchers must be lying, right?
The incidence of homicide mortality in the U.S. from 1935 to 1994 was analyzed. Temporal trends and birth cohort patterns were delineated from 850,822 homicide-attributed deaths recorded by the National Center for Health Statistics. Mortality from homicide doubled in the past 40 years. The greatest increase in homicide mortality in both men and women occurred during the 1960s and early 1970s. Although there were no discernible cohort patterns for mortality risk among women, homicide rates for recent male birth cohorts peaked at younger ages and higher levels. There was a significant increase in homicide mortality risk starting with males born around 1965, which explains a peak of homicide mortality during 1985 and 1994. Increased prevalence of substance abuse and availability of firearms are probable factors underlying this cohort pattern.
Homicide mortality in the United States, 1935-1994: age, period, and cohort effect, American Journal of Epidemiology v. 150 no. 11 (December 1 1999) p. 1213-22
No way, I would have never known that accidents and firearm use are correlated.
Following Lester, the rate of accidental death from firearms was associated with the percentage of firearms used in suicides and on homicide victims except for persons aged 55+ yr.
Gun availability and use of guns for murder and suicide in Canada: A replication. Psychological Reports. Vol 90(3,Pt2), Jun 2002, pp. 1257-1258
Did I read this right? Licensing restrictions reduce the overall rates of suicides? Interesting, I do not see any substitution here (in this study just published three months ago).
Results: The rate of suicide using firearms in those with a current license (10.92 per 100,000) far exceeded the rate in those with no license history (1.03 per 100,000). Those with a license history had a far higher rate of suicide (30.41 per 100,000) compared to that of all suicides (15.39 per 100,000). Additionally, a history of firearms licence (current or present) was found to more than double the risk of suicide by any means (OR = 2.09, P Conclusion: Accessibility and familiarity with firearms represent critical elements in determining the choice of method. Further licensing restrictions and the implementation of more stringent secure storage requirements are likely to reduce the overall familiarity with firearms in the community and contribute to reductions in rates of suicide.
Who uses firearms as a means of suicide? A population study exploring firearm accessibility and method choice. BMC MEDICINE 7: - SEP 24 2009
Shall I go on? You betcha!
This study examined the relationship of 16 variables with homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm deaths. This cross-sectional analysis, using adjusted partial correlation coefficients, found that state-level firearm homicide rates significantly varied by the prevalence of firearms and by percent of the population which was African American. Whereas, state-level variations in firearm suicide mortality significantly varied by firearm prevalence, per capita alcohol consumption, percent of the population which was African American, and level of urbanization. None of the variables were significantly (p [less than or equal to] .05) related to state-level variations in unintentional firearm mortality. Furthermore, state gun laws had only a limited effect on firearm-related homicide deaths. Although the current study cannot determine causation, firearm mortality in its various forms is most commonly related to the prevalence of firearms and the percent of the population that is African American.
Factors Associated with State Variations in Homicide, Suicide, and Unintentional Firearm Deaths. Journal of Community Health v. 29 no. 4 (August 2004) p. 271-83
Perhaps the reduction in the homicide can be explained by the lack of Home Depots (for bombing materials) and Gander Mountains (for machetes). Or perhaps this is due to how dumb some spouses can be to build these darned things? What do you think?
Part of a special issue on intimate partner violence and firearms. A study was conducted to investigate whether laws that restrict domestic violence offenders' access to firearms prevent intimate partner homicide. Data were obtained regarding three types of state law on intimate partner homicide: legislation that prevents individuals under current restraining orders from owning or purchasing a firearm, that prevents individuals convicted of domestic violence offenses from owning or purchasing a firearm, and that allows law enforcement officers to confiscate firearms at the scene of an alleged domestic violence incident. Findings indicated that female intimate partner homicide rates declined by 7 percent after a state passed a restraining order law and that domestic violence misdemeanor or confiscation laws had no effect. Implications of the findings are considered.
Do Laws Restricting Access to Firearms by Domestic Violence Offenders Prevent Intimate Partner Homicide? Evaluation Review v. 30 no. 3 (June 2006) p. 313-46.
Humm… Women living in areas with a higher prevalence of firearms get killed more often. Interestingly, they show no substitution. We’ll blame it again on the lack of Home Depots.
Context. In the United States, more than 45,000 women died from gun violence over the last decade. Objective. To determine whether measures of firearm availability are related to rates of suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm deaths among women in the United States. Design. Pooled cross-sectional time series data on suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm deaths (1988-1997) were used to estimate the association between the rate of violent death among women and four proxies of firearm availability. Two proxies came from survey reports of household firearm ownership rates; two were derived from mortality statistics. Setting. United States, 1988-1997. Results. The increased rate of suicide and homicide in states with high gun levels was accounted for primarily by significantly elevated firearm suicide and firearm homicide rates. Unintentional firearm death rates were also increased in states with more guns. At the regional level, qualitatively similar results were obtained. Conclusion. Between 1988 and 1997, the suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm death rates among women were disproportionately higher in states where guns were more prevalent. The elevated rates of violent death in states with more guns was not entirely explained by a state's poverty or urbanization and was driven primarily by lethal firearm violence, not by lethal nonfirearm violence.
Firearm availability and suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm deaths among women. Journal of Urban Health Volume 79, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 26-38
The young too apparently. How about that?
Background: In the United States, only motor vehicle crashes and cancer claim more lives among children than do firearms. This national study attempts to determine whether firearm prevalence is related to rates of unintentional firearm deaths, suicides, and homicides among children. Methods: Pooled cross-sectional time-series data (1988-1997) were used to estimate the association between the rate of violent death among 5-14 year olds and four proxies of firearm availability, across states and regions. Results: A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides. The elevated rates of suicide and homicide among children living in states with more guns is not entirely explained by a state's poverty, education, or urbanization and is driven by lethal firearm violence, not by lethal nonfirearm violence. Conclusion: A disproportionately high number of 5-14 year olds died from suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm deaths in states and regions where guns were more prevalent.
Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths, suicide, and homicide among 5-14 year olds. Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care, Volume 52, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 267-274
Shall I still go on? I’m not finished yet.
Objectives. We analyzed urban-rural differences in intentional firearm death. Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to 3141 US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category urban-rural variable. Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95% CI = 1.29, 1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban. The most urban counties experienced 1.90 (95% CI = 1.50, 2.40) times the adjusted firearm homicide rate of the most rural. Similar opposing trends were not found for nonfirearm suicide or homicide. Conclusions. Firearm suicide in rural counties is as important a public health problem as firearm homicide in urban counties. Policymakers should become aware that intentional firearm deaths affect all types of communities in the United States.
Urban-Rural Shifts in Intentional Firearm Death: Different Causes, Same Results. American Journal of Public Health Oct2004, Vol. 94 Issue 10, p1750-1755
“There is no statistical evidence saying that gun ownership has any significant impact on the overall suicide rate, for better or worse.”: 2-0 (BTW, if a few studies show the opposite of what you are saying, you can no longer claim that “there is no statistical evidence.”)
Background: To evaluate the associations of state laws restricting firearms and incidence rates of suicide in men and women using a cross-sectional design. Methods: States were divided into three categories based on the restrictiveness of their firearm laws: restrictive (n = 8); modest (n = 22); and unrestrictive (n = 20). State suicide incidence rates stratified by gender were compared using Poisson regression analyses that controlled for measures of race/ethnicity, income, and urbanization. Analyses were based on 2000 census data and state suicide data from 1999 and 2000. Results: In the analysis of women, compared to states with restrictive firearm laws, there were higher suicide incidence rate ratios (IRR) in states with modest (IRR = 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34-2.01) and unrestrictive laws (IRR = 1.55; 95% CI, 1.23-1.95). The analysis of men showed comparable results: modest firearm laws (IRR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.27-1.79); unrestrictive firearm laws (IRR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.23-1.82). Conclusions: Results support the hypothesis that state restrictions on firearms have the potential to reduce the suicide rate. Findings do not support a hypothesis that greater firearm restrictions are associated with the substitution of alternative methods of suicide. Firearms appear to be a comparable exposure for suicide in men and women. Although men are more likely to use firearms in suicide than women, this difference may merely reflect more frequent gun ownership among men.
State firearm laws and rates of suicide in men and women. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE 25 (4): 320-324 NOV 2003
Here’s another one that may be of interest.
Background: Firearms are the most commonly used weapon to commit homicide in the U. S. Virtually all firearms enter the public marketplace through a federal firearms licensee (FFL): a store or individual licensed by the federal government to sell firearms. Whether FFLs contribute to gun-related homicide in areas where they are located, in which case FFLs may be a homicide risk factor that can be modified, is not known. Methods: Annual county-level data (1993-1999) on gun homicide rates and rates of FFLs per capita were analyzed using negative binomial regression controlling for socio-demographic characteristics. Models were run to evaluate whether the relation between rates of FFLs and rates of gun homicide varied over the study period and across counties according to their level of urbanism (defined by four groupings, as below). Also, rates of FFLs were compared against FS/S - which is the proportion of suicides committed by firearm and is thought to be a good proxy for firearm availability in a region - to help evaluate how well the FFL variable is serving as a way to proxy firearm availability in each of the county types of interest. Results: In major cities, gun homicide rates were higher where FFLs were more prevalent (rate ratio [RR] = 1.70, 95% CI 1.03-2.81). This association increased (p In other cities and in suburbs, gun homicide rates were significantly lower where FFLs were more prevalent, with associations that did not change over the years of the study period. FFL prevalence was correlated strongly (positively) with FS/S in major cities only, suggesting that the findings for how FFL prevalence relates to gun homicide may be valid for the findings pertaining to major cities but not to counties of other types. Conclusion: Modification of FFLs through federal, state, and local regulation may be a feasible intervention to reduce gun homicide in major cities.
Homicide and geographic access to gun dealers in the United States. BMC PUBLIC HEALTH 9: - JUN 23 2009
Here’s another one on suicide. If you read carefully, they also examined suicide by other means. Yet again, no relationship between firearms and suicide?
Results In the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among handgun purchasers, accounting for 24.5 percent of all deaths and 51.9 percent of deaths among women 21 to 44 years old. The increased risk of suicide by any method among handgun purchasers (standardized mortality ratio, 4.31) was attributable entirely to an excess risk of suicide with a firearm (standardized mortality ratio, 7.12). In the first week after the purchase of a handgun, the rate of suicide by means of firearms among purchasers (644 per 100,000 person-years) was 57 times as high as the adjusted rate in the general population. Mortality from all causes during the first year after the purchase of a handgun was greater than expected for women (standardized mortality ratio, 1.09), and the entire increase was attributable to the excess number of suicides by means of a firearm. As compared with the general population, handgun purchasers remained at increased risk for suicide by firearm over the study period of up to six years, and the excess risk among women in this cohort (standardized mortality ratio, 15.50) remained greater than that among men (standardized mortality ratio, 3.23). The risk of death by homicide with a firearm was elevated among women (standardized mortality ratio at one year, 2.20; at six years, 2.01) but low among men (standardized mortality ratio at one year, 0.84; at six years, 0.79). Conclusions: The purchase of a handgun is associated with a substantial increase in the risk of suicide by firearm and by any method. The increase in the risk of suicide by firearm is apparent within a week after the purchase of a handgun and persists for at least six years.
Mortality among Recent Purchasers of Handguns. New England Journal of Medicine 11/18/99, Vol. 341 Issue 21, p1583-1589
If I have the time my dear starscream, I will post more studies for you. You see, I still have another 200 to go through…. In the mean time, be careful with your guns.
Two of every three American homicide victims are killed with firearms, yet little is known about the role played by household firearms in homicide victimization. The present study is the first to examine the cross sectional association between household firearm ownership and homicide victimization across the 50 US states, by age and gender, using nationally representative state-level survey-based estimates of household firearm ownership. Household firearm prevalence for each of the 50 states was obtained from the 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Homicide mortality data for each state were aggregated over the three-year study period, 2001-2003. Analyses controlled for state-level rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, per capita alcohol consumption, and a resource deprivation index (a construct that includes median family income, the percentage of families living beneath the poverty line, the Gini index of family income inequality, the percentage of the population that is black and the percentage of families headed by a single female parent). Multivariate analyses found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates of men, women and children. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide victimization in our study was driven by gun-related homicide victimization rates; non-gun-related victimization rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership. Although causal inference is not warranted on the basis of the present study alone, our findings suggest that the household may be an important source of firearms used to kill men, women and children in the United States.
State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003, Social Science & Medicine v. 64 no. 3 (February 2007) p. 656-64
Background: The current investigation explores the association between rates of household firearm ownership and suicide across the 50 states. Prior ecologic research on the relationship between firearm prevalence and suicide has been criticized for using problematic proxy-based, rather than survey-based, estimates of firearm prevalence and for failing to control for potential psychological risk factors for suicide. We address these two criticisms by using recently available state-level survey-based estimates of household firearm ownership, serious mental illness, and alcohol/illicit substance use and dependence. Methods: Negative binomial regression was used to assess the relationship between household firearm ownership rates and rates of firearm, nonfirearm, and overall suicide for both sexes and for four age groups. Analyses controlled for rates of poverty, urbanization, unemployment, mental illness, and drug and alcohol dependence and abuse.
Results: US residents of all ages and both sexes are more likely to die from suicide when they live in areas where more households contain firearms. A positive and significant association exists between levels of household firearm ownership and rates of firearm and overall suicide; rates of nonfirearm suicide were not associated with levels of household firearm ownership.
Conclusion: Household firearm ownership levels are strongly associated with higher rates of suicide, consistent with the hypothesis that the availability of lethal means increases the rate of completed suicide.
Household firearm ownership and rates of suicide across the 50 United States, JOURNAL OF TRAUMA-INJURY INFECTION AND CRITICAL CARE 62 (4): 1029-1034 APR 2007
Brad E., read this one carefully.
Abstract: In order to assess the potential benefit in human lives if all geographical regions in the US (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West) achieved the lowest suicide and homicide rates observed within these regions, age-, race- and gender-adjusted suicide and homicide rates for each of the four regions were calculated based on data retrieved using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database for 1999-2004. Data on known risk factors were retrieved from online sources. Overall suicide rates (10.42 per 100,000) exceeded homicide rates (6.97 per 100,000). Almost 27% (12,942 lives per year) of the 288,222 suicide and homicide deaths during the study period might have been avoided if all US regions achieved the mortality rate reported by the Northeast. A firearm was used in 55% of all suicides and 66% of all homicides. In the total estimate of avoidable deaths, firearm suicides (90%) and firearm homicides (75%) were overrepresented. The Northeast had the lowest access to firearms (20%) contrasted to almost double in the other regions, whereas greater firearms availability was related to unrestricted firearm legislation. Measures to restrict firearms availability should be highly prioritized in the public health agenda in order to achieve an impressive benefit in human lives.
Preventing suicide and homicide in the United States: The potential benefit in human lives. Psychiatry Research Sep2009, Vol. 169 Issue 2, p154-158
Honestly, I will take Canadian storage laws over US storage laws any day of the week.
Oh and as someone who has attempted suicide... let me state clearly that I would NEVER use a gun to commit suicide. Razor blade, pills (both of which I have attempted to use) or making a noose (which I can do in under a minute) I would use in a heartbeat if I were inclined to commit suicide.
It's nice to see you bring in some stats. A question I do have though, with guns (or access to them) removed, people are really killing themselves less? Interesting, it doesn't happen in Canada, and hasn't in the 18 years since Bill C-10. Interesting indeed.
I didn't have to put words into your mouth, the tenor of your posts said that. You have trotted out some very nice stats, unfortunately they are absolutely irrelevant. The topic of this blog is about the "myths" of the anti-registry folks. There are ample stats available for Canada in this regard. You are using some studies about the access to guns being a "risk factor". Sure, I'll grant you that, in as much as owning a car is a risk factor for impaired driving. I don't see any folks persecuted as being "potential drunk drivers" simply for owning a car. Gun owners are persecuted for being "potential spousal abusers", criminals based on nothing more than departmental error, etc. Let's not make the mistake of showing causation, which is what people want. Risk factors are meaningless. I live in a house, where I require matches to light my hot water heater. Is that a risk factor for me being an arsonist?
You can't make law based on risk factors, when nobody can agree what a risk factor is and how it impacts anything. But you can make law based on facts. Sorry, but unless you can show causation, there aren't any.
And, an FYI for you, do you know how many guns are in Canada right now? I'll save you the trouble of looking, because you will never be able to find out, because the data doesn't exist. But from import records, manufacturing amongst different companies (Cooey alone made 6 million between 1920 and 1961), there are an estimated 20 million in Canada, and more is likely. There are an estimated 5-7 million gun owners in Canada, even though only 1.8 million currently have a valid license, and 400,000 have failed to renew in the last year. How many guns in the U.S. About 270 million, in the hands of an estimated 100 million people? Yet, Canada has the 6th highest rate of reported violent crime in the developed world, the U.S. has the 11th, and the U.K. with it's virtual ban on all firearms is #1. Odd, isn't it? So, is it the guns, or the people? You see, it's that nagging little thing called causation. If you can't show it (which none of your posted studies did), it's meaningless.
People aren't convicted of crimes in a court of law based on "we think he did it, but we're not sure". Causation. We need to see it. I suggest you read John Lott.
Please try not to enter into a discussion such as this on the prejudice of an extreme hoplophobe. You are benefitting nobody here, but doing a fine job of muddying the water. Bring some facts with you next time.
Everyone has an opinion, but opinions are not facts. You can keep believing whatever you want though. They still amuse me.
You're right. Opinions are like buttholes. Everybody has one and everyone else's stinks.
I however don't have an opinion. What I do have is many guns, I've been through the wringer of the Canadian PAL system and the registration system. I'm also a Canadian taxpayer and a law-abiding citizen. I have dealt with the facts of this legislation for the last 10+ years of it's existance, and I also had licensing 10 years before that, just so I can claim some measure of reference.
What do you have?
thanks for all the great references! And "opinions are like buttholes"?
Priceless!
The relationship between the availability of guns and violent death is discussed. In this issue, Cummings et al. report the findings of a case-control study to estimate the effects of handgun ownership on a family member's risk of suicide and homicide in a large health maintenance organization population for the period 1980-92. The results, which agree with the findings of other epidemiological studies involving different populations and techniques, indicate that owning a handgun or having a family member who owns a handgun significantly increases the risk of violent death. When all the confounding factors are accounted for, the results of Cummings et al. indicate that although it may be in the interest of particular individuals to purchase a gun to protect their families, it may not be in the interest of society for every family to purchase a gun. Although epidemiology cannot settle the political, ethical, and philosophical dilemma between the individual and society, it can enhance our understanding of violent death and how to prevent it.
Editorial: gun availability and violent death. American Journal of Public Health v. 87 (June 1997) p. 899-901
Youth murder in the USA has given further impetus to the 'gun debate' in American culture. It is argued that if the extent of violent deaths in the USA, compared with the rest of the developed world, was more widely understood, this would improve the likelihood of change. A USA/international comparison of 'youth & adult' (15-34) homicide was undertaken to demonstrate the anomaly of the US homicide situation compared with other major Western countries. All data are extrapolated from the latest WHO mortality rates. Ratios of ratios are calculated from annual US rates since 1974 to demonstrate the changing pattern of 'youth' (15-24) and 'adult' (25-34) homicide with the General Population Rate (GPR) (1974-94). The five-year average homicide rates are analysed in the 10 major countries, by gender and age, to illustrate the different patterns of homicide. The latest numbers of US homicides over 7.75 years, a matching period being the Vietnam War, are compared against the daily average US fatalities during the conflict. Homicide is relatively a rare statistical event, and as slight changes in countries with small populations can disproportionately distort the ratios, such countries are excluded from the analysis. For completeness, all the latest Western homicide rates are given in the appendix. Only countries with populations of 16 million or more were reviewed, these were: Australia, Canada, England and Wales, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands and Spain (1990-95). The main outcome measures were age-related homicide rates per million of population for the international comparison averaged over the latest five years (1990-95), and actual numbers of deaths for the comparison with the Vietnam War casualty rate. Within the context of a decline in US murder GPR, 'youth' homicide has never been higher: up 48% in the last decade. US male and female 'youth and adult' homicide rates were more than five and three times respectively the rate of the next highest count A substantial number were linked to firearms. Over the past 7.75 years, an average of 37.5 young men and women (15-34) were murdered daily in the USA, approximately 26.7 by firearms, compared with the average of 21.4 US deaths a day during the Vietnam conflict. The chronic toll of possibly preventable deaths represents a serious public health problem.
An international comparison of 'youth' (15-24) and 'adult' (25-34) homicide 1974-94: highlighting the US anomaly. Critical Public Health Mar2001, Vol. 11 Issue 1, p83-93
Brad E.: You asked us to do our research. We give you many documents and you keep dismissing them although the evidence hit you right into your forehead. Not only you do not understand them, but I can see that you still don’t get it.
You might want to rethink using England as an example of violent crime statistics as well ass cause-effect relationship (every time someone who does not understand basic research studies, they always refer back to the causation effect, which I can discuss at length, but this will be for another day)
If you look at the latest statistics (it’s your turn to you do the research), someone who is a victim of a violent crime in England has a 1/900 risk of being killed by the perpetrator (765 homicides)while the probably becomes 1/90 for someone in the US (15,530 homices), a 10-fold increase. Even when we include the exposure (the number of people living in each country and violent crime rates), someone living in the US is twice as likely to be killed as someone living in England Ceteris Paramus. The ratio becomes even larger when you remove “violent crime,” such as verbal threat and harassment compiled in the England data (this is half of the entire violent crime data), but not in the US data. This is why researchers recommend to be careful when comparing violent crime rates between countries.
Why the difference? When you have the chance read the following 230-page report:
Crime in England and Wales 2007/08
You’ll see that only one (or less) percent of all violent crimes in England involve a firearm. As discussed in the report, the most important weapon is a knife or sharp object, and since they are less lethal than a firearm, victims rarely suffer fatal wounds, which is the point I have been always saying from the beginning. This does not mean that people have not been killed by a knife (or by other means) in England (or elsewhere). They have, but the homicide rate is much lower because of the most frequent type of weapon used (the prevalence of knife among others). It is much more difficult to kill someone with a knife than a firearm. Difficult does not mean impossible. I hope I made this point clear.
This is my last comment on this link.
I dismiss the bulk of your "studies" because they use words like "may result" or "are associated with" with little more than conmjecture to back up their assertions. I'm sorry, but scienctific studies do not make these claims if they exp[ect to be peer-reviewed. And if won't pass the muster of peer-review, it's worth is little more than to wipe your butt with.
I haven't seen you trot out any Stascan, FBI, DoJ or CDC stats to back you up. Oh, sorry, that's right, they don't exist for your side of the fence.
Here's a couple of teasers for you to gnaw on:
[img]http://www.rangebob.com/Assorted/CanadaCrimeVsFirearmOwnership.gif[/img]
Recall that England the government passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 which means that as of 1997 handguns have been almost completely banned for private ownership.
[img]http://www.rangebob.com/England/TrendsInBritishAndCanadianViolentCrime1984to2004.gif[/img]
http://www.garymauser.net/pdf/KatesMauserHJPP.pdf
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2008000-eng.pdf
Table 1.10 on page 24 breaks down incidents of spousal violence by method.
In 2008, there were 38, 573 incidents of spousal violence reported to Canadian police.
Of these, 34,889 involved no weapons. Only 7% of such incidents, or 2,534 cases, involved weapons. Of these, 1,675 involved clubs, blunt instruments, or "other weapons". 819 involved knivest or other piercing or cutting instruments. And firearms? 40 incidents (of which 34 involved female victims).
So in 2008 in Canada, incidents of spousal violence against women with firearms accounted for less than 1 case of spousal violence in 1,000.
So from a domestic violence prevention perspective, spending billions of dollars on a measure targeting the tool used in 0.103% of domestic violence cases is absurd. Even if we accept the dubious figure of $3,000,000.00 being cited by registry proponents as the registry's annual operating budget, it seems clear to me that that money would still have much more effect on domestic violence were it spent elsewhere.
First, I’m glad that your analysis supports what I have been saying all along, as well as the papers published in peer-reviewed journals above, especially the first one that compares crime rate between Canada and the US by removing urban crimes. As discussed here, a victim of spousal violence has 1 in 20 chances to be threatened by a firearm in the US versus 1 over 970 in Canada. Of those who are threatened by a gun, 1 out of 5 will actually be shot by their partner (or at least the firearm will be used in the crime). You should check out the CDC website about how many spouses are killed by their partner in the US; this explains what I observed in my first comment above. This one may also be of interest:
Kellermann, A.L., and J.A. Mercy, “Men, Women, and Murder: Gender-Specific Differences in Rates of Fatal Violence and Victimization,” The Journal of Trauma, 1992; 33:1–5.
Jacquelyn C. Campbell et al., Risk Factors For Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results From A Multi-Site Case Control Study, 93 Am. J. of Public Health 1089, 1092 (2003), abstract available at http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/7/1089:
Access to firearms yields a more than five-fold increase in risk of intimate partner homicide when considering other factors of abuse, according to a recent study, suggesting that abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.
Second, if you have carefully noticed, I have never discussed anything about the topic of this post (the Canadian gun registry). I even indicated this disclaimer in one of the comments above.
Third, you raised a good question. Why spend so much money on this gun registry? Well, in order to do that, you also need to include the social costs associated with preventable deaths. Governments when they want to invest money into different programs will put a value on the life of people (this includes costs associated with non-fatal injuries). Here’s where you can find information in the US:
Estimating the Costs of Unintentional Injuries
If you take a look at that document, a preventable death equals $4.1 million US. The Canadian and provincial governments also have similar values. Thus, if the gun registry can prevent a single death every year over the next 20 years, the society will save $30.9 million (with the assumption that Canadian life is worth the same as in the US and a 5% discount rate). Thus, if the registry costs a mere $3 million, the benefit/cost ratio becomes equal to about 10, which is excellent (even unprecedented). The government will invest in such program rather than spending on another program that may costs say $50 million for the same benefits. I’m sure you get the point.
You can see an example here where the federal and state governments spent $100 million for eliminating 2 or 3 deaths per year. This investment was deemed cost effective.
Brad E.: while you are trying to absorb the information above, I suggest that you learn another time what constitutes a peer-reviewed publication.
I’m sorry that you are clinging on Gary Mauser. You see I laughed so hard when I saw his credentials (using http://info.scopus.com/ and looking at his CV):
6 peer-reviewed papers in 40 years of career. (I have 47 in 10)
For these 6 papers, only 13 people referred to his work. (225 for me) (2 per paper vs 5 per paper)
Basically, nobody is using his work; this includes the paper you gave me. Furthermore, nobody has actually bothered to criticize his paper. This means that his work is so bad that other researchers do not even want to spend time criticizing that paper. This also explains why Hauser, an economist, had to go get his paper published in an obscure law journal. I guess he was unable to publish his paper in a top economic journal. I assume this also explains why he was an assistant professor for 10 years at two different universities.
I can tell you that he would not even get tenured with a track record like that. Someday, I may write a review of that paper in one of my posts. From the little I read, I understand why other researchers are not using his work. Finally, I spent 15 minutes using data published by the British and US governments and showed how wrong he is. Imagine if I were to work full blast on this.
Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners. The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate partner was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents in 2002.
The Violence Pol'y Ctr., When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2002 Homicide Data: Females Murdered by Males in Single Victim/Single Offender Incidents, at 7 (2004), available at http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2004.pdf
That A.L. Kellermann with 150 peer-reviewed papers who was cited 2,059 times? In other words, Mauser is a nobody. Better luck next time? LOL!
Take it up to your pal rdelliott about the $3 M. I was giving an example using his value. You know what is an example, right?
As I keep explaining, my comments addressed the following bogus and laughable claims, such as:
Firearms do not contribute significantly to overall suicide rates. In fact there's too many factors to say that guns really have an overall impact on anything.
There is no statistical evidence saying that gun ownership has any significant impact on the overall suicide rate, for better or worse. Multiple universities have studied and comcluded that gun control only affects -gun suicides.-
Substitution will and does occur.
More guns is equal to a safer society.
Those claims have been quickly dismissed. We do not even need sophisticated analyses, just live in the US for a few years (as I suggest you do below), a country that has 3 times more firearms per capita than Canada (yes, such information exists) combined with less strenuous regulations .
As for the inconvenience associated with the gun registry, the answer is simple: just sell your guns or don’t buy one, especially since you haven’t had the need to fire it once. Nobody is forcing you to buy firearms.
Here’s another solution: why not move to the US? This way you’ll even be able to wear your firearm openly in some states, thanks to the 2nd Amendment. You’ll even pay less taxes, as a bonus. Furthermore, you will also be able to experience another level of inconvenience associated with the immigration process (costs- and paperwork-wise). If you think the gun registry is an inconvenience, you should try dealing the USCIS.
Better luck next time (take II)? Yes, this is coming from a person who keeps changing the core of his argument, from “more guns make the society safer,” to find studies related to the Canadian context, and to now the gun registry is too expensive and not cost-effective. LOL, indeed!
As for the Canadian Gun Registry per se, the issues about its effectiveness, costs and other approaches for reducing firearm accessibility will be a topic I will discuss another time and in a different venue.
Ms. Akerman, I see you are still hard at work trying to defend the indefensible. Many others have done an admirable job of highlighting the fallacies of your arguments. However, I do feel compelled to point out that it is the height of hypocrisy to accuse those opposed to the registry as being dishonest when you continue to use Dr. Drummond to defend the registry.
Your use of Dr. Drummond reminds me of a class with an elementary school English teacher who admonished us to the effect that we cannot use the word we have been tasked to define in that definition. Similarly, using an architect of the registry to claim that it is useful is not objective proof that it is indeed useful. Hypocritical and dishonest.
Feldgrau
DECEMBER 13, 2009 08:24 PM
Wow nice “wall of text”.
So let me get this straight the odds of being killed by a firearm go up if you own or live in a home with a firearm. Well gee wiz mister wizard I guess the odds of someone dying in an auto accident could be directly correlate to if the household owns a automobile and how often they are passengers in a automobile.
That is right up there with you are X times more likely to be in a car accident X miles from your home and work. People tried to tie this little statistic to people being over confident and complacent in areas they knew well. They seemed to have totally forgotten to review how often people actually drive X distance from work and home to put it in its proper context.
As to your wall of text on suicide. I was wondering of you could explain to me someone who has not been published like yourself why the rate of suicide in Canada has not statistically changed since bill C-68 was introduced. Yet the rate of suicide with firearm has dropped, but the total suicide rate has remained unchanged we also notice the rate of other methods of suicide most notability rope has increased to take up the slack. So the twist becomes look C-68 worked because we have less gun deaths I find the arguments posed by people like your self to be less then credible and only driven by emotion and agenda.
If the goal is to lower suicide by rope for example a whole system could be designed that would make access to rope more difficult then people wishing to commit suicide would then choose the next best alternative. That does not address the issue it just wastes resources that could have been focused on the root of the problem.
Again like always anti-gun people throw up twisted facts and out right lies and try to insinuate causation from correlation.