I'd be curious to drill into that 46% figure further, as to geographic location (Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal?) and legal versus illegal.
The vast majority of Canadian long gun owners are in rural Canada. I'd bet the vast majority of handgun deaths in Canada are caused by illegal handguns in major urban centers.
Have a look at these stats
In 1999 in Canada, non-firearm homicides were 311, more than twice the number of firearm related homicides (151).
Looking at the chart at the link above, it seems to me that if somebody is going to kill somebody else, they'll find a weapon one way or another.
Surely you don't think this is positive? Please tell me that. You seem to be a reasonable man -- whose politics admittedly run roughly orthogonal to mine -- but this is a very lame argument. For example, nobody says that the curve is linear; in fact, almost it certainly is not. Or perhaps only the violent Canadians own guns and the non-violent ones do not. Let us take a hypothetical case; let us say that only Canadians intent on killing someone bought a gun. Then the gun ownership level would be 0.000043. Would this make Canadians insanely gun crazed homicidal lunatics, since 100% of our owners killed someone? There are numerous other reasons possible. Or, perhaps Canadians who own guns really are more inclined to use them; however more Americans per capita are still inclined to shoot people. Surely this is cause for concern, regardless of how many guns are owned?
Or perhaps you are not aware that the Canadian homicide rate (regardless of cause) is much lower?
The get 'em from the US :) Actually, it is not *that* difficult; more a bother owning one then getting one, since you need a permit to move it from -- for example -- home to the range.
But regardless of your position, surely you don't actually believe that the 11.4 rate vrs 4.3 is a good thing?
Living here, I can tell you that many Canadians really do believe we have a problem with crime since our rates are much higher then other countries like France. The American rates are much higher again.
Like I said before, it is quite obvious that guns alone are not responsible. Perhaps it is reversed; Americans own guns because they are more violent, not the other way around. But you have to at least give it consideration.
I know that. It was pointed out mostly tongue-in-cheek to tweak the idiot who made up that lie about gun ownership rates in Canada supposedly exceeding those in the U.S. when the fact is that the Canadian rate is less than one-third the U.S. rate.
Still, the fact that the U.S. has 3.3 times as many firearms per capita as Canada, and only 2.7 times as many firearm deaths per capita, suggests that the belief that higher rates of firearm ownership equates to higher rates of firearm deaths is a highly questionable belief at best.
That, in fact, is IMO the most likely explanation for the discrepancy. Just read "criminals" for "violent" and "law-abiding citizens" for "non-violent."
Criminal misuse of a firearm certainly is cause for concern. You may be interested to know that the National Rifle Association supports _lengthy_ prison sentences for those who use firearms to commit crimes. And I entirely agree. Allowing armed thugs to roam the streets (as we unfortunately do all too often in the U.S.) while we lock up people whose only "crime" was smoking a joint in their own living room is _nuts_.
Yes, I knew that.
Not exactly, but OTOH if it tracked the difference in ownership rates it would be 14.2 vs 4.3. Thus, the correlation between ownership and violent use seems to be tenuous at best.
It's certainly a complex issue.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Why on earth do you say something as silly as that?
You did say "totally surprised" didn't you?
And the fact that the scenario was known to MILLIONS of people would suggest that this wasn't a case of "Gee - no one could POSSIBLY have ever expected it." And it's not as if Tom Clancy/Jack Ryan novels are unpopular for those involved in the U. S. government.
Yep, 3.3 times as many. But BillNorris said it was *less*.
[snip]
Hey, Bill, let's talk about your false claim that gun ownership per capita in Canada was higher than in the U.S. I scoffed at that, and you wondered it that was because of all the "gun loons" in the U.S.
Then I demonstrated that you were lying.
Let's talk about that awhile. Why are you so afraid of guns, that you have to make up lies about them?
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
If someone breaks into my house, they are doing so with the understanding that I am likely to be able to defend myself. As such, it is reasonable and prudent to think that they are likewise able and willing to do me and my family harm. As such, I will stop them from being a threat before they can hurt me or my family.
How little you understand us. Killing someone, even a worthless shit of an intruder, is the last thing I'd want to do. But don't you DARE take away my means to defend myself from that same worthless intruder.
And then you go back to personal insults. Do you have _any_ rhetorical tactics that don't make your point completely ineffective, or are you just grasping at straws now?
Because we all know that guns think and act for themselves, where cars and knives do not, is that it?
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:39:17 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@gun.nut calmly ranted:
Right, we won't lie like you.
Forget "what someone said." If you want to be really informed, I suggest that everyone read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" and Kleck/Kates' "Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control" (2001) then make up their own minds. Research all their claims and you'll find them true, and that it's a small group of gun control bigots (similar to what the Moral Majority is doing in their realm) who have somehow found a way to get their false minority views into the public spotlight despite their deceptions and illogic.
If you rule out gangs killing one another, DOCTORS kill more people than guns do each year, as do automobiles and accidents.
Medical Errors - A Leading Cause of Death The JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000 article written by Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, shows that medical errors may be the third leading cause of death in the United States.
The report apparently shows there are 2,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery; 7000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals; 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals; 80,000 deaths/year from infections in hospitals; 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of medications - these total up to 225,000 deaths per year in the US from iatrogenic causes which ranks these deaths as the # 3 killer. Iatrogenic is a term used when a patient dies as a direct result of treatments by a physician, whether it is from misdiagnosis of the ailment or from adverse drug reactions used to treat the illness. (drug reactions are the most common cause).
According to a 2003 update, it's up to 3/4 of a million deaths.
formatting link
were used in 70% of the 24k murders in the country in 1995. That's 17k, less than half the number your "death every 14 minutes" stats. Maybe you're counting suicides, too?
formatting link
might wish to lose the emotions and actually -read- some of the many valid books and papers on the subject. They'll open your eyes.
------------------------------------------------------- "i" before "e", except after "c", what a weird society. ----
Higher gun ownership in Canada. You have more guns per capita. We have more gun owners per capita. Americans are gun nuts. They don't own one or two. They own dozens. Car might be up on blocks in front of your trailer but you have 15 guns.
When is the last time a gun did life saving surgery or drove you to work. When is the last time a bullet did anything but kill or maim? Bullets have killed or maimed a quarter million american already this century. Every one of those bullets did exactly what it was designed to do. A bullet has no other purpose. Why Do americans enjoy killing and maiming each other with guns? That's the question that must be answered. We know it's a mental illness, but can it be cured.
False, and you know it. I cited the statistics. In case you've forgotten already, it's 0.25 guns per capita in Canada, and 0.82 in the U.S.
True -- but you just contradicted yourself.
False, and you know it.
Some are, most aren't. I'll bet there are "gun nuts" in Canada, too. But you're too biased to see that.
Showing, once again, how ill-informed you are. My neighbor across the street (the one you think I should live in fear of) has one. My brother owns two. I own six, and that's more than most people I know.
Shall I start stereotyping Canadians, then? No, you won't bait me into that. I've met enough of your countrymen to know that -- thank God -- most of them are not like you. And there are too many of them here on this newsgroup who are truly nice guys, who would likely be offended.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Large caliber handguns have been used for hunting for over a century, in addition to military or self-defence purposes. Originally designed because low-powered weapons of yore needed a great big ball to stop anything. If you want to single out a handgun, try small caliber. No sporting use, small size not required for target practice, and makes for easy concealment. .22LR and .25 ACP guns probably make up a large percentage, if not majority, of guns used in deadly crimes.
Assault rifles were designed to shoot people, fair enough. But this is just one of my pet peeves. The definition (real, ie military) is that of a shortish rifle, firing a medium-power round, capable of full automatic fire, and featuring a straight stock to reduce climb at full auto.
First one, OK, nothing special or deadly about a short rifle (and claims of concealment are BS).
Second one, also nothing too interesting, the most common short deer caliber (30-30) is balistically close to that of the AK-47, while M-16 and AK-74 rounds are actually based on varmint (yes, it's a real classification) hunting rounds. The most popular hunting round overall is the 30-06 (once the standard military round) and considerably more powerful than something an assault rifle fires.
Third one, full auto. FA weapons have been illegal to produce or transfer in the USA without multi-month background checks, waiting periods, and hefty taxes. Very few are in public circulation. So that can be removed from this equation.
Finally, the straight stock. Not too useful on a US-legal rifle, although it makes one more comfortable to shoot.
Anyway, once you take away the FA and physical appearance there isn't a lot of difference between an SSR-99 and your basic (and more powerful) Wal-Mart hunting rifle. The features used in federal or state laws to identify AWs--flash hider (FYI: used to prevent flash blinding the user, not for covert actions), pistol grip stock, bayonet lug, and removable magazine--don't aid the killing of folks very well. The extra-special lethality is highly overrated, as is the talk of no legitimate use.
Something like a US-type AK rifle is excellent for hunting or target practice, as it's reliable, easy to clean, cheap to service, and makes for less discomfort in firing.
If you aren't shooting people then you are using the gun for a
Cites? I've never heard that before in my life. You can use quite a small weapon for killing someone at short range. As best I know, the .45 caliber was the best compromise between power and size. Especially in the 1850s, when anything small had no range or power, and larger balls couldn't be used in revolvers of managable size. The "modern" .45 (.45 ACP from the turn of the century) was a similar choice. Nowdays the military and police no longer use them because a smaller, faster 9mm or .40 S&W works better for them.
There are many countries with large numbers of gun owners, many with much looser laws than the US. In Swizterland almost anthing goes for private ownership other than full-auto (and you're required to have a FA weapon if you're of military age, as most would be part-time militia). I believe Finland is a country where you can legally own virtually anything (machine guns, silencers, etc.) short of modern cannons and explosive weapons.
Anyway, that's as deep as I'm going to get on this one. Folks who get into arguments like this online should really realize that no one, on either side, will ever come across as normal or sane to the other. Ditto goes for a lack of debate "winners" or convincing anyone else of whatever view you might hold. One of those many topics inlcuding abortion, party politics, religion, Ford vs. Chevy, PC vs. Mac, etc, etc that will never, ever, be solved in the court of public opinion.
Nothing's wrong with hashing it out if you're so inclined, but everyone involved should know you're not getting anywhere. I gave up on debating deep social, moral, or mental views online.
Guns save lives, too, every time they are used for self-defense.
Statistics, please -- particularly as regards your use of the word "maimed".
Don't forget to check the statistics on the number of people killed or maimed by motor vehicles.
False, and you know it. It has already been explained to you that bullets are also used in target shooting. Are you unaware that shooting is, and has been for many years, an Olympic sport?
We don't. Where did you get the idea that we do? For heaven's sake, man, turn off your damned television set and interact with the real world. Try reading the books that were suggested in another post -- you might actually learn something new.
No, the question that must be answered is why you have these irrational, delusional beliefs.
And I hope that someday you find your cure.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.