Canada's Gun Violence: Blame America

[JohnRich 4]

Update:

Prime Minister Paul Martin incorrectly blamed the United States for gun crime in Canada by using an unsubstantiated figure to assert that 50 per cent of this country's gun crimes involve smuggled firearms, U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins said yesterday.

Mr. Wilkins said that Canadian officials admitted in meetings with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice this week "that that figure was just grabbed out of thin air." He insisted the Canadian government should focus on joint efforts to combat gun-running rather than pointing fingers.

The figure, which others have used previously, is not based on any statistical study that could be traced by The Globe and Mail, and police forces and other authorities said yesterday it is not verifiable.

"I know that figure of 50 per cent has been bandied about, but no one can substantiate that figure," said Staff Sergeant Paul Marsh, a spokesman for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

He listed U.S. efforts to stop gun smuggling to Canada, including joint Canada-U.S. police teams, more than 40 joint investigations, access to U.S. electronic gun-tracing systems, and training for Canadian forces.

Staff Insp. Crawford said most of the guns smuggled from the United States come in cars a few at a time over land borders. Most are smuggled by Canadians, perhaps with U.S. accomplices, he said.

Source: Globe and Mail

Well, now wasn't that interesting. So much for blaming America!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In my country we draw the line at a different place than you. We think guns are weapons of mass destruction, and we have the crime statistics to prove it.

it rather fails the definition of mass.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

In my country we draw the line at a different place than you. We think guns are weapons of mass destruction, and we have the crime statistics to prove it.

Well, if you think a firearm is the same thing as a nuclear bomb, then I don't think I can have a reasonable discussion with you.

A firearm does not have the same potential to kill people as a weapon of mass destruction. Not one iota. Not even collectively speaking.

And if everyone up there thinks firearms are the equivalent of nuclear bombs, then why do you still allow your citizens to own them?

P.S. I also don't think you have the right to speak in terms of "we" on behalf of everyone else in Canada.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Well, now wasn't that interesting. So much for blaming America!

Any reason this is a reply to my post? I only ask because it doesn't answer any question I asked.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Well, now wasn't that interesting. So much for blaming America!

Don't you worry one bit. They'll find something else to point at us over...sure as sh*t.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Quote

it's worthy to note that the presence of the law and the consequences of violating it *may* reduce (not eliminate) the committing of the act in question

I think that people willing to commit felony crimes with guns, like aggravated assault, robbery and murder, don't give a second thought to some minor inconvenience like a gun ban. Why should they worry about a slap on the wrist for illegal possession of a gun, when they're committing crimes worth a decade or more of hard prison time?

I agree with you up to a point: where people either already have the illegal guns and decide to use them to commit other crimes, or are planning a crime (such as a robbery) which requires guns, and will get them one way or the other.

When I consider other scenarios, such as crimes of passion or maybe where an otherwise ordinary citizen falls prey to temptation of one sort or another, it seems to me that existing gun laws probably reduce (not bar outright) availability of guns to a point where it may just prevent *some* gun crime.

If the red tape (read: mere nuisance) saves a handful of lives (EDIT: research would be appropriate, if not already conducted), I'm down. Are you?

Quote

What you say would only prove true if the penalty for illegal possession were something like a mandatory 10 years in prison.

I've mentioned before that I think our criminal justice system makes a laughing stock of much of our body of law: penalties are mostly pittances. Until our culture evolves to a point where people are see the law as something to abide for what it stands (rather than just the consequences), I feel we need to up the stakes somehow so that the penalties serve as a more effective deterrent.

Exactly how to do so, however, is another topic.

EDIT: Added a note above.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Well, now wasn't that interesting. So much for blaming America!

If Martin did issue such a statement, then a retraction is definitely in order: kind words from an RCMP Staff on shift at the precinct ain't enough.

[UKjumpjack 0]

Quote

No law has ever stopped the smuggling of anything.

Tell that to the people frequently arrested and imprisoned for it

[crozby 0]

Quote

No law has ever stopped the smuggling of anything.

Maybe not 100%, but severe enough punishments can reduce smuggling to a trickle. For example, not many people bother smuggling heroin into Singapore these days because they kill people they catch doing so.

If the punishment for illegal possession of a gun was harsh enough it would reduce the number of illegal guns in circulation. Or don't you think so?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

No law has ever stopped the smuggling of anything.

Maybe not 100%, but severe enough punishments can reduce smuggling to a trickle. For example, not many people bother smuggling heroin into Singapore these days because they kill people they catch doing so.

If the punishment for illegal possession of a gun was harsh enough it would reduce the number of illegal guns in circulation. Or don't you think so?

There's another factor related to Singapore though, it's one of the least corrupt countries in existence. US laws in certain areas are pretty tough too, but I expect it's easier to pay to make certain people look the other way when convenient.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If the red tape (read: mere nuisance) saves a handful of lives (EDIT: research would be appropriate, if not already conducted), I'm down. Are you?

How many does it take to make a handful? We already know that waiting periods have killed a 'handful' of women with ineffective restraining orders against their ex'es.

You can't just measure the positive gains of such a repressive change.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Quote

If the red tape (read: mere nuisance) saves a handful of lives (EDIT: research would be appropriate, if not already conducted), I'm down. Are you?

How many does it take to make a handful? We already know that waiting periods have killed a 'handful' of women with ineffective restraining orders against their ex'es.

Excellent point.

Quote

You can't just measure the positive gains of such a repressive change.

You're right, but I still think it would be worthwhile to conduct a study into the various scenarios to come up with an educated guess and an idea of how to strike a balance, though, accurate measurements notwithstanding.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

We already know that waiting periods have killed a 'handful' of women with ineffective restraining orders against their ex'es.

I'm not buying that argument without better evidence. Simply having a handgun is unlikely to save your life without proper training. I don't see a short waiting period to have much of an impact on reducing murder due to an ineffective restraining order.

Having a gun is not the end all be all of self defense. If police officers can have their guns taken away from them by criminals, what makes you think the same could not happen to an untrained civilian who just bought her very first handgun?

And, no, I'm not arguing for gun control, or even waiting periods. I just don't think waiting periods are killing women off like you claim.

[JohnRich 4]

Another news story on this subject:

With Canada's murder rate rising 12% last year, politicians are looking for someone to blame. The bogeyman, as usual, is America: On Monday night, during his dinner with Condoleezza Rice, Prime Minister Paul Martin claimed Canada's gun crime problem was being caused by weapons smuggled in from the United States.

But Paul Martin doesn't have the facts to back up the claim. Despite the $2-billion committed to the Liberals' gun registry, the government does not even know the number of guns seized from criminals, let alone where those guns came from. Nor does Martin's government have any evidence that gun smuggling has recently gotten worse. (In Toronto, which keeps some data on guns, Paul Culver, a senior Crown Attorney, claims U.S. guns are a "small part" of his city's problem.)

Mr. Martin's larger mistake is that -- like most politicians in Canada -- he puts his faith in gun control as a means to fight crime, and clearly believes the United States should too. But as Canada's experience with its registry -- which hasn't solved any crimes -- shows, gun control isn't the answer. Getting law-abiding citizens to disarm or register their weapons is easy. The hard part is taking guns away from criminals. Toronto's gangs have no trouble getting the illegal drugs they sell. Since they are already involved in a criminal trade, why should we expect that the law would keep them from acquiring guns to defend their turf?

The experiences of the U.K. and Australia, two island nations whose borders are much easier to control and monitor, should also give Canadian gun controllers pause. The British government banned handguns in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Since 1996, serious violent crime has soared by 69%: Robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to 1993 levels. The crooks still had guns, but not their victims.

The immediate effect of Australia's 1996 gun-control regulations was similar. Crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than in 1995. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed an increase of 74%.

It isn't guns that primarily drive violence crime, but drugs (and the war fought against drugs). In other words, if you want to get rid of the murders, stop focusing on the guns and get rid of the gangs.

Source: National Post

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

When I consider other scenarios, such as crimes of passion or maybe where an otherwise ordinary citizen falls prey to temptation of one sort or another, it seems to me that existing gun laws probably reduce (not bar outright) availability of guns to a point where it may just prevent *some* gun crime.

I think that people who act reflexively with violence, can kill someone anyway with whatever happens to be available: clubs, knives, hammers, or lamps. And such people who are unable to control their emotions, quickly develop a criminal record in life, and become barred from gun ownership under already existing laws.

We should not adopt a philosophy of banning gun ownership from everyone, because of their misuse by a few. That is not a model for freedom which I want to be used on society as a whole. We shouldn't determine what is allowable for the good folks, by using a standard set by criminals. I don't want my government to treat me like I'm no more trustworthy than a criminal.

Quote

If the red tape (read: mere nuisance) saves a handful of lives (research would be appropriate, if not already conducted), I'm down. Are you?

A massive government study on a wide variety of gun-control measures has already determined that there is no correlation between any gun-control laws and crime levels. There is no proof whatsoever that such laws accomplish anything. So, I'm not "down" on such ideas - I'm against them. But if you can come up with something that is actually proven to work, I'll listen.

Quote

Until our culture evolves to a point where people are see the law as something to abide for what it stands (rather than just the consequences), I feel we need to up the stakes somehow so that the penalties serve as a more effective deterrent.

Even laws proscribing life in prison or execution don't stop people from committing murder. I don't think that people consider such consequences when they are about to commit such an act. And if they do, they figure they won't get caught.

But you're on to something there on a different level. It's about our culture in general. Kids need to be raised to respect the law, and other people's lives and property. It's not about gun-control, it's about what we're putting in people's heads. It's about accepting responsibility for our actions, and doing what is right. Too many people aren't teaching those basic core values any more. That is what's at the root of the criminal mind.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

No law has ever stopped the smuggling of anything.

Tell that to the people frequently arrested and imprisoned for it

That just creates an opportunity for other smugglers to fill the void left behind by the arrests. It's a business opportunity for them to make more money. Others step forward to fulfill the need. The people may come and go, but the situation remains the same.

I'm not arguing that such laws should be eliminated. I'm just saying that it is naive to believe that passing such laws actually stops the criminal behavior.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

The experiences of the U.K. and Australia, two island nations whose borders are much easier to control and monitor, should also give Canadian gun controllers pause. The British government banned handguns in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Since 1996, serious violent crime has soared by 69%: Robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to 1993 levels. The crooks still had guns, but not their victims.

The immediate effect of Australia's 1996 gun-control regulations was similar. Crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than in 1995. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed an increase of 74%.

Gosh John, are you at it again? Firstly what is the source? Secondly you have dished these "stats" several times in earlier posts and it has been prooven that they are wrong. Do you think repeating them make them more thrue? I can not be bothered repeating all that was documented in earlier threads - for those interested do a search.
I think the job as Iraqi infrmation minister is still open for you to apply...

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

No law has ever stopped the smuggling of anything.

Maybe not 100%, but severe enough punishments can reduce smuggling to a trickle. For example, not many people bother smuggling heroin into Singapore these days because they kill people they catch doing so.

If the punishment for illegal possession of a gun was harsh enough it would reduce the number of illegal guns in circulation. Or don't you think so?

I don't want my country turned into a place where people are being executed for such crimes. Heck, America is already routinely criticized for the few executions we have now. That sounds barbaric to me. And to add yet more crimes for which execution would be possible, would just make it worse. That's tyranny by the goverment, which is even worse then random gun murders. Even if it did reduce the number of guns in circulation, the solution would be worse than the problem.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I still think it would be worthwhile to conduct a study into the various scenarios to come up with an educated guess and an idea of how to strike a balance...

Here is the most comprehensive study ever done on this subject:

THIS month the National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report on gun-control laws. The big news is that the academy's panel couldn't identify any benefits of decades-long effort to reduce crime and injury by restricting gun ownership.

The academy, however, should believe its own findings. Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey that covered 80 different gun-control measures and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents...

Source: New York Post (Forget it, this link is no longer valid.)

From the National Academy of Sciences:

Current research and data on firearms, violent crime, and suicide are too weak to support strong conclusions about the effects of various violence-prevention, deterrence and control measures, says a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council.

Source: N.A.S.

After all these decades of trying numerous different schemes, they still can't say that gun control actually works!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Simply having a handgun is unlikely to save your life without proper training.

It's as simple as point and click - just like operating your computer mouse. It doesn't take much training to operate a gun. And when someone is breaking into your house in the middle of the night, it's enough to protect yourself and your family.

See these sites for thousands of stories of armed self defense by people with what you would consider to be "improper training":

The NRA's "Armed Citizen" files:
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

The KABR's "Operation Self Defense" files:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If police officers can have their guns taken away from them by criminals, what makes you think the same could not happen to an untrained civilian who just bought her very first handgun?

Quote:

"At most, 1% of defensive gun uses resulted in the offender taking the gun away from the victim (authors analysis of NCS data). Even these few cases did not necessarily involve the offender snatching the gun out of the victim's hands. Instead a burglar might, for example, have been leaving a home with one of the household's guns when a resident attempted to stop him using another household gun."

Source: Gary Kleck, PhD, "Point Blank; Guns and Crime in America", Walter de Gruyter Press, 1991. Data from "1975-1985 National Crime Survey", Dept. of Justice.

In other words, in 99% of the cases, the gun belonging to the intended victim either helped in self-defense, or was at worst neutral. Those are good odds in favor of the victim!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Gosh John, are you at it again? Firstly what is the source? Secondly you have dished these "stats" several times in earlier posts and it has been prooven that they are wrong. Do you think repeating them make them more thrue? I can not be bothered repeating all that was documented in earlier threads - for those interested do a search.

No, I'm not at it again. If you had been paying the least bit of attention, you would have seen that those statistics come from John Lott, not me. They were even in an indented, italicized and web site referenced quote, to indicate their source. How could you have missed all that, mikkey?

Those stats have not been proven wrong. John Lott probably got them from England's Home Office, which keeps track of recorded crimes, much like America's FBI.

The only reason you call them "wrong" is because there is another study which does a phone survey to determine crime levels, which says that crime is 2.5 times higher than what the Home Office says, but the rate is decreasing.

So take your pick: crime in England is low, but going up. Or crime is high, but going down. Personally, I think statistics on actual crimes committed are more reliable than a phone survey.

You can't be bothered to look it up, because what I just repeated would explain-away your spurious claim, and because you don't want that explanation known. You're too busy insulting me and trying to fool everyone into believing that I'm a liar, to actually deal with facts.

So, until next time, have good day.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

It's as simple as point and click

I hope you give your kids and grandkids better firearms training than that. I certainly have had enough to know its not that simple. I'm pretty sure you have too.

It is not as simple as point and click in a high stress situation, especially if on is unfamiliar with firearms like in the scenario we are speaking of.

Is the gun loaded? Is the safety on? Is there a round in the chamber? Does it need to be cocked? How do I aim?

For someone with a lot of experience with guns, these questions can be answered and the situation dealt with quickly and efficiently, in seconds or less. But someone like this is unlikely to be depending on a new gun for self defense. The ones trying to buy their first handgun are far less likely to be familiar with firearms. These are the one to whom a firearm is still a fairly complicated device.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

In other words, in 99% of the cases, the gun belonging to the intended victim either helped in self-defense, or was at worst neutral. Those are good odds in favor of the victim!

You completely missed the point of my post, unless you are claiming untrained persons are better qualified to use firearms than those who have had sufficient firearms training. Is that what you are telling us?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

It's as simple as point and click

...its not that simple.

Gosh, it must be a flat-out miracle that guns are used successfully in self-defense by average citizens up to 2 million times per year.

I think that's a strong argument that guns are not too complicated for average people to use successfully.

Did you look at those web links I provided to you with stories of armed self defense?