Canada's PM Paul Martin plans on banning hand guns

[philh 0]

"First of all, you claim that more guns = more crime. And then you turn around and say that more people licensed to carry concealed handguns in public is not a problem. That's contradictory. "

No it isnt contradictory becuase any change in the law that allows people to carry concealed weapons has no necessary implication for the number of weapons in circulation .

My claim that most homicdes are domestic crimes refers to the fact the victim was an intimate of the murderer. If a man beats up his girlfriend i would consider that domestic violence whether they share the same roof or not. If you dont like that wording then sure Ill change it to intimate violence if you like.Not sure anyone else would be familair with such a term. But the point remains the same , most murders are not comitted by someone trying to rob,rape ,assualt etc but by people who are well known to each other. So the idea that you need a gun for self defence against criminals is a bogus one. My sources for data + a few other interseting stats:

According to the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports 1976-1999, 59% of the murder victims known to have been killed by an intimate in 1999 were shot to death. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Homicide Trends in the United States, Intimate Homicide, 2001.



"In about 80% of (homicide) cases , the victims and assailant were known to each other"Domestic Vioelence and Homicide Antecdents, Dr Murray Straus.

"Within the period covered, twice as many women were killed by husbands or intimate acquaintances using firearms than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means."
Men, Women, and Murder: Gender-Specific Differences in Rates of Fatal Violence and Victimization , Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH, and James A. Mercy, PhD, The Journal of Trauma , Vol. 33, No. 1, July 1992, pp. 1-5.

"Family and intimate assaults involving a firearm were 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm associated assaults between family and intimates. "
Risk Factors for Violent Death of Women in the Home , James E. Bailey, MD, MPH; Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH; et al, Archives of Internal Medicine , Vol. 157, April 14, 1997, pp. 777-782.

----------------------------
"There are countries with no legal guns and few gun murders.
There are countries with no legal guns and lots of gun murders.
There are countries with lots of legal guns and few gun murders.
There are countries with lots of legal guns and lots of gun murders.

And yet you conclude that legal gun ownership is the determining factor in gun murders?

Go fish. "

There are people who smoke and dont get lung cancer and there are people who eat fatty foods and dont get fat. does that mean you deny that smoking causes lung cancer or that fatty foods make people fat?there are people who get shot in the head and survive , so do you deny that shooting someone in the head cuases death? a few exceptions do not disprove strong statisical relationships , they are called outliers and exist in many strong relationships. The strong relationship i refer to is the one that shows a high correltion between countries(with similar socie eco conditions) that have high number of guns and high number of homicides.its not just the US, switzerland has the second highest gun ownership rate in the West and guess what the second highest homicide rate: check the data:(source Cia World fact Book 1992)Gun ownership rates%s
United States 29
Switzerland 14
Finland 7
Germany 7
Belgium 6
France 6
Canada 5
Norway 4
Europe 4
Australia 2
Netherlands 2
United Kingdom 1

Handgun murders (1992) (2) Handgun 1992 Handgun Murder
Country Murders Population Rate (per 100,000) -----------------------------------------------------------
United States 13,429 254,521,000 5.28
Switzerland 97 6,828,023 1.42
Canada 128 27,351,509 0.47
Sweden 36 8,602,157 0.42
Australia 13 17,576,354 0.07
United Kingdom 33 57,797,514 0.06
Japan 60 124,460,481 0.05

How can you deny such a link? its not just the Us has the highest gun ownership and the highest homicde rate , but Switzerland the second highest gun ownership rate and the second highest homicde rate. Do the cultural differences(so far the only suggested explanation suggested on this forum) extend to Switzerland as well?
the actual correlation rate between gun ownership and homicide has been calculated as .84 (source:"International Correlations between Gun Ownership and Rates of Homicide and Suicide", Canadian Medical Association Journal 148:1723 (May 15, 1993).

[kallend 1,683]

for brevity.

Ah - but the fatal flaw in your argument is that as soon as an intimate kills their spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend/sibling etc. they become a criminal, hence they immediately leave the ranks of law abiding gun owners. Ipso facto, law abiding gun owners cannot be responsible for the homicide rate.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

2 + 2 = fucking 4

I understand your point, but I'd rather debate grownups instead of juveniles. It's really stupid to invalidate yourself with unnecessary and conflictive additions. Unless you are talking to brutes and children that only listen if slapped first. I won't insult another human that way by assuming that's who they are.

Interjection of a shock word or emotion trigger is just the opposite of your claim that "content is king". It shows a weakness and inability to communicate and think.

You're the one that complains about unclear thread titles, what about debate cluttered with extraneous and no-value added childishness?

Like it or not, the delivery is as important as content, especially in subjective arguments. And I'm a huge 'content' person. But I won't waste time with someone that doesn't understand that as well.

Further, you didn't acknowledge anything from the posts other than your 'content' position. Are you off your game today? Or just being obstinate that only your points matter here.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

2 + 2 = fucking 4

You may not like the way I stated that equation, above, but the curse word I interjected doesn't change the fact that the equation is correct.

Actually it does. In an equation such as the one of above, the left hand operand must EQUAL the right hand operand. And on no calculator or computer will you find that 2 + 2 equals 'fucking 4'.

But I get your point.

I also do care about this topic so I nitpick instead of debating it.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I also do care about this topic so I nitpick instead of debating it.

and it's lots more interesting than having John trade stats with the Europeans

I think this is first time John participated in thread drift away from guns.

John - Whenever we meet, I want to go shooting and then buy you some "freaking" drinks and share "god damn" stories. In that order of course (My father has been a gunssmith and dealer for nearly 60 years.)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JohnRich 4]

If you would quit cut-and-pasting snippets from an anti-gun website long enough to actually think for yourself, you would have a chance to understand. But it doesn't look like that is going to happen.

Quote

"First of all, you claim that more guns = more crime. And then you turn around and say that more people licensed to carry concealed handguns in public is not a problem. That's contradictory. "

No it isnt contradictory becuase any change in the law that allows people to carry concealed weapons has no necessary implication for the number of weapons in circulation .

And this is a good example of why you need to think. When people are licensed to carry, there may be more guns in circulation, because some people will buy a new gun just for that purpose. But even if it's the same number of guns, the exposure time for potential to use those guns greatly expands. A gun that is at home while you're driving on the road can't be a problem. But a gun that is in the car with you, can. Despite that increased exposure from the advent of concealed carry laws in 46 states, with more people than ever walking around armed, crime has dropped to a 30-year low. Furthermore, U.S. gun ownership rates are at their highest point ever. And yet, crime is at a 30 year low. This directly contradicts your knee-jerk theory that "more guns = more crime". You're just plain wrong.

Quote

My claim that most homicdes are domestic crimes refers to the fact the victim was an intimate of the murderer. ...most murders are comitted by people who are well known to each other.

Wrong again. Most are committed by "acquaintences". This is the 2nd time I've told you this. You aren't paying attention again. Go look it up in the FBI UCR report for murder. Have you even actually looked at that report, or are you just pasting cherry-picked anti-gun excerpts? An acquaintence can be the guy that mows your yard, your gas station attendent, a neighbor down the street, a friend of a friend, a co-worker, and so on - it is not a "domestic" crime. Those are specifically categorized as to the family/personal relationship in the FBI murder report, should some miracle occur and you actually look at it.

Quote

So the idea that you need a gun for self defence against criminals is a bogus one.

Tell it to these folks: The KABR's "Operation Self Defense" files:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/

[juanesky 0]

Quote

John - Whenever we meet, I want to go shooting and then buy you some "freaking" drinks and share "god damn" stories. In that order of course (My father has been a gunssmith and dealer for nearly 60 years.)

Really?, did he had to make a lot of trips to Colombia or Canada?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[philh 0]

'When people are licensed to carry, there may be more guns in circulation, because some people will buy a new gun just for that purpose. But even if it's the same number of guns, the exposure time for potential to use those guns greatly expands.'
-------
may be and are - are not the same. Your reasoning is entirley specualtive. If a state says you may now carry a conceeled weapon doesnt mean you will - or even the number of concealed weapons goes up.How you would get reliable data here is beyond me, after all if a state changes the law to allow conealed weapons one would expect the number of people to admit having concealed weapons to go up whether it had or not, as many would be less likely to admit it when they were illegal. Even if it does go up doesnt mean it goes up by a statistically significant amount.

But lets presume you are right that gun ownership in the US has soared along with a falling crime rate. Something which i think is far from clear. according to Gallup in 1993 51% of households had guns in 2000 the number was 42%. But lets give you the benefit of the doubt, this 30 year low in the crime rate is still massivley higher than similar countries who do not allow guns. why do you so consiently ignore this fact? As i have said before its easy for figures to fall when they are ridiculously high. There's no question that indeed the US homcide rate was and still is ridicously high. and it is a fact that the US with the higest number of guns of all Western democracies still has the highest homicide rate. It is a fact that Switzerlandd with the second highest gun ownership rate has the second highest homicide rate. like many gun loving Americans you seem to look at the US in isolation and refusse to consider it in the context of the wider world.

Lastly lets give you even more benefit of the doubt. Lets presume that crime in the US continued to fall so that it was even lower than its western counterparts. Should we finally conclude in favour of guns? Remember when analysing statistics you dont just get the one bit of the sample you like and discard the rest. So far the last few years in the US the picture has been improving. but that must be taken in the context of the so many decades of outrgeoulsy high homicde rates. So why should we ignore the past stupendous Us homicide rates? I am happy for Americans that there crime rate has fallen , but if we want to know whether heaveily armed countries have higher homicde rates than others we need to include past and present data. If we include past data - as indeed we must- the picture is one of the armed nations facing much higher homicde rates. The current data shows only a change in the degree of this fact, but the direction of it remains exactly the same. if the gun loving US manages to get a homicde rate lower than its gun hating allies for a period of time equal or greater than the time its had a higher rate for, then you maye have a valid point. So far even with the lowering of the homcide rate we havent even had one year of this , let alone the decadees you would need to redress such a terrible imbalance.

[philh 0]

I think a skydiving analalogy would help here.
Imagine you have Country A where 100% of jumpers have an AAD and 1% its jumpers die per year and this stays the same for 10 yearrs . Lets also imagine you have Country B where 25% of its jumpers have an AAD and 4% of its jumpers die per year and this also stays the same for 10 years . Lets also presume that those extra death are from no or low pulls. i think it would be fair to conclude AAD's save lives. Not just from the stats but we understand that AADS save people from low or no pulls and thats what people were dying from.

This is exactly what we have but in opposite form with guns. Guns take lives and those countries with more guns have more lives taken.
The conclusion should be obvious.

Now lets assume that Country B increases is % of AAD to 50% and the fatality rate goes up say to 5% in 1 year . Would we reverse our conclusion about AAD's? I dont think so. first off the change is not enough to outweigh the fact that although the death rate has gone up after an increase in AAD's. country B stil has a higher death rate and a lower AAD rate so the conclusion is still the same.Maybe its only true to 98.5% confidence level rather than 99% confidence level but its still true. furthermore it would take more than one years of data to reverse the conclusion if there had been ten years to establish it. This is exactly the same principle with your recent lower homicide stats in the USA.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

John - Whenever we meet, I want to go shooting and then buy you some "freaking" drinks and share "god damn" stories. In that order of course (My father has been a gunssmith and dealer for nearly 60 years.)

Really?, did he had to make a lot of trips to Colombia or Canada?

yeah, I remember trips where we would just go into different towns and start killing everyone and everything in sight. Good times, good memories. It was the guns, they just changed us from caring, soft hearted doormats to slavering revenge bloodlusting maniacs.

But then you set the gun down and we revert to civilized again.

(my old man was a farmer and we had a building where he repaired guns for others in the area. he collected mainly Winchester rifles, but a bunch of other stuff too. I've gotten to shoot most anything growing up. We used to go to gun shows and set up our areas and spend most of the time just talking to other enthusiasts and once in a while sell a rifle or two. It was great and some of the best bonding we ever had also, just hanging out together. Funny, not a single time did someone buy a gun at a show and go next door to the quickie mart and rob it. He's sold stuff to guys all over the country. For me, gun owners were decent, respectful people that took care of their stuff, respected families and would stand by a friend. It's a lot different than the stereotype promoted today by the urban types.

Maybe the solution is to just not let city people own guns until the demographic grows up and can handle it (it's all about how you raise your kids, then having or not having guns doesn't become an issue). The rest of us are fine.)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

This is exactly what we have but in opposite form with guns. Guns take lives and those countries with more guns have more lives taken.
The conclusion should be obvious.

Nuts - it's culture, not weapons. When I grew up, guns were part of the culture, we had zero issues with gun related crime. People were comfortable with them, respected their function, and they weren't objects of fear nor were they taboo to adolescents - so they weren't used as status symbols or as a sign of toughness.

Where gun crime is an issue is focused in areas that are trying to stifle them and areas where population density creates thugs. Guns are feared, and thus are used by those that want to leverage fear. Since they are taboo, they end up with those that consider themselves 'outside' the respectable. It's self perpetuating.

Keep them as a 'normal' part of the culture, and the problem becomes statistically non-significant.

Anti-gun advocates are creating the very problem they are, I believe with good but misplaced intentions, trying to fix.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I understand your point, but I'd rather debate grownups instead of juveniles. It's really stupid to invalidate yourself with unnecessary and conflictive additions. Unless you are talking to brutes and children that only listen if slapped first. I won't insult another human that way by assuming that's who they are.

Interjection of a shock word or emotion trigger is just the opposite of your claim that "content is king". It shows a weakness and inability to communicate and think.

Like it or not, the delivery is as important as content...

Oh, I agree that delivery is important, and that mature, professional responses are better than immature, unprofessional ones.

But I don't consider a rare curse word to be that big a deal. After all, we see distractions in messages here every day, in the form of poor spelling, bad grammar, lack of paragraph structure, and so on. However, we routinely ignore all those distractions in order to focus on what the writer is actually trying to say. In fact, if someone dares to chide a poor speller, he will be immediately pounced upon as someone who is rude, for daring to criticize someone's English skills, rather than focusing on the content.

So I just see a curse word as no different than poor spelling, bad grammar and lack of paragraph structure. I just skip over all that lousy stuff and interpret for the actual message. Criticizing the writer of the curse word just adds an additional distraction to those that are already there.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Your reasoning is entirley specualtive... blah blah blah...

Actually, my reasoning is backed by years of study and facts, of which you don't seem to have the benefit.

Let's jump to the end game. You want to ban all guns. So tell me, how do you propose to confiscate all those millions now in private ownership? Tell me your plan for taking them out of circulation.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

I understand your point, but I'd rather debate grownups instead of juveniles. It's really stupid to invalidate yourself with unnecessary and conflictive additions. Unless you are talking to brutes and children that only listen if slapped first. I won't insult another human that way by assuming that's who they are.

Interjection of a shock word or emotion trigger is just the opposite of your claim that "content is king". It shows a weakness and inability to communicate and think.

Like it or not, the delivery is as important as content...

Oh, I agree that delivery is important, and that mature, professional responses are better than immature, unprofessional ones.

But I don't consider a rare curse word to be that big a deal. After all, we see distractions in messages here every day, in the form of poor spelling, bad grammar, lack of paragraph structure, and so on. However, we routinely ignore all those distractions in order to focus on what the writer is actually trying to say. In fact, if someone dares to chide a poor speller, he will be immediately pounced upon as someone who is rude, for daring to criticize someone's English skills, rather than focusing on the content.

So I just see a curse word as no different than poor spelling, bad grammar and lack of paragraph structure. I just skip over all that lousy stuff and interpret for the actual message. Criticizing the writer of the curse word just adds an additional distraction to those that are already there.

usualy por spelin an gramer isint delibrete. cursin is.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Richards 0]

If Canadians would wake up and stop voting liberal out of fear of the other alternatives we would not see this silliness.

Unfortunately the Canadian sheep ( oops i mean voters) are to stupid to see past the Liberal governments silly anti-conservative, anti-american, anti-nonliberal fear mongering so we will continue to see more of this silliness.

They will ban guns, pit-bulls, sharp kitchen knives, baseball bats and anything that could potentially hurt people ( parachutes may be next) and protect us all from ourselves. Uncle Paul will eventually think for us, control our allowance and tell us when we can go potty. Aren't we lucky.

Unless we develop the testicular fortitude to actually send thugs to prison for more than the usual 2 weeks we can ban everything including movies with guns but we will not see any change in violent crime.

However this will accomplish one important thing as PM see's it. He has bought votes from the Canadian sheep who will swallow this faster than a whore swallows....... oh never mind.

Anyway I am sorry if I wasted anyones time with my rant tangent but I am sick of seeing the Fiberals playing thier stupid games ( thats it Canada, vote liberal without thinking, be very afraid of thinking for yourself, "those conservatives just scare me").

For the record I am not a gun enthusiast but even I think this law is a silly inneffective vote grab.

Cheers,

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[IanHarrop 37]

Quote

If Canadians would wake up and stop voting liberal out of fear of the other alternatives we would not see this silliness.

Unfortunately the Canadian sheep ( oops i mean voters) are to stupid to see past the Liberal governments silly anti-conservative, anti-american, anti-nonliberal fear mongering so we will continue to see more of this silliness.

They will ban guns, pit-bulls, sharp kitchen knives, baseball bats and anything that could potentially hurt people ( parachutes may be next) and protect us all from ourselves. Uncle Paul will eventually think for us, control our allowance and tell us when we can go potty. Aren't we lucky.

Unless we develop the testicular fortitude to actually send thugs to prison for more than the usual 2 weeks we can ban everything including movies with guns but we will not see any change in violent crime.

However this will accomplish one important thing as PM see's it. He has bought votes from the Canadian sheep who will swallow this faster than a whore swallows....... oh never mind.

Anyway I am sorry if I wasted anyones time with my rant tangent but I am sick of seeing the Fiberals playing thier stupid games ( thats it Canada, vote liberal without thinking, be very afraid of thinking for yourself, "those conservatives just scare me").

For the record I am not a gun enthusiast but even I think this law is a silly inneffective vote grab.

Cheers,

Richards

Careful about throwing all Canadians in to the vote Liberal dung heap. Although many in Ontario fall into that pile, most Albertans do not. Unfortunately theres more people in east and elections are often decided before polls close in the west.

Ian Harrop
Calgary

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[RMURRAY 1]

did you mean to say "too stupid"?

[JohnRich 4]

News:

Gun owners dismiss prime minister’s plan

Prime Minister Paul Martin may have been hoping for a bull’s-eye last week when he promised a Liberal government would ban all handguns in Canada, but hunters, gun collectors and politicians on both sides of the spectrum say Martin’s surprise election promise missed the mark.

“If this had a chance of working, all firearms owners would support it, but it’s not going to work because bans aren’t effective,” said Metchosin handgun collector Gary Kangas. “If somebody could point out one jurisdiction where this has worked, I’d take it seriously.”

As part of community safety platform plank, Martin proposed an all-out ban on handguns, saying that a Liberal government will confiscate legally registered handguns in Canada.

Kangas said countries with a total ban on weapons - for example Holland and the Philippines - have higher handgun death rates than Canada. The Philippines leads that category with 42 deaths per 100,000 people, with the Netherlands around 9.5 and Canada at 5.5 per 100,000. In the United Kingdom, studies estimate the criminal use of firearms has increased by 40 per cent since the British government enacted a firearms ban in 1997. Strict handgun registration laws have been in effect in Canada for close to 60 years, but Kangas said that hasn’t stopped criminals from importing and using illegal weapons.

One officer said that in 20 years of policing, he’s never seen a properly registered handgun used to commit an offence.

Saanich-Gulf Islands Conservative candidate Gary Lunn took direct aim at Martin over the proposal. “I’m struggling with how (Martin) thinks people with bad intentions are going to go in and register their guns,” he said. “I don’t see how it can possibly reduce crime.”

Source: OakBay News

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

So I just see a curse word as no different than poor spelling, bad grammar and lack of paragraph structure. I just skip over all that lousy stuff and interpret for the actual message. Criticizing the writer of the curse word just adds an additional distraction to those that are already there.

usualy por spelin an gramer isint delibrete. cursin is.

So you disapprove of the stage comedy performed by guys like Eddie Murphy and Dennis Leary?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So you disapprove of the stage comedy performed by guys like Eddie Murphy and Dennis Leary?

it's a crutch

Eddie is funnier without it. Unless he's appealing to a specific crowd that never left their preteen years.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Richards 0]

Ian,

You're right. My apologies. I read about this new elction promise and lost my e-temper. You Albertans are actually a very sensible bunch (which is why Parliament Hill fears you). I look forward to the day that the west has a louder voice in Canadian politics. I had no right to lump everyone together.

Cheers,

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Richards 0]

RMurray,

OOPS!!!! I suppose the next time I decide to go on a self rightious rampage I will do a spellcheck on my e-rant. Thank you for correcting my error, I will be more conscientious in the future.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So I just see a curse word as no different than poor spelling, bad grammar and lack of paragraph structure. I just skip over all that lousy stuff and interpret for the actual message. Criticizing the writer of the curse word just adds an additional distraction to those that are already there.

usualy por spelin an gramer isint delibrete. cursin is.

So you disapprove of the stage comedy performed by guys like Eddie Murphy and Dennis Leary?

Who?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[RMURRAY 1]

Quote

RMurray,

OOPS!!!! I suppose the next time I decide to go on a self rightious rampage I will do a spellcheck on my e-rant. Thank you for correcting my error, I will be more conscientious in the future.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family.


Richards

no worries, I am just kidding. I am no Liberal Party supporter. I'm for the Green Party for now on. Not sure what their stance on hand guns is...

rm

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So I just see a curse word as no different than poor spelling, bad grammar and lack of paragraph structure. I just skip over all that lousy stuff and interpret for the actual message. Criticizing the writer of the curse word just adds an additional distraction to those that are already there.

usualy por spelin an gramer isint delibrete. cursin is.

So you disapprove of the stage comedy performed by guys like Eddie Murphy and Dennis Leary?

Who?

Let's try again.

If you went to a stage comedy show, and the performer started using a lot of curse words, would you be offended and get up and walk out?