Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on October 13, 2000, 11:17:00 PM
-
Oh, yes...it's all going well up there and makes perfect sense.
Sources:
http://www.garry-breitkreuz.com/publications/oped01.htm (http://www.garry-breitkreuz.com/publications/oped01.htm)
http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/national/gunz08.shtml (http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/national/gunz08.shtml)
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Reform/19971107.html (http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Reform/19971107.html)
In 1996, Statistics Canada reported in Canadian Crime Statistics that there were a total of 291,437 crimes of violence. Of this total, there were 121,291 violent incidents where weapons were involved but only 6,375, or just 2.2%, that involved firearms.
Of the violent offences where firearms were involved, 74.9% involved handguns [almost all unregistered] and only 6.9% involved rifles and shotguns. Clearly, the 65-year-old handgun registry hasn’t reduced the criminal use of handguns.
Still, the government ignores this evidence and plods ahead spending hundreds of millions to register 20 million rifles and shotguns which represent only 0.15% of the violent crime problem in Canada.
LOL! NOW I know why Igloo doesn't want to talk about the effectiveness of registration in lowering violent crime rates! 65 years of handgun registration and still 75% of violent crimes with firearms are committed with hanguns, most of them unregistered!
Canada has had a handgun registration program for decades and a system of registering gun purchases for several years. But under the new national law, each of Canada's estimated 3 million owners of long-barreled guns, including shotguns, is to register by the end of this year and to apply for a license.
The owner will also be required to register the gun itself, by the end of 2002. But, 18 months after the licensing system opened, licenses have been issued to 150,000 people, about 5 percent of the owners.
With Alberta and other provinces refusing to have local law enforcement officials register gun owners and their guns, the federal government has hired or reassigned almost 1,500 employees to carry out the program, which has cost $230 million so far.
Three weeks ago, reflecting the government's growing desperation, the Canadian Firearms Center, the Justice Ministry agency in charge of registration, treated 40 leaders of Canada's largest hunting and shooting clubs to a free weekend at an Ontario resort to try to persuade them to take part in the licensing system.
In 1995, Justice Minister Allan Rock told the House of Commons that the firearms registry would only cost $85 million over five years. An Access to Information Request reveals that at the end of March 1999, the government had spent $216 million dollars and the Department of Justice now admits they will spend between $50 and $60 million a year to operate the system. That’s more than a billion dollars by the year 2015. It was recently discovered that the government had between six and eight hundred paper-pushing bureaucrats working on the gun registration project.
2. Cuts and lack of police resources for real crime fighting initiatives
Here are the headlines of a few news stories published in recent months:
Underfunding of RCMP imperils public
Fewer police per capita report says
RCMP’s white-collar crime unit needs staff, cash
Systematic underfunding reduces local RCMP to critical level
‘Force rusting out,’ says Alberta’s top Mountie
RCMP cuts make crime pay
Money for gun control, none for police
Police association ready to fight for more cops
RCMP Chief says lack of funds means Mob ‘on a roll’
The public was told by the government that the primary purpose of the firearms registry was to let police know which houses have firearms in them. But that only works if the system doesn’t have any errors. A few weeks ago, the RCMP’s Registrar of Firearms told a staff meeting that they were experiencing virtually a 100% error rate.
Peter MacKay, M.P. for Pictou-Antagonish-Guysborough, Nova Scotia, House Leader and Chief Justice Critic for the Progressive Conservative Party seconded Breitkreuz’ bill. "Issues of justice and public safety transcend partisan party lines. These regulations are not about public safety - it’s just another tax," said MacKay.
Bill C-68 was 137 pages long and so far the government has introduced 131 pages of regulations.
Sure sounds like a simple, inexpensive, smooth-running operation. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) Unfortunately, it apparently doesn't work. 65 years of handgun registration and STILL most handgun crimes are committed with an UNREGISTERED handgun. Perfection indeed!....oh wait! I bet the Yanks are the reason it doesn't work! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-13-2000).]
-
Read your own post you idiot and look at that % of violent crimes that included firearms...
Registration has been so effective here that when one of our kids copies yours and trys to take down his school he is limited to a single shot 22 that wounds one child not kills 14..
Gunshops have been shutting down all over canada for years. There are many less guns arround hence only less then 7% of crimes invove the use of them. Of course many of them are illegal. Of course criminals will get their hands on them. But how many criminals compared to the US....
Oh well. We as a nation have made our choice. We will have to live with less fear. Fewer kids killed by gun accidents. More shelf space for fishing gear.
Do you fly anymore or just pay your subscription to be a gun advocate.
-
Come on, Toad. What's there really to brag about? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
- In 1998 in the USA, there were 10,976 homicides with firearms. That's 4 murders per 100,000 Americans.(reference (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/homicide/weapons.txt))
- In 1999 in Scotland, there were 6 homicides with firearms, equating to 2 murders per 1,000,000 Scottish.(reference (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bulletins/00024-08.asp))
The murder rate with firearms in the USA is roughly 2000% greater than Scotland. Very strict gun control laws are in place in Scotland.
I know Canada is not Scotland, but both are similar enough as western countries, and both were once part of the Commonwealth.
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 10-14-2000).]
-
Pongo!
Thanks! The first “ad hominem” attack on me! This must be what Leonid was talking about. I look eagerly look forward to your use of other pejoratives! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Taking your easiest question first, yes I still do fly in the MA. However, I can only “fly” on my “home” computer and I’ve rarely been home since August. My job is on the road and on the weekends my family has been traipsing across the US watching the firstborn son play Div IA football. (Yes, we are proud of him.)
I just got a laptop but so far I have been unable to get it to run AH. After selecting the video, it dumps me to a blue screen lock. I haven’t really had time to delve into this problem. The laptop works fine for the BBS though, don’t you think? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
This weekend we have a “bye” weekend in football but unfortunately my father, known to a few on this board as “Panther” suffered a heart attack. I have been connecting, reading and writing using brief connects on the phone in the hospital room. It helps keep the mind off REAL problems I think.
It looks like he is going to pull through in fine shape. In fact, the heart Doc just told us that the cath showed that except for the one place a bit of plaque broke off and cause the problem, he has the heart of a 45 year old. Not bad for an 80 year old man.
In sum, I fly as much as I can. I hope to fly more when I get this laptop up to speed. I’m sorry I don’t meet your standards for flight time. Is there a certain number of flight minutes per post or is it word count/airborne seconds? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Now to the slightly more relevant part of your post:
I did not write the above statements, other than the commentary in italics. If you take issue with those statements, I’m sure you can follow the links to a place where you can submit feedback.
I readily admit that canada has a lower crime rate per person than the US. I believe that there are many, many reasons for this. These reasons, I believe center primarily in social and economic areas.
Further, I believe firearms registration has little or nothing to do with the lower crime rate. I believe Canada’s own statistics bear this out.
In 1996, after 65 YEARS of handgun registration, 74.9% of canadian violent crimes that involved firearms featured a HANDGUN as the firearm. ...and most of these were UNREGISTERED HANDGUNS.
This makes it a little tough to see registration as the panacea that some would make it out to be. In fact, it suggests registration has essentially no effect on the use of hanguns in violent crime.
In fact, it seems to show that despite six decades of registration efforts, most violent crimes involving firearms are STILL committed with unregistered handguns.
Is that how you read that? Or can you see it a different way?
Now, if you want to discuss the reduction in the number of firearms with respect to violent crime rates, that is an entirely different issue, isn’t it?
The argument “fewer guns means fewer violent crimes involving firearms” would be a different argument than “registration of firearms means fewer violent crimes involving firearms” wouldn’t it?
I guess it’s just the “idiot” in me. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I thought registration and reduction (are you suggesting confiscation?) are two completely different issues.
Sorry. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-14-2000).]
-
leonid: Come on, Toad. What's there really to brag about?
Who is bragging? I’m not content AT ALL with the rates of violent crime in the US! NOT AT ALL!
Where there is disagreement, however, it is over the methods by which we should attack this problem.
Igloo has been pretty prominent urging registration as the panacea to a more peaceful society, telling us to “wake up and join the 21st Century”.
Unfortunately, Canadian statistics underline the fact that 65 YEARS of handgun registration didn’t stop 75% of violent crimes involving firearms from featuring a handgun as the weapon and a majority of those UNREGISTERED.
Registration is plain and simple a waste of money; one we can’t afford.
I assure you, I will vigorously support ANY method of reducing violent crime, PARTICULARLY violent crime involving firearms, that puts the RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY on the criminal, not the inanimate object or law-abiding citizen.
I offer Projects Exile in Richmond and CeaseFire in Philadelphia as prime examples of such programs. They WORK! A 60% drop in Richmond’s violent crime rate in ONE YEAR! Positive results in a short period in Philadelphia. All without infringing on the law-abiding citizen’s rights. Without doing anything but actually PROSECUTING AND IMPRISONING CRIMINALS.
Can you support that Leonid? Could we possibly work together towards THAT goal?
Further, I’m not sure you can statistically compare either Scotland or Canada with the US. I think you’ll agree that most of our crime is centered in our major metropolitan areas. We have far more of such areas than either of those countries.
Therefore, such “across the board” comparisons might benefit from more specific examinations.
Further, I don’t think either of those countries has the diverse population, extreme spread in economic situations and rampant drug problem that is present in the US.
Can it be that factors such as these are MORE important in rates of violent crime than guns?
In short, this is a problem that defies simplistic assessment.
That’s why I favor programs that deal with the cause of violent crime: the criminal.
That’s why I favor programs that have been shown to work, like Exile/CeaseFire rather than programs for which there is pretty convincing evidence that they are huge money-wasting bureaucratic boondoggles.
BTW, welcome back Leonid!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
The violent crime rate with guns in the US can not even come close to being compared with Canada. Canada is a much, much safer nation. I wonder why. Of course there are some crimes with unregistered guns. But there are a heck of a lot less than the US because of registration and other gun restrictions.
2.2% of violent crimes invlove firearms. That is a number to be proud of in my opinion.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
I shudder to get even involved in another one of the O' Club gun-nut debates. But I'll just throw out a little logic.
The argument here is:
2% of all weapon-related incidents involved guns
"Canada requires handgun registration"
of the 2% "75% of gun-related crimes involved handguns, 7% involved shotguns and rifles"
Almost all handgun crimes involved unregistered handguns.
Therefore, requiring registration of shotguns and rifles will not make much of a difference in the overall figures.
That's a reasonable argument. It is a waste of money to worry about what is essentially hunting equipment (well, a shotgun would be my number one choice for any daughter-related incidents), when they forms an insignificant part of the overall crime figures.
On the other hand, the conclusion:
"Clearly, the 65-year-old handgun registry hasn't reduced the criminal use of handguns" is faulty The fact that NOW most handguns used in crimes are unregistered tells us NOTHING about what effect registration has had on the overall crime rate. Indeed, I could argue the opposite point: the fact that most handguns used in crimes are unregistered betrays a significant reduction in their use: purchasing an unregistered handgun involves more difficulties, and a greater commitment (both personal and financial) on the behalf of the purchaser now that it is illegal.
Heck, even you gun nuts will agree with this one: the most dangerous gun owner is the one who thinks s/he knows how to use the weapon, but in reality hasn't a clue. I'll go a step further: the most dangerous gun-wielding criminal is the one who gets a gun on impulse. Let's face it: in any society a person with sufficient intelligence and dedication can transgress with impunity virtually any law. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.
To put it another way, this argument is as fallacious as the old chestnut "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". The response is, "Sure, but a helluva lot less outlaws will have them." Frankly, the guy who scares me isn't the professional bank robber; it's the kid gets ahold of a piece and tries to heist a convenience store; it's the folks who can't pull off a proper assassination so they mow down bystanders in a drive-by.
Dinger
(Travis Bickel for president)
-
Dinger: "Clearly, the 65-year-old handgun registry hasn't reduced the criminal use of handguns" is faulty
Ding, that isn't what I said at all. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I said: In 1996, after 65 YEARS of handgun registration, 74.9% of canadian violent crimes that involved firearms featured a HANDGUN as the firearm. ...and most of these were UNREGISTERED HANDGUNS.
I didn't discuss "reduction" at all.
I've found two very interesting crime statistics sites, one by the US FBI and the other from Statistics Canada.
Due to different reporting methods, it's going to take a little sorting out. For example, "violent crime" includes different categories.
Initially on a quick pass, using each nation's own definitons, Canadian reported violent crime in '99 looks like 955 incidents/100,000 population. The FBI repors 525/100,000 in '99. That would put Canada nearly double the US rate. But it's going to take some sifting to try to get to "apples to apples". I'll try to do that when I get some time.
The US murder rate IS three times higher than Canada's. Roughly 6/100,000 vice 2/100,000. Some interesting breakdowns of who's killing who in that US mess.
Given the previous stats though, if a handgun WAS used in Canada in a murder it's a safe bet that it was unregistered.
...and that's the point. Registration doesn't prevent anything.
Other factors are the primary players.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-15-2000).]
-
Toad,
Using logic, facts and figures in an argument gives you an unfair advantage over someone like Igloo. SHAME on you!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
Mav
-
Given the previous stats though, if a handgun WAS used in Canada in a
murder it's a safe bet that it was unregistered.
...and that's the point. Registration doesn't prevent anything.
Let me try again:
The argument seems to be:
[unstated premise] Handgun registration can only prevent crimes if most handguns used in a crime are registered.
In time X, in a country where handguns are registed, 3/4s of all crimes involving a handgun involve an unregistered handgun.
Therefore, Handgun registration cannot prevent crimes.
The unstated premise is the only one I can conceive of according to which your argument would have some sense, but it is clearly nonsensical.
It's like saying: "The law against crossing a US border with more than $10,000 of undeclared currency can only be effective at preventing drug smuggling if most drug smugglers declare their currency." Or perhaps even closer, "Driver's licenses can only be effective at preventing wreckless driving if 98% of people so charged have Driver's licenses."
Even better: "Concealed weapons permits can only work if most of the crimes involving concealed weapons concern people with concealed weapons permits."
In other words, the 74.9% of unregistered handguns is beside the point of the effectiveness of handgun registration.
Consider the following hypothetical situation:
A. in the period before handgun registration, there were 10 violent incidents involving handguns per 1000 inhabitants.
Now, take two opposite "after" conditions:
B. in the period after handgun registration, there were 100 violent handgun incidents per 1000.
B'. in the period after, there was 1 per 1000.
Neither B nor B' is incompatible with the fact that 74.9 percent of those incidents involved an unregistered handgun. So you can't use that fact to show that "handguns registration doesn't prevent anything"
Frankly, I don't understand how both
A. Handgun registration doesn't prevent anything
and
B. (A.) has nothing to do with whether they involve a reduction in the use of violent crimes.
can be logically compatible.
Sorry.
-
You poor guys have a high crime rate (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
In 1998, there were 13 422 reported violent crimes in Denmark, up slightly from four years earlier. With a population of a little more than 5.3 million, that means 253 per 100 000 people if I can convert the numbers ok. 78% of all these crimes were succesfully dealt with by the police, meaning they were resolved.
Violent crime in these stats is defined as "violence against a government official (includes military, police etc), violence against a citizen, murder, and attempting murder, and manslaughter". Interestingly enough robbery (2606 cases) is regarded a property crime, not a violent crime.
There were 998 reported crimes involving drugs or drug trade, which means 19 incidents per 100 000 population. I gather the US figure is a bit higher?
No stats on guns though.
Source:
http://www.dst.dk/siab.asp?frame=right2&o_id=1006 (http://www.dst.dk/siab.asp?frame=right2&o_id=1006)
It is in Danish though.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
-
Well living in the UK (which Scotland is still part of by the way, and the commonwealth! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ) I find all this gun talk rather fascinating.
In Britain there have always been restrictions to guns and even now the majority of guns that are available are shotguns, revolvers and .22 rifles for shooting competitions. Everyone is heavily scrutinised and your property is inspected to see if your firearm is kept safe. Most revolvers and .22 rifles are kept within clubs.
Even though I would have liked the opportunity to have gone shooting with very high powered rifles of different bores I am not too fussed about it mostly because here in Britain it is a pretty safe place as far as gun related crime goes. Okay, if you really want a particular gun then criminals will get them but you'll find that anywhere. Our Police are not even armed unless it is an armed response unit. We have had gun tragedies here in the UK, most notably Dunblane and Hungerford (AK47, Uzi, magnums etc) and each time the government has imposed tougher gun controls. Many business' went down. BUT, unlike the US things are very different here. There has never been a real popular gun movement with it basically being restricted to gun enthusiasts, farmers, clubs and the odd loony. Farmers could carry on normally though gamekeepers with high bored rifles had to have special reason and licenses. Clubs carried on with a lower type of gun available, but if it is targets they are shooting what is the difference shooting a target with a .22 and a .44? Bigger hole? Same skill. The remaining enthusiasts were hit really bad but more importantly so were the 'loonies'. I guess it stopped the opportunist into buying easily available weapons and using them for their strange motives. Additionally the government restricted large hunting knives, machetes, other offensive weapons etc.
What I am trying to say is that countries are very different to each other. In North America there are more target clubs, hunting clubs etc., and that is totally different to anywhere over here. Having said that if you hear that someone owns a gun or at least hear of someone being shot by a gun then you're pretty shocked. That's because you feel safe in knowing that guns are not easily available here. It's just my opinion guys but I like it being kinda safe here in the UK. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have gone shooting and all, but it's a price to pay for keeping the 1 - 3% loonies from using guns and killing men, women and children.
Regards
'Nexx'
BTW Gun crime is at it's most rife in London, Manchester, and Glasgow (Scotland) within Great Britain.
[This message has been edited by Replicant (edited 10-16-2000).]
-
The reason I don't bother wasting my time digging for figures is because the gun nuts just wont care. Sad but true.
I really don't care anymore.. Whenever there is another shooting in the US, the world just shakes their head and wonders when they're gonna wake up.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Originally posted by Toad:
The public was told by the government that the primary purpose of the firearms registry was to let police know which houses have firearms in them. But that only works if the system doesn’t have any errors. A few weeks ago, the RCMP’s Registrar of Firearms told a staff meeting that they were experiencing virtually a 100% error rate.
So if they just assume all their information is wrong, they will have a nearly 100% success rate!
Just thought that was kind of amusing (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Regurge (edited 10-16-2000).]
-
Intersting....
Canada isn't quite as safe as you guys are making it out to be. I can give you streets in Toronto of Vancouver, and even Calgary where I gurantee you'll get diddlyed with if you walk around for an hour or so.
I've lived here a good portion of my life, and two times I've used a firearm to defend myself, one time during a hold up at a service station I managed by a PCP'd out idiot, the other when some 16 year old kid was being beaten by a bunch of hindus with tire irons at the same location. Both times I pointed an unregistered shotgun (not registerable in 92-93) at the criminals and they surrendered immediately.
The sad thing is, most Canadians would just sit in inaction when presented with this type of life and death situation, but I was brought up in a law enforcement household (my father was on the original CERT/SERT RCMP hostage rescue team before it became JTF-2).
Before you go spouting a bunch of roadkill about how great our guns laws are, and the wonders they have done for the criminal justice system, look at the facts.
I used to own/operate PMI Canada/MR Paintball, and since a lot of the cliental was younger guys who like guns, from them I found out how easy it is to acquire illegal weapons in this country. An hour from picking up the phone I could buy every single type of handgun/mp5/uzi/ar15 etc unregistered/hot I wished to lay my hands on. ILLEGAL guns are everywhere, and THEY are the problem, not the legit owners.
BTW if Canada is so safe, why has there been 2 murders within 200 feet of my wife's restaurant in the last few weeks? Take a look at the national statistics for armed robery/assualt/home invasion/murder why don't you? I bet those dead people sure think this is a safe place. What a frickin crock. You tree huggers are just desensitised from the real world in which we live.
BTW, if either of the two restaurant clerks killed in the place of buisness 2 doors down from my wife's were given provision to defend themselves (having a firearm for self defense is illegal here, as is having one in a place of business), they would probably be alive.
We need to allow non-criminals the option to carry/own defensive weapons if they take the proper training, and make violent/gun crimes a mandatory 25 year sentece. Until such time I'll continue to carry legal defensive tools, but I'd trade em all in for the ability to pack my USP.
P.S. I'm all for registration...I'll register all the unregistered firearms I own when the time comes...so long as it gives me more rights (conceal carry etc) instead of taking them away.
[This message has been edited by Gman (edited 10-16-2000).]
-
Toad croaked...
"
Given the previous stats though, if a handgun WAS used in Canada in a murder it's a safe bet that it was unregistered.
...and that's the point. Registration doesn't prevent anything.
"
With the worlds largest market for easy buy handguns on the other side of the longest open border in the world, I think we have accomplished quite abit to get where we are.
How can you say registration doesnt prevent anything. How do you now that we would not have 3 times the murder rate(and attempted murder) if we had as easy access to handguns as you do.
Our laws are based on the qualified opinion that there is a correlation between gun availability and gun usage.
Your stats seem to indicate we are correct.
To paraphrase toad..
Handguns are used in a high % of murders. Therefore we must make them available to all.
My 7 year old son said after watching a comercial for the new registration scheme the other day.
"But dad. Assasins wont care if they have to register guns..."
I asked him when was the last time we had an assasin around.
Was it worth having lots of guns sitting arround in peoples closets waiting for the urge to use them just because an assasin might be able to get a gun and you wont?
He feels better knowing that less guns means less chance of being shot by one. Find a statistic somewhere that refutes that obvios fact.
-
Originally posted by Gman:
...a bunch of hindus...
Interesting turn of phrase... how could you tell, were they carrying the Bhagavad Gita as well as tire-irons?
-
.
My 7 year old son said after watching a comercial for the new registration scheme the other day.
"But dad. Assasins wont care if they have to register guns..."
I asked him when was the last time we had an assasin around.
Was it worth having lots of guns sitting arround in peoples closets waiting for the urge to use them just because an assasin might be able to get a gun and you wont?
He feels better knowing that less guns means less chance of being shot by one. Find a statistic somewhere that refutes that obvios fact.
Pongo,
Your 7 year old son feels safe because you told him to feel safe. He hit it right on the head. Very perceptive young man there. He saw the falacy you have now convinced him is truth.
Those intent on mayhem upon another person do not give a flying fart in a windstorm about registration. Why worry about breaking that law when they are already prepared to break several others more serious. If your son is ever in a position to be faced by that type of person, even in his own home, he will likely not have the means to defend himself. I hope he never does have that situation thrust upon him.
Societal predators are mostly cowards but they will hurt you or kill you if they wish to. They do know an unarmed victim, preferably an infirm victim is far easier prey than one who can defend themselves.
Mav
-
Digging a little deeper into the stats here.
The FBI report uses the Uniform Crime Reporting PROGRAM while the Canadian Statistics uses the Uniform Crime Reporting SYSTEM. Except for a few differences in category titles, they seem identical.
The FBI helpfully provides definitions (used sparingly here to keep things straight) while the Canadian site does not.
RATES PER 100,000
Violent Crime
1999 US - 525
1999 Canada - 955
MURDER AND NONNEGLIGENT MANSLAUGHTER
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, as defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting
Program, is the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.
The classification of this offense, as for all other Crime Index offenses, is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body. Not included in the count for this offense classification are deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults.
MURDER
1999 US - 5.7
1999 Canada - 1.76
********************
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
1999 US - 336
1999 Canada - 727
*******************
Forcible rape, as defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Assaults or attempts to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.
Canadian Statistics use Sexual Assault
Forcible Rape/Sexual Assault
1999 US - 32.7
1999 Canada - 78.3
*************************
Robbery
1999 US - 150
1999 Canada - 94
**********************
Property Crime
1999 US - 3742
1999 Canada - 4265
**********************
Burglary
1999 US - 770
1999 Canada - 1044
***********************
Larceny-theft
1999 US - 2551
1999 Canada - 2301
***********************
Motor Vehicle Theft
1999 US - 420
1999 Canada - 529
(http://smilecwm.tripod.com/net3/krakrani.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-18-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-18-2000).]
-
Ding,
I'll try one more time too, if you don't mind. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I'm not the one trying to prove the efficacy of gun registration. Others here are making the claim that it and it alone is a solution to violent crime.
I think the point I am making is obvious.
For years and years people in the US have suggested that in the event of a registration law in the US, PRIMARILY only the law-abiding citizens will register. Those most likely to commit crimes (CRIMINALS) will NOT register.
The liberals here disagree with that idea.
I think the Canadian Stats put an end to this argument. Clearly, the Criminals PRIMARILY do NOT register.
All you succeed in doing is wasting time and money registering people who are PRIMARILY no threat to society.
Show me ANYTHING that has dropped violent crime rates 60% in one year...like Project Exile HAS in Richmond....that does not deal DIRECTLY with the Criminal. It's not the law-abiding citizen; restricting him is pointless.
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
Our laws are based on the qualified opinion that there is a correlation between gun availability and gun usage.
Your stats seem to indicate we are correct.
There may well be a correlation between availability and usage.
Unfortunately, REGISTRATION itself has NO correlation to availability.
Unless, of course, you are saying that REGISTRATION is only a means to use to REDUCE AVAILABILITY?
That is, it is just one step on the way towards the goal of total elimination of guns?
These stats show nothing about the effect that registration has had on availability, BTW.
They have done no research that is present in THIS study that even addresses that question.
There are way too many variables in that assumption anyway. You're just stating a totally unproven, unresearched hypothesis, IE: Gun Registration reduces the number of firearms in private possession.
Got any hard data?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
From the Second Debate......
GORE: Well, I'm not for registration. I am for licensing by states of new handgun purchases so that...
-
Pongo, people are pigheaded and paranoid when it comes to their guns. Let it be, nothing you can say will convince them of anything when that is the society they have been brought up in. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
Pongo, people are pigheaded and paranoid when it comes to their guns. Let it be, nothing you can say will convince them of anything when that is the society they have been brought up in. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
Well now.. so I'm pigheaded and paranoid now eh? Guess Toad is too.
Better than being delusional and ignorant to facts that are plain to see and are right infront of your face because they dinnae agree with your fantasy world.
This is a simple fact:
To stop/reduce crime you must eliminate the criminal (jail/execution/whatever), or remove the reason for the crime.
Guns DO NOT cause crime. They are merely one of the tool with which criminals persue thier ill gotten gain. Everyone screams for gun registration and more gun control laws. Those laws will only affect me and other law abiding citizens. Where do these laws stop the criminals?
Scroll up and read Gman's post again. Read the ENTIRE thing. It's easy to get a gun if you want one, and registration WILL NOT stop anyone who is committed to getting one.
Pongo says:
"With the worlds largest market for easy buy handguns on the other side of the longest open border in the world, I think we have accomplished quite abit to get where we are."
Then goes on to talk about registration reducing the number of available guns. Hate to tell ya this, but with that long, open border on the largest gun market in the world, if someone wants a gun they're gonna get it, and they'll flip the finger at your registration laws mate.
Everyone has become so convinced that registering/removing guns is the solution to all crime problems. Those who actually believe this are delusional and need a serious reality check.
I really wish all you anti-gun liberals would wake up to the line you're being force fed and quit trying to force your visions of a perfect world on the rest of us. All the measures all of you people say would work only affect ME and all other LAW-ABIDING gun owners, and we are the ones you need not fear.
I am a gun owner and have been for 20 of my 28 years on this planet. I've been licensed to carry and have been carrying for the past 7 years (got it on my 21st b-day). I've never used a gun to perpetrate any crime, and in fact I have stopped some criminals and even saved a couple of lives because I had my sidearm on me. I've had police officers tell me that they wish there were more citizens like me around, who aren't afraid to stand up and defend a perfect stranger from a criminal who's trying to rob/mug them (or worse).
And now you want me to register my guns so a few years down the road you can come confiscate them?
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
...nothing you can say will convince them of anything when that is the society they have been brought up in.
Oh, I don't know. Give this a try for once:
Try "Saying" some proveable facts and posting verifiable data. That might work.
I'm not going to apologize for being raised in a society where Factual Data is more respected than an unsupported Personal Opinion.
That's the sum of it too. You NEVER post any verifiable data and you run away from any discussion where people counter your opinion with published, factual reports supported by verifiable data.
(http://smilecwm.tripod.com/net3/krakrani2.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-18-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-18-2000).]
-
Heh, good luck Toad, Tree Huggers don't like facts, they prefer to live in their own little idea of what the world should be like.
Here in Canada, our existing laws are where you US guys are heading if that lying idiot Gore gets in, so brace yourselves.
Our laws here have absolutely no effect on criminals, especially the organized crime sector, with which I'm familiar with a few members. Running illegal firearms to drug-heads is as simple as driving through a 6 inch ditch in any of the Prarie provinces here from N.Dokata, Utah, or Montana. I know because I've seen it done.
If governments were actually serious about reducing gun crimes, they'd attack the criminals instead, but then they'd be attacking guys the have closet deals with, and their own pockets would suffer.
The Canadian Police Association here (My old man was prez for 2 years in the early nineties) was very gung ho for the latest gun law, until they realized all the red-tape B.S. involved. They really got worried when only about 10% of the people had bothered registering their firearms in the Provinces with the most guns, since the law-makers informed them that they were the ones who would have to drive around to all the "suspected" houses with firearms and deal with the folks. Talk about looking for trouble.
I.E. Seventy year old farmer, who is VERY set in his ways, and already dislikes the gov't, but normaly would have no problems with the police will probably behave very dangerously when the cops come to tell him he is now a criminal and must turn in his varmit rifle that he's had in the family for years.
Also, the only point the anti-gun retards argue here is that "now the police will know which house has guns and which doesn't". ROFL! What idiocy! Every police officer always assumes the worst on a call, and just because some computer says that the house is un-armed, doesn't mean he can know for certain it is, since criminals don't bother registering their weapons. Typical left-wing democrat/liberal brain deadness. God I wish they'd all go live somewhere else.
Since most of my firearms are already restricted, this registration bunk doesn't have me to worked up, but if they really wanted the people to comply, they should have given something in return. If they said conceal carry permits are available to all those who qualify if they register their long guns, you can bet that they'd have ten times the amount of compliance.
The money is the real issue here, since it's going to cost everyone a minimum of 100$ from this date forward, and then a hell of a lot more for guys with large collections if they hold out and wait for the election here, in hopes of the law being overturned. If they gave me the option of donating 100$ to the RCMP, FBI, or local P.D., I'd much rather see my money be responsible for another cop on the street, instead of lining some studmuffingot member of parliament's pockets (Alan "I'm a target for life now" Rock), as well as serving his own roadkill political agenda.
[This message has been edited by Gman (edited 10-18-2000).]
-
Gman, you called it.
They split, I guess, as soon as real crime stats were posted instead of unsupported opinion.
I suspect our laws will swing your way in any event. It is only a matter of time.
The "city folk" breed like rabbits and the country folk don't.
I really wasn't aware that you guys had more violent crime AND more property crime in Canada than we do in the States. That was the biggest suprise of my web search. I knew we were leading in the sub-category of murder; just saw they are expanding Poject CeaseFire....there is some hope that common sense is taking hold. Nationwide, I think it would quickly drop the murder rate.
The Sexual Assault stats amazed me too. I guess you guys better get after registering those "pocket pistols" that keep coming unzipped! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Nice hearing a different side from Canada for a change. I used to hunt and fish there quite a bit but life has gotten hectic the last six years or so. Beautiful out in the country! I loved it.
(http://smilecwm.tripod.com/net3/outtahere.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-19-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-19-2000).]
-
Its hard to argue with numbers that say Canada is twice as violent as the States.
It doenst seem that way. I must be missing something. Maybe in gmans nabourhood they have 600 times the national average in violent crimes and that tilts the stats.
Mav. I will teach my boys alot about conflict resolution and avoidence and settlement. Like most children in the world they will not have the pull your gun option.
They will have to be brave enough to do without.
In honesty I have to admit. That if I lived in many parts of the states I would probably feel much more inclined to own a gun(oh ya I do own a gun) but a gun for defence. But where I live it just seems a total non requirement. I guess you could say I am gambling. I think its a safe bet. For me and my kids and their kids.
Toad you seem to have all the stats. Isnt there a stat somewhere that correlates the chance of being killed by a gun with having a gun in the house..
-
Pongo, yes, the chances of an accident with a firearm go up when there's a firearm in the house. Alot of the gun death statistics that the anti-gun media loves to tout include all of the accident deaths, suicides, and justifiable homicides when they talk about violent crime. It's a scare tactic, and unfortunately it works too well.
But, as with anything that you can have an accident with, proper education and training will greatly reduce the number of accidents. I think most parents dinnae realize just how many places kids can get into, and even more dinnae bother to talk to thier kids in a rational manner about the dangers of firearms. Proper storage techniques, along with proper education of the children in the house, will reduce the chances of a firearm accident back to around the level of no firearms present in the house.
Everyone makes such a big deal out of them that the kids want to know what it's about. This leads to accidents. The chances increase greatly when the parents dinnae properly store thier firearm and ammunition, and both are where the kids can get to them.
A couple years back HBO did a show about 5 guns that had been involved in accidental deaths. The show had a blantant anti-gun bias to it. But the last guy, who's child was killed playing with a revolver, gets some credit (and prolly pissed off the producers of the show). He took credit, and near the end of his segment he said he should've put the gun up where he knew the child couldna get it.
This is a problem that registration will do nothing to help, because registration does not provide training. And yes, I'm in favor of providing proof that you've passed a firearm safety course before you can purchase a firearm. Something similar to the hunter's safety course you have to take before you can get your tags for deer season.
BTW, your chances of dying in a traffic accident greatly increase every time you get into a motor vehicle and get out on the highways.
-
You guys really like your labels, don't you? 'Tree Hugger', indeed.
You sound like a bunch of extras from 'Deliverance'. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
(oh ya I do own a gun) but a gun for defence. But where I live it just seems a total non requirement. I guess you could say I am gambling. ...
Toad you seem to have all the stats. Isnt there a stat somewhere that correlates the chance of being killed by a gun with having a gun in the house..
Pongo,
Obviously I own guns too. 90% of them shotguns. I don't really ever think about using them for defense. I shoot a LOT of clay targets and in the Fall, the boys, the Labs and I shoot a LOT of pheasant, quail, ducks and geese. Like golf clubs, they are simply "sports equipment" at my house.
I don't feel I'm gambling at all. The guns are in a true safe when not in use.
Hunting and shooting with my sons has been one of the high points of parenthood for me. I would not trade the sunsets over a marsh, the sunrises in the wheat stubble and the joshing around the campfires at night with my sons for a mountain of gold.
I hope they will be able to do the same things in the same places with my grandchildren and the grandchildren of our Labs.
Where I live I literally never worry about violent crime. It's not why I have guns.
As for stats, if you can use a search engine you can easily find anything I've posted. Even a study that likely shows having a gun in the house raises the possibility of a gun accident.
You can also quite easily find one that shows that owning a car raises the possibility of having a car accident. Further, you'll find there are more fatal car accidents than gun accidents and a disproportionate number of car fatalities involve children.
Point is that it is NEVER simple. Point is that it is NEVER just the stupid inanimate object's fault. It's about a person's responsibility and accountability to himself, his family and his society.
Take the Firestone/Ford Explorer tire crashes. Clearly, there is a problem with those tires. SomeONE at Firestone has to step up and take responsibility.
However, check and see how many of the people, including children, that died in the crashes were NOT wearing seatbelts. Crosscheck and see how many of the other occupants that WERE wearing seatbelts
lived through the same crashes.
There has to be some responsibility/accountability there as well, I think.
Violent crime rates need to fall. There are differences of opinion over how to do this the fastest and the most inexpensive way.
So far, Exile/CeaseFire have been very successful at a relatively modest cost, without bothering anyone but the criminals.
Why not pursue that immediately and see how things go?
In the meantime, the law-abiding citizens are causing no one any trouble anyway.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-20-2000).]