firearms homicides fall to all-time low in Canada

[iverglas]

http://www.statcan.ca:80/Daily/English/031001/d031001a.htm

Canada's homicide rate increased in 2002 after two years of relative stability. At the same time, the proportion of homicides committed with firearms fell to an all-time low.

Police services reported 582 homicides in 2002, 29 more than in 2001. As a result, the national homicide rate climbed 4% to 1.85 homicides for every 100,000 people, compared with 1.78 in 2001.

Just over one-quarter (26%) of homicides were committed with a firearm last year, the lowest proportion since statistics were first collected in 1961. Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, firearms accounted for 40% to 50% of all homicides. This proportion has generally been decreasing since 1974.

A total of 149 homicides reported in 2002 were committed with firearms, 22 fewer than in 2001. This total represented a rate of 0.47 for every 100,000 people, the lowest since 1966.

Last year's increase in homicides was driven by a large jump in British Columbia, where there were 126 homicides reported in 2002, up from 84 in 2001. Contributing to the increase in British Columbia were 15 homicides of missing women that occurred in previous years in Port Coquitlam and that were reported by police in 2002.

The B.C. "pig farm" cases will be skewing Canadian homicide figures for a long time. Dozens of women missing over a period of years, most of them apparently killed by one man. If those deaths are excluded -- they were reported in 2002, but did not occur in 2002 -- the 2002 homicide rate was about 1.8/100,000. "Homicide counts reflect the year in which police file the report."


149 firearms homicides in a population of over 31,000,000. At that rate, there would have been about 1350 firearms homicides in the US.

Canada's homicide rate had stabilized in 2000 and 2001, after having generally decreased since the mid-1970s. The 2002 rate was similar to that of Australia and France and was one-third that of the United States.

Overall, stabbings were the most common method (31%) of committing homicide in 2002, followed by shootings (26%), beatings (21%) and strangulation or suffocation (11%).

http://www.canoe.ca/WinnipegNews/ws.ws-10-02-0004.html

The spokesperson for the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control declined to attribute the decline to the recent changes in firearms legislation in Canada.

"The numbers look encouraging," said Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control in Toronto.

"It's still a bit soon to attribute it to the most recent gun-control law, but certainly the trend in Canada of strengthening controls over firearms does appear to be having an effect."

... as did the federal Solicitor General:

Solicitor General Wayne Easter welcomed the numbers, but also stopped short of crediting the gun registry.

"The more important aspect of the firearms registry at the moment is the greater ability, with more registered guns, it gives the national weapons enforcement-support teams to find illegal guns and stolen and missing guns," he said.

Hmm, here's an interesting bit, from the StatCan release:

Handguns accounted for two-thirds of the 149 firearm homicides in 2002, up from about one-half during the 1990s and one-third prior to 1990. The 98 homicides committed with a handgun last year were consistent with the annual average over the past decade.

There has been a declining trend in the use of rifles and shotguns; they now account for only one-quarter of all firearm homicides. A total of 37 homicides were committed with a rifle or shotgun in 2002, substantially fewer than the previous 10-year average of 67. The remaining 14 firearm homicides were committed with other types of firearms.

Of all the handguns used to commit homicide that were recovered by police since 1997, about three-quarters (72%) were not registered. Where ownership could be determined by police, the handgun was owned by the accused in 49% of these homicides and by the victim in 3%; the majority of the remaining handguns were stolen or borrowed.

There's a lot more information concisely presented in the StatCan release, and of course I welcome any comment on any aspect of it that I have not referred to in this post.



By the bye, in other news ... I'm not fond of canoe.ca as a news source (it's the tabloid Sun chain of newspapers), I'm there, so I'll use it: the man in British Columbia who killed his six children, to get revenge on his wife who was divorcing him, was sentenced yesterday:

http://www.canoe.ca/WinnipegNews/ws.ws-10-02-0022.html

CAMPBELL RIVER, B.C. -- A father who admitted to killing his six children has been found guilty of first-degree murder.

"This has not been an easy case," said B.C. Supreme Court Justice Jim Taylor last night, minutes after the jury delivered its verdict.

"Cases involving children are never easy," he said.

The sentence for first-degree murder is automatic: life in prison with no chance of parole for at least 25 years.

Canadian law includes a "faint hope" provision that allows people who receive the mandatory minimum before possibility of parole to apply to a jury to be permitted to apply for parole earlier.

Colin Thatcher, once a provincial Cabinet Minister in Saskatchewan, who was convicted of arranging to have his estranged wife "brutally murdered" (his words) in 1984, is in the middle of that process at the moment; his case is before the jury to decide whether he will be able to apply for early parole. He has never acknowledged his role in the murder. If you ever get a chance to see the CBC TV movie "Love and Hate" (in which Kate Nelligan plays the murder victim), do; it's an excellent study of a powerful and power-mad egocentric who stops at nothing to get his own way. Oh, the victim in that case was viciously beaten, *and* shot.

http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2003/09/16/194516-cp.html



And now, I'm off to vote in today's Ontario election ... buh bye, Republican-wannabe Tories; the winners will unfortunately be the Liberals, but hey, anybody but Ernie Eves!

.

[demsrule4life]

1. Dupe

[MrBenchley]

2. Shows gun control works

and works spectacularly well...

[demsrule4life]

3. Dupe is still the subject

CO posted this earlier today.

[MrBenchley]

4. How tragic for you, dems

Now go complain about it to someone who cares.

[demsrule4life]

6. Why don't you discuss

how well gun control has worked in Northern Ireland?

[CO Liberal]

8. And While We're At It.......

....how well did easy access to guns protect freedom in Iraq?

[MrBenchley]

10. Bad example, dems...

we've got three times the gun death rate that Northern Ireland does...

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/International.html

Northern Ireland.......5.46 per 100,000
U.S............................13.47 per 100,000

[demsrule4life]

13. Very high numbers considering

that in Northern Ireland precent of homes with guns is 8% compared to the USA with 41 percent.

[Spentastic]

15. Hmmm

Don't suppose that could have anything to do with people being murdered in sectarian violence with weapons paid for by donors in the U.S could it?

So even whilst involved in a virtual civil war, you're more likely to be shot dead in e good old U.S.A.

You must be so proud.

[MrBenchley]

16. Shhhhh.....

Don't confuse Dems with facts....

[demsrule4life]

17. Not confused that most of that money came from your neck of

the woods, doubt if any of it came from hicksville.

[MrBenchley]

18. And that has to do with ANY issue under discussion HOW?

[a2birdcage]

5. All this proves.................

is that after you ban guns people find other ways to kill one another. For crying out loud the homicide rate is up even though firearm killings are down. I'd rather have more death by firearms with a lower homicide rate than more death by other means with less firearms used. In the end isn't all about the people that are dying? Talk about a major backfire.

[CO Liberal]

7. Their Homocide Rate is MINISCULE Compared to the US

Which maybe proves that access to guns leads to more death.

[a2birdcage]

9. Their population is MINISCULE Compare to the US (eom)

[MrBenchley]

11. RATE

But thanks for playing "How Desperately Can I Spin?" Enjoy the Rice-a-roni and Turtle Wax.

[a2birdcage]

12. In this case...........

it appears to prove that restricted access to guns leads to more deaths.

[MrBenchley]

14. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrrrre.....

[iverglas]

24. nah, that's not what it shows

It does kinda show that some people don't seem to bother reading what they reply to, of course.


"All this proves.................
is that after you ban guns people find other ways to kill one another.
For crying out loud the homicide rate is up even though firearm killings are down."

The homicide rate -- all homicides -- was up *4%* from 2001 to 2002 -- from 1.78 homicides / 100,000 population to 1.85 homicides / 100,000 population.

The actual number was 29 more homicides reported in 2002 than in 2001 (and 15 of them did not occur in 2002.) This would be the equivalent of an extra 260 or so homicides in the US (130 or so if we don't count the ones that did not occur in 2002).

If the 15 homicides (by a single offender) that were reported in 2002 that did not occur in 2002 are removed -- and especially if they are included in the year in which they actually happened -- there really isn't what you'd call a statistically significant increase in the homicide rate. The total would be 567 homicides -- total of all types of homicide -- in 2002, compared to 553 in 2001. Population also increased of course, so the rate barely rose. And unless the rate rose again the next year, at least, there would have been a blip, not a trend.

When the homicide rate is as low as it is in Canada, any unusual occurrence will affect the rate. The father who killed his six kids in 2002 was one such unusual event. One incident, six homicides. What if he'd had only one child? What if he'd had 15 children? The homicide rate in Canada would be quite different. He single-handedly, in one day, committed over 1% of all the homicides in Canada in 2002.

(These facts do cut both ways. I believe that the two groups of homicides in question -- the 15 murdered women and the 6 murdered children -- were all committed without firearms. So if we disregarded them in order to avoid an "untrue" picture of homicides, we would find that the firearms homicide rate was in fact slightly higher.)

If the US had a homicide rate of 1.8/100,000, there would have been about 5,180 homicides in the US in 2002, total. Wouldn't that have been nice?


http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/other_docs/notes/canus/default.asp

Some interesting figures:

• A much higher proportion of homicides in the United States involve firearms. For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada.

• Firearm homicide rates are 8.1 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.

• Handgun homicide rates are 15.3 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.

• Rates for non-firearm homicides are nearly 2 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1989-95, the average non-firearm homicide rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 1.6 per 100,000 for Canada.

• Between 1987 and 1996, firearm homicide rates increased in the United States but decreased in Canada. During this period, the overall homicide rates decreased in both the U.S. and Canada -- 151;11% and 13% respectively. The U.S. firearm homicide rates increased 2%, compared to a 7% decrease in Canada.

"I'd rather have more death by firearms with a lower homicide rate
than more death by other means with less firearms used."

Gosh, I suppose I would, too.

The problem is that there is no such place on earth -- there is no place that has a lower homicide rate than Canada where firearms homicides comprise a higher proportion of total homicides. Not to my knowledge.

The exact opposite holds true, overall.

The higher the homicide rates, the greater the proportion of total homicides represented by firearms homicides is.

The US, of course, is the prime example, as the figures above show: the non-firearms homicide rate in the US is historically two times the rate in Canada, and the firearms homicide rate in the US is eight times the rate in Canada. (The handgun homicide rate is fifteen times the rate in Canada.) Not as a proportion of all homicides -- as a proportion of total population.


Oddly enough, the same holds true for robberies:

• A greater proportion of robberies in the United States involve firearms. For 1987-96, 38% of robberies in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 25% in Canada. Furthermore, the proportion of robberies involving firearms shows an increasing trend in the U.S. (from 33% in 1987 to 41% in 1996), compared to a decreasing trend in Canada (from 26% in 1987 to 21% in 1996).

• Firearm robbery rates are 3.5 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm robbery rate was 91 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 26 per 100,000 in Canada.

• Rates for all robberies are 2.4 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average robbery rate was 238 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 101 per 100,000 in Canada.

The overall robbery rate is higher, the non-firearm robbery rate is higher (for that you have to do the math), and firearms robberies comprise a higher proportion of all robberies.


"Talk about a major backfire."

Yeah. Unless you can point to some place on earth where the overall homicide rate is declining at the same time as the proportion of homicides committed using firearms is rising, I'm afraid your post was exactly that. Backfire, major.

But of course, I'm talking to someone who responds to:

7. Their Homocide Rate is MINISCULE Compared to the US

by saying:

9. Their population is MINISCULE Compare to the US

A little elementary school math might help here.

A homicide RATE is calculated by dividing the number of homicides by the total population. In these cases, the rate is calculated as the number of homicides per 100,000 population, since the rate per capita would be unwieldy: something under 0.00002 homicides per person, for Canada, for example.

If we were comparing the raw number of homicides in the two countries, someone might have had a point. We weren't.

.

[Romulus]

19. don't forget

The "demand" issue.

72% of the handguns used for murder were not registered. (If the majority of murder weapons were not registered, they are "under the radar" of the firearms control authorities.) I wonder why so few people are using illegal firearms to kill people in Canada in the first place.

If this illegal firearms pool is available to the general population through the black market, I find it interesting that so few people seek to take the black market up on the offer.

Maybe Canadians don't like venturing out into the cold to go "smoke some fool." :evilgrin:

Or maybe it's something else. :shrug: The U.S. has an estimated 772,000 active gang members (http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles1/ojjdp/fs200203.txt). I doubt Canada has that many. Is that a factor? (http://www.iir.com/nygc/faq.htm#q8 -see Q#8)

Who knows.

[MrBenchley]

20. Delete

wrong thread...

[Withergyld]

21. I posted a link

to an article yesterday showing that Boston effectively reduced gang violence and gun crime in general through a comprehensive program of enforcing existing laws and concerted effort to get to the root causes of crime. The efforts did not significantly reduce criminal access to guns, but it did reduce the frequency that a gun was used to commit a crime significantly. The criminals still had guns but because were less likely to use them.
I don't think criminals should have guns so don't try to to put word in my mouth. My main point is that gun crime was reduced without significantly reducing the number of guns available. This contradicts what anti-gun advocates tell us

[Withergyld]

22. link in this post

so that it will be easier to find
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=13716
see post #3

[MrBenchley]

23. That's what happens when you don't read thoroughly, with

You miss important points and fail to grasp what's said.

Like page 2:
"To systematically address the patterns of firearms trafficking identified by research, the Working Group:
Expanded the focus of local, State, and Federal authorities to include intrastate firearms trafficking in Massachusetts in addition to interstate trafficking.
Focused enforcement attention on traffickers of the makes and calibers of guns most used by gang members.
Focused enforcement attention on traffickers of guns that had short time-to-crime intervals and, thus, were most likely to have been trafficked.
(The time-to-crime interval is the time from the first retail sale to the time the gun is confiscated by the police.) The Boston Field Division of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) set up an inhouse tracking system that flagged guns whose traces showed a time-to-crime interval of 18 months or shorter.
Focused enforcement attention on traffickers of guns used by the city’s most violent gangs.
Attempted to restore obliterated serial numbers of confiscated guns and subsequently investigate trafficking based on those restorations.
Supported these enforcement priorities through analysis of data generated by the Boston Police Department and ATF’s comprehensive tracing of crime guns and by developing leads from the systematic debriefing of gang-affiliated arrestees or those involved in violent crime."

page 8:
"The size and nature of this market, the relative importance of its different components, and the significance of illegal firearm pathways (large-volume trafficking versus small-scale traffickers versus firearms stolen by youths from private residences) were all unknown. However, because guns were clearly such an important part of the youth violence problem, it seemed worthwhile to determine whether direct law enforcement interventions might be employed against illicit firearms trafficking....The authors wished to explore the idea of including youths in community and problem-oriented policing activities to find out, through consultation, what was driving them to obtain guns and to address particular issues (such as a threatening street gang or a patch of dangerous drug turf) using problem-oriented policing methods.
The authors framed these two dimensions in gun market terms. Gun trafficking and other routes in the illicit acquisition of firearms represented the supply side of the problem. Fear and/or other factors that might be driving illicit gun acquisition and use represented the demand side. They remained open to the possibility that these ideas might be proved wrong in practice and that the problem-solving process might suggest other theories and methods; however, the authors felt reasonably sure that any workable intervention would have to address both the supply and demand sides of the equation."

page 15:
"From the beginning, the Working Group had agreed that addressing gun trafficking would be useful. In fact,YVSF had been working on Operation Scrap Iron, its first large-scale, anti-gun trafficking operation. Scrap Iron was a model of the way Paul Joyce and the larger network around YVSF had come to do business. Late in 1994,YVSF noticed a sudden and severe outbreak of gun violence in and around Dorchester’s Wendover Street.At about the same time, a probationer who owed Dorchester court probation officer Richard Skinner a favor came to him to pay his debt.“There’s a kid on Wendover Street,” he told Skinner,“who’s selling crazy guns.” Skinner spoke to Joyce, who spoke to ATF."


page 20:
"Special Agent Phil Tortorella took steps in ATF’s Boston office to flag for special attention every gun whose trace showed a time-to-crime interval of less than about 18 months on the premise that such guns were particularly likely to have been trafficked or to lead to traffickers. For the same reason, the BPD’s Ballistics Unit instituted a policy of attempting the restoration of all obliterated serial numbers. Members of the Working Group, newly alerted to the importance of instate trafficking, began working with the Massachusetts Department of Public Safety to rationalize the maintenance of records of instate firearms transfers."

page 27:
"Above all else, the extraordinary picture existed of young gang members turning over their guns to the police—literally walking up to YVSF’s Warren Street headquarters with paper bags full of guns and dropping them off. How had this happened?"

[Withergyld]

25. No I read it all

I quoted from the section "Part II. Measuring the Impact of Operation Ceasefire" which starts on page 55

The sub topic I quoted from was "Examining rival causal factors" starts on page 59

This is the complete section on tha causal effects of gun trafficking found on pages 61 and 62

"Anti-trafficking effects. Finally, the degree to which violence reduction in Boston should be attributed to the prevention of illegal firearms trafficking must be questioned. Trafficking was, of course, a principal original focus of Boston’s Gun Project, and attention to trafficking was one of Operation Ceasefire’s two fundamental planks.

Study investigators believe that evaluating the particular contribution ofsupply-side interventions in Boston is essentially impossible.Anti-trafficking efforts were implemented at the same time as violence deterrence efforts, and both might be expected to influence, for example, gun carrying, gun use, and the mix of illegal guns found on the street.A stand-alone trafficking prevention intervention would not face these difficulties and could lead to definitive answers on the impact of supply-side interventions. Operation Ceasefire, however,was not a stand-alone trafficking prevention intervention.

Here, as well, the distinctive characteristics of the decline in homicide and shootings in Boston offer the best insight into what might have happened. Two things are certain. First, supply-side efforts cannot be responsible for the abrupt reductions in gun-related violence during the summer and fall of 1996. Most Boston trafficking cases followed that reduction, rather than anticipated it. Second, anti-trafficking efforts in Boston did nothing to reduce
the existing stockpile of illegally acquired and possessed firearms in Boston.

The guns held by gang members in Boston in May of 1996 were, for the
most part, still held by them several months later when the violence reached its new, lower level. The change that had occurred was not in the extent of gun ownership but in gun use. The principal impact, therefore,was almost certainly a demand-side, deterrence-based effect rather than a supply-side effect. It may well be that anti-trafficking efforts strengthened and prolonged that impact.Whether any such effects were large or small cannot be independently
established in this case."

[MrBenchley]

26. So in other words...

the conclusion you stated was the sheerest hooey.

[Withergyld]

27. is this "hooey"

"Here, as well, the distinctive characteristics of the decline in homicide and shootings in Boston offer the best insight into what might have happened. Two things are certain. First, supply-side efforts cannot be responsible for the abrupt reductions in gun-related violence during the summer and fall of 1996. Most Boston trafficking cases followed that reduction, rather than anticipated it. Second, anti-trafficking efforts in Boston did nothing to reduce
the existing stockpile of illegally acquired and possessed firearms in Boston.

[MrBenchley]

29. No, but your conclusion was...

[Withergyld]

30. Call it hooey of you want to

but I still stick by my conclusion:
"My main point is that gun crime was reduced without significantly reducing the number of guns available."
If I am in error, SHOW where I am incorrect. Dismissing it at as hooey with no explaination as to why or where I am in error does nothing refute my statement.

[MrBenchley]

32. Glad I got your permission

"If I am in error, SHOW where I am incorrect."
Been there, done that.

[Withergyld]

39. I guess I'm blind

because I don't see where my statement has been refuted. See post #s 25, 27 and 30. The only refutation is a claim that it is "hooey"

[MrBenchley]

33. Glad I got your permission

"If I am in error, SHOW where I am incorrect."
Been there, done that.

[iverglas]

28. well

I did invite people to read the actual StatCan release.

Drop in gang-related killings

For a second consecutive year, gang-related homicides dropped substantially. There were 45 gang-related homicides in 2002, 16 fewer than in 2001 and 27 fewer than the peak of 72 in 2000. Most of the drop over the past two years has been a result of a large decrease in the province of Quebec.

Part of the national decrease in the use of firearms to commit homicide was related to the decline in gang-related killings. Gang-related homicides are more than twice as likely to involve firearms as those not involving gangs.

Victims of gang-related homicide by region

. . . . . . . . 1998 . 1999 . 2000 . 2001 . 2002

Canada. . . . 51 ..... 45 ..... 72 ..... 61 ..... 45
...
Quebec . . . 31 ..... 30 ..... 38 ..... 23 ...... 6

In 2002, 45 of the 567 homicides committed in the year were gang-related: about 8%. I haven't a clue how that compares to the US.

Gang violence has been a serious problem in Canada in the last decade, particularly in Quebec, where the transnational Hell's Angels and the indigenous Rock Machine were engaged in a battle to the death for control of the drug trade and other illegal activities. Bystanders, including one child that I recollect, were shot dead in the course of it.

One response by the federal government, at the insistent demand of the people and government of Quebec, was to make membership in a criminal organization a criminal offence. I am not sure whether a constitutional challenge to that provision (violation of freedom of association) is in the works or not.


"72% of the handguns used for murder were not registered. (If the majority of murder weapons were not registered, they are 'under the radar' of the firearms control authorities.) I wonder why so few people are using illegal firearms to kill people in Canada in the first place."

I'm sincerely not getting your point, here or in this:

"If this illegal firearms pool is available to the general population through the black market, I find it interesting that so few people seek to take the black market up on the offer."

There must be some sarcasm here that is going over my head, because the point, whatever it is, is rather more blunt than you apparently think.

What earthly reason would I have for accepting a black market offer of a good that I don't want? I'm sure that I could follow the fabled six-degrees-of-separation route and get myself an unregistered handgun if I really wanted to and were prepared to pay rather handsomely; why would I?

Why would you be surprised at how few people are killed using unregistered firearms/handguns? Are you under some impression that there are gazillions of unregistered handguns circulating somewhere in Canada? That thousands of normal people are in possession of them? You'd be wrong, of course.

But gosh, I suppose you're saying that someone thinks that the "illegality" of the firearm means that it oughta be expected to be out there on the street, firing itself at victims, every minute of the day. But no; it's just a tool, isn't it? A tool for robbing someone its owner wants to rob; for killing someone its owner wants to kill ... or happens to hit when s/he aims at someone else.

And it's just damned hard to, say, rob a bank or an armoured car without one.


The U.S. has an estimated 772,000 active gang members ... . I doubt Canada has that many.

Well, no, given that Canada has around 1/9 of the US's population, that would indeed be strange. Does Canada have a similar RATE of gang membership? -- say, 86,000 active gang members?

Hard to find info. Here's a bit:

According to a September 2000 article in a national newspaper, there are an estimated 37 gangs in Manitoba, with 1,896 active members, as well as 1,239 “inactive members” who have had no police contact for at least two years. This appears to be a greater number of gang members than any other province including Ontario or Quebec (though no estimate is available for B.C.). But the Manitoba gang activity, much more than any other province, is largely street gangs who actively recruit members, as opposed to biker or mob gangs which limit their inner circle. So the numbers may be misleading in terms of the scale of gang-related activity.

The gang activity we do have tends to be comprised more of the true "organized crime" type. But yes, there are certainly "street gangs".

An interesting question, though. What's a gang without guns, I wonder? A bunch of guys playing poker, maybe, and stealing purses from little old ladies on the street. Kinda like some 1930s Dead End Kids movie.

It is hardly an explanation of higher firearms homicide rates to say "we have more gang members". You could have 100 times as many gang members -- and if they did not have firearms what would their gangs be? Social clubs. I just don't see the Hell's Angels substituting rolling pins for the handguns and other prohibited weapons they currently use for their killings, somehow.

.

[Romulus]

31. that was the point

Despite the availability of black-market handguns, not many people in Canada seem to be buying them and killing other people with them.

[MrBenchley]

34. Try not to sound so disappointed, rom

[Romulus]

45. hey benchley

have a nice day :hi:

[MrBenchley]

48. Having a GREAT day

Between scandalgate, Rush and the playoffs? You kiddin' me?

[iverglas]

35. I'm afraid

That I fail to see the point in your point. In all sincerity.

"Despite the availability of black-market handguns,
not many people in Canada seem to be buying them and
killing other people with them."

"Availability" is a relative term, doncha think? The fact is that black-market handguns are relatively unavailable in Canada. Those that there are, are commonly obtained by theft from lawful owners and smuggling from the US (and of course by purchase from the thieves and smugglers).

A quick google for price handgun "black market" ... I cite this silly source only as a presumably credible (anti-firearms control) source for these particular facts, and certainly not for any conclusions the author purports to draw from those facts:

http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/Archives/Digests/v01n300-399/v01n324

4. What I found very interesting was my previous knowledge of the prices of illegal guns were <sic> wrong! From some of the newspaper articles on the subject, I had thought that illegal 9mm type semi-auto guns cost about $500 to $900 - and that price still represented at least a 200 to 300 percent profit. But in this report, it mentioned that cheap Bryco (P.O.S. - piece of shits) models going for US$100 in the US were actually going for $500 - $600 here! That's a 500 to 600% markup. <Well, not quite ..> And regular 9mm semis, Glocks, Berettas, etc were actually going for $1000 to $1500! Now if that's the case the profits are PHENOMENAL! I just bought my barely used Sig-Sauer legally for $499 plus taxes. Hey, I didn't know I was getting this much of a GOOD deal.

None of this means much to me ... except that if I ever had a yen for a handgun and chose to look to the black market to satisfy it, I'd need a whole hell of a lot more than just one yen for the purpose. They're "available" ... at a pretty steep price, apparently.

Oh, btw, the source of the author's facts and argument, http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/ , that he has such glowing words for is ... well, how about some damning with faint praise? --

"One of the eight organizations generally considered to be the closest Canada has to think tanks." - Murray Campbell, the Globe and Mail

(And this ... endorsement ... it publishes on its web site. Three of the other four endorsements are from, heh heh, that Sun chain of right-wing tabloid newspapers.)

Please note that (for obvious reasons) the Institute reveals neither its funding sources, nor the identity of its board.

I fall over giggling. I actually don't remember noticing this outfit before.

http://www.wlu.ca/~wwwpress/jrls/cjc/BackIssues/21.4/taras.html

The right-wing information infrastructure

According to some reports, the Donner Canadian Foundation has played a decisive role in fueling the right-wing intellectual assault of the 1990s (Rau, 1996). Since 1994, it has contributed over $2 million to support projects at the Fraser Institute, the C. D. Howe Institute, the Mackenzie Institute, ...

Just a tangent ... but interesting, once again, to see how the anti-firearms control line comes so consistently from the far right wing.

So anyhow, if you care to explain what your point is -- all you've done is state what might, guardedly, be called a fact, without a point -- do tell me sometime.

.

[Romulus]

46. there you go <again>

with the holier than thou twisting of what other people post, and finding the smallest thread in that post, to use and say "gotcha - look how superior I am to twist things in this way."

In YOUR famous words: "Anyone got a clue?"
(end of conversation with iverglas)

(directed at anyone besides iverglas):

Arguing about "cost" is irrelevant. If someone wants a gun, obviously they will figure out how to get the money to buy one. Illegal handguns are available in Canada, but is seems that many people aren't making the effort to buy them and kill other people with them. For some reason, they have other things they would rather be doing. Maybe if we figured out why it is they'd rather be doing other things, we could figure out a way to get people in the US to be doing other things besides buying guns and killing people with them.

[RoeBear]

51. My hunch about lower crime rates in Canada is...

...they are too busy banging away on their keyboards to have time to go commit murder. Meanwhile in the US of A....

[iverglas]

52. it continues to be nonsense

"Arguing about 'cost' is irrelevant. If someone wants a gun,
obviously they will figure out how to get the money to buy one."

Take a high school economics course, 'k?

If twice as many people decide to purchase Item X at Price Y, this does not mean that there will suddenly be twice as many Item Xs available for purchase at Price Y.

As many people as you might like can "figure out how to get the money" to buy Item X. There will still be the same number of Item Xs available for purchase. If the supply does not increase, the price is almost certainly going to rise if demand rises. (Why exactly do you suppose that illegal firearms are already so expensive in Canada??)

The increased demand *may* mean that more suppliers will move into the market and more Item Xs will become available. MAY. Whether it *does* mean that will depend on a whole lot of things.

Because of the relatively close monitoring of legal firearms possession in Canada and the difficulty of obtaining permits to own the kind of firearms that the black market likes, among other factors, the new Item Xs (firearms) on the black market are just NOT likely going to come from people deciding to sell their legally-owned firearms on the black market. In any event, the firearms most in demand on the black market -- handguns and other firearms that are restricted -- are going to be in extremely short supply even if *every* lawful owner decides to make them available on the black market. There is not a great demand for hunting rifles on the black market.

Any extra firearms that were made available on the black market would come from the same sources they already largely come from: theft and smuggling.

The sources available for theft are declining. That leaves smuggling.

If there WERE high demand for smuggled firearms, and if it WERE so easy to smuggle the things, then why isn't it happening??

The demand side of the black market for firearms in Canada is composed of CRIMINALS. Criminals with money engaged in calculated criminal activities, not your disorganized neighbourhood junkie or hooker.

IF the prices were lower, it is entirely possible that my neighbourhood junkies and hookers would organize themselves sufficiently to get hold of a handgun.

So I am STILL not taking your point:

"Despite the availability of black-market handguns,
not many people in Canada seem to be buying them and
killing other people with them."

IF the prices were lower, there would rather undoubtedly be quite a few MORE people buying them. And it's a pretty safe bet that there would be more people killing people with them.

That is, after all, what happens in the US when people like the ones who might be expected to buy them do buy them. The fact is that the "criminal element" of society is far more heavily armed in the US than in Canada. The plain, obvious fact.

So if that criminal element accounts for a smaller proportion of Canadian society than of US society (e.g. a lower rate of "gang activity"), that is only one factor in the lower homicide rate. The relatively lower rate of firearms possession among the criminal element in Canada is another very obviously important factor.

And the rate of firearms possession among the criminal element in Canada is OBVIOUSLY affected by the lower availability of firearms in Canada, which is OBVIOUSLY in large part a result of restrictive firearms legislation.

Cripey.

.

[RoeBear]

62. Was I talking to you?

(on closer inspection you weren't!)

[1a2b3c]

36. Hate to be technical here

but 75% of the homocides were commited without a gun. With all the guns in america, the homocides by firearms was around 55% or so in 2002, also the lowest number of homocides by firearms since the 1960's. Take away the guns and i see the same thing; more homocides commited in the US with other weapons, just like in Canada.

[MrBenchley]

37. In fact...

"Take away the guns and i see the same thing; more homocides commited in the US with other weapons, just like in Canada.
"
Say what?
Inn Canada, the homicide rate is 1.85 homicides for every 100,000 people. The Us rate is more than 5 per 100,000 (BJS chart below).

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm

[CO Liberal]

38. What He's Saying.....

...is, in fact, true.

When you group murder weapons into just two categories - "Guns" and "Everything Else" - "Everything Else" wins. But I'm sure that if each murder weapon - gun, knife, baseball bat, axe, meat cleaver, etc - was listed separately, there would be more people killed by guns than by any other individual weapon type.

[Withergyld]

40. the grouping in the original

is this:
"Overall, stabbings were the most common method (31%) of committing homicide in 2002, followed by shootings (26%), beatings (21%) and strangulation or suffocation (11%)."
It is reasonable to group projectile weapons (firearms) together, edged weapons together(knife, meat cleaver, etc.) together. Notice that the totals only account for 89% of the murders. There is another grouping not listed.
Stabbings accounted for 31% of homicides and shootings for 26% of homicides. If $31 is less the $26 let me know and I will trade you my $26 for your $31.

[MrBenchley]

42. Tell you what

The US had nearly 16,000 homicides, Canada less than 600.

Let us know when 16,000 becomes less than 600....

[1a2b3c]

50. So are you saying that gun ownership is the problem?

We had 20 times the number of homocides without firearms than Canada had with all their homocides combined.

[MrBenchley]

53. Goes to show

Gun control not only works, but works spectacularly well...

[Withergyld]

54. It shows

That Canadian culture is different from American culture.

[MrBenchley]

59. Yeah...

For one thinng, they don't have an organized crowd claiming they live in Happyyokelville but must go around armed to the teeth every instant...

[1a2b3c]

57. No offense

but do you know what youre talking about? Or are you just reading me wrong?

We had close to 14,000 homocides in the US. Only around 8,000 were with guns. This leaves 6,000 unacounted for.

Canada had 600 total.

To me it looks like we have a problem other than guns. Looks like we have a violence problem.


Now Canada has went lax on its war on drugs, not that they were ever really too big on it. We are big on our war on drugs. You fill in the rest.

[MrBenchley]

60. Againn...

"Looks like we have a violence problem. "
And this to you says "More guns for everybody!"? Weird.....but I guess that's what passes for RKBA "logic."

[1a2b3c]

65. No i say more guns for ME

ME, being a non violent, non criminal, US citizen.

[MrBenchley]

66. Yeah, ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght...

We can tell....

[1a2b3c]

67. Glad you can

[Lefty48197]

72. If you want to further this discussion...

you should watch Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine". In that film, he discusses at length, the issues of violence in America and Canada and how it affects our gun murder rates.

[iverglas]

56. goda'mighty

"We had 20 times the number of homocides without firearms
than Canada had with all their homocides combined."

Do you realize how moronic it is to compare the NUMBER of homicides in a country with a population of 285 million to the NUMBER of homicides in a country with a population of 31 million???

OF COURSE the US will have many times more homicides than Canada. IT'S MANY TIMES BIGGER. Sheesh-o-rama.

What it is, is 9 TIMES bigger, give or take a fraction or two.

But it has something like 27 TIMES as many homicides (the RATE -- the number of homicides PER CAPITA -- being 3 times Canada's).

(HomIcides. HOMiCIDES!! NOT "homOcides".)

For every 100,000 people in each country, 3 TIMES AS MANY HOMICIDES ARE COMMITTED in the US as in Canada.

Firearm homicide rates are 8.1 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.


Handgun homicide rates are 15.3 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.


Rates for non-firearm homicides are nearly 2 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1989-95, the average non-firearm homicide rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 1.6 per 100,000 for Canada.

Using these very slightly out of date figures:

Out of every million people, MORE THAN 8 TIMES AS MANY people are killed by firearms in the US as in Canada.

Out of every million people, MORE THAN 15 TIMES AS MANY people are killed by handguns in the US as in Canada.

Out of every million people, FEWER THAN 2 TIMES AS MANY people are killed *not* by firearms in the US as in Canada.

Your non-firearms homicide rate is 2 times ours.
Your firearms homicide rate is 8 times ours.


And I am very sure that there is now going to be a rousing chorus of "but if they hadn't had guns, they would have choked the victim to death!"

Yeah. If the person who killed the little kid on a street in Montreal when a gang bullet missed its mark hadn't had a gun, some Hell's Angel would have just walked over and choked him to death ...

.

[1a2b3c]

61. So now im a moron?

Do you realize how moronic it is to compare the NUMBER of homicides in a country with a population of 285 million to the NUMBER of homicides in a country with a population of 31 million???
So :wtf: did you post this thread in the first place??? If you noticed the ratio per 100,000 is much lower in Canada too....GENIUS

As for the spelling Nazi, (HomIcides. HOMiCIDES!! NOT "homOcides".)
a big FU is all i got. Can you not come up with something different?

And can i get a link to where you got these numbers while youre at it. Rates for non-firearm homicides are nearly 2 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1989-95, the average non-firearm homicide rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 1.6 per 100,000 for Canada. I would like to see why they havent updated their numbers in almost ten years

[iverglas]

70. post # 24

The post in which I initially cited this source:
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/other_docs/notes/canus/default.asp

"I would like to see why they havent updated their numbers in almost ten years"

The article was written in 1998. Feel free to find more recent figures that demonstrate significant changes in the comparisons.

" If you noticed the ratio per 100,000 is much lower in Canada too....GENIUS"

I'm at a loss.

The POINT was that the rate (number of homicides/100,000) was much lower in Canada than in the US. Part of that point was that while the rate of non-firearms homicides was higher in the US than in Canada, the rate of firearms homicides was A WHOLE LOT higher in the US thani in Canada. What did you think it was?????

YOU said:

"We had 20 times the number of homocides without firearms than Canada had with all their homocides combined."

If the US had had FIVE times the number of non-firearms homicides, it would then have had a LOWER RATE of non-firearms homicides. The NUMBER is completely meaningless when the size of the population in which that number occurred is disregarded.

OF COURSE the US has many times more homicides, of any type, than Canada; it is a many times larger country.

BUT why would its RATE of homicides be THREE times the Canadian homicide RATE?? THAT is the question.

We've got as far as you noticing that the RATE for non-firearms homicide is lower in Canada, now. Progress.

Have you noticed yet that, while the US non-firearms homicide rate is less than 2 TIMES the Canadian rate, the US firearms homicide rate is over 8 TIMES the Canadian rate? the US handgun homicide rate is over 15 TIMES the Canadian rate?

And I must presume that while you would undoubtedly say that all kinds of things are likely to be CAUSAL FACTORS in this difference -- things that contribute to making the US rate 3 times the Canadian rate -- and that you would perhaps offer some hypotheses in that regard, you are not willing to acknowledge that the much greater accessibility of firearms in the US is one such causal factor that contributes to making the US firearms homicide rate many times higher than the Canadian rate.

[CO Liberal]

43. I Stand Corrected

Guns were #2. But they're still far above baseball bats, staircases, and bathtubs, which so many pro-gunners have tried to use in the recent past to cloud the issue.

[MrBenchley]

41. True...

But the murder rate in the US would have to first decline by more than a third before his prediction could come true.

[iverglas]

44. yeah

"But I'm sure that if each murder weapon - gun, knife, baseball bat, axe, meat cleaver, etc - was listed separately, there would be more people killed by guns than by any other individual weapon type."

I was gonna say that -- but I would have included rolling pins!

And nail files, and typewriters, and motor vehicles, and swimming pools ...

We could even do what was then suggested, and group things.

Things that fire bullets.
Sharp hunting weapons.
Things with keyboards.
Cooking implements.
Big things that hold water.
...


I really don't think we can just say "stabbing"/"knives" and let it go at that. We need to look at the nature of the "weapon", methinks. Was the knife in question in a homicide one that was acquired and normally used for boning fish, or slicing bread, or chopping vegetables ... or was it acquired and normally used for some completely different use having nothing to do with food prep? Like ... as a weapon?

After all, the Canadian figures were broken down when it came to firearms: type of firearm, legally or illegally in the possession of the user. So I'm kinda not impressed with this big "stabbing"/"knife" category.

I'd be pretty willing to bet that kitchen utensils accounted for far fewer than all of those stabbings. And that would mean that in many of the "death by stabbing" cases, the killers were in fact violating the criminal law by carrying a concealed weapon at the time of the killing. And that really is quite a different kettle of fish from having a bread knife in one's kitchen.

Of course, I'd also be more than willing to bet that a higher proportion of the victims of knife attacks survived the attack than the proportion of victims of firearms attacks who survived.

.

[1a2b3c]

49. yes and i also said

that Canada had 75% of its homocides commited without a gun. Take away the guns in the US and thats what you would have, 75% of the homocides or slightly less since we own millions more guns, would eventually be the % in the US.

We would still have a much higher number of homocides than Canada because we are a more violent nation. The numbers 1.85 homicides for every 100,000 people in Canada will never be that low here if problems totally unrelated to guns or weapons isnt fixed. I think this is called apples and oranges, is it not?

[MrBenchley]

55. Amazing....

"we are a more violent nation."
And yet you keep making an argument for assault weapons and fewer background checks...weird...

[1a2b3c]

64. I do?

I said fewer background checks? I will make you a deal for every post you find that i said fewer background checks i will post 1,000 saying more. Keep on spinning there Benchley.

[1a2b3c]

47. So, is THIS a personal attack?

And now, I'm off to vote in today's Ontario election ... buh bye, Republican-wannabe Tories; the winners will unfortunately be the Liberals, but hey, anybody but Ernie Eves!

I dont get it, are you calling the gun owners on this board Republican-wannabe tories? Are you also saying liberals cant own guns? Thats a bid of a broad brush youre stroking and a personal attack on everyone here who owns guns if you call us all Republican-Wannabe tories. This board does not allow conservatives.


No answer yet so i am guess you meant you were going to vote out the conservative torries and wasnt talking about us gun nuts.

[iverglas]

58. do you ever, ever consider

... knowing what you're talking about before bashing that keyboard?

I said:

"And now, I'm off to vote in today's Ontario election ... buh bye, Republican-wannabe Tories; the winners will unfortunately be the Liberals, but hey, anybody but Ernie Eves!"

You ask:

"I dont get it, are you calling the gun owners on this board Republican-wannabe tories? Are you also saying liberals cant own guns? Thats a bid of a broad brush youre stroking and a personal attack on everyone here who owns guns if you call us all Republican-Wannabe tories. This board does not allow conservatives."

Jeezus bleeding christ.

I was calling the REPUBLICAN-WANNABE TORIES "Republican-wannabe Tories".

The "Tories" are the current GOVERNING PARTY OF ONTARIO.
Formally called the "Progressive Conservative Party", known as "Tories" since bloody time immemorial.

The "Liberals" are the soon-to-be GOVERNING PARTY OF ONTARIO.
Formally called the "Liberal Party in Ontario", I believe.

The polls close at 8 p.m., and by 9 p.m. we will know who the new government is. For the first time in my voting-age life, I will not be at a poll scrutineering the count (acting as a representative of my party, observing the counting of ballots and challenging any irregularities); it was just a bad month for an election, for me.

I am not a supporter of the Liberal Party; I am a member of the New Democratic Party (which formed the Ontario government in the early 90s). I do not look forward to a Liberal provincial government, in absolute terms. However, if it meant getting rid of the present Tories, I would rejoice if the Rhinoceros Party won. Hence, paraphrasing the "anybody but Bush" motto and applying it to our soon-to-be ex-Premier, I said "anybody but Ernie Eves!"


"No answer yet so i am guess you meant you were going to vote out the conservative torries and wasnt talking about us gun nuts."

No, you reached that conclusion all by yourself? Hey, Sherlock. Next time you might want to think first and shoot second, and only if actually necessary.

And consider the possibility that not everything is all about you, whether singular or plural.

.

[1a2b3c]

63. Hey Sherlock

When you tell us youre off to vote in your election, then you say bye bye republican wanna be torries, you could either mean us or them. I just wondered which one it was. Then you spout off with a liberal, while 99% of the anti gun owners on this site refer to gun owners as being "republicans wanna be's" or not "liberal". I think my accusation(did i spell that right) was warranted.

[iverglas]

68. oh dear oh dear oh dear

I went home, and as I stood chopping shallots to add to the orange-lime pork tenderloin, I though: oh my, what if this person was actually parodying himself, and I didn't get it?! What if the paranoia and ignorance of / lack of interest in the outside world were a put-on and meant as a joke? - and actually not a bad one, if perhaps clumsily executed. Shall I rush back over to my office and apologize profusely, and chuckle appreciatively?

And then I thought: good grief, how am I supposed to know when it's a parody and when it's reality?? They look exactly the same.

And damned if things aren't just as I originally thought.


For the record:

The Ontario polls closed at 8 p.m. last night. By a little after 8:30, enough votes had been counted in enough constituencies that it was clear that the Liberal Party had won a majority government. (Three parties have seats in the 103-seat legislature, therefore there was a possibility of a minority government if the seats were split, say, 50-40-13. The actual split is now 72-24-7, although the Liberals, with 72/103 seats, have less than 50% of the popular vote. If seats were distributed proportionately, the NDP would have close to 20 rather than 7, and the Green Party would have maybe 3 rather than none.)

While we hate the Liberals, we hate the Tories far more, and while we would have been happier with a minority government, we take what we get. So we cracked the champagne anyhow, to toast the end of nearly a decade of vicious right-wing provincial government and a return to some semblance of Canadian governance: a sharing of burdens and benefits, rather than the mean-mindedness and greed that these Conservatives personified.

We may not be quite as thrilled as you folks would be if you thrashed Dubya at the polls -- even if you didn't think that the Democratic Party was the peak of perfection; but think how that would feel, and you get an idea of how we feel this morning.


Ontario has a population of about 11.5 million people. There are 6.7 million people in the "Golden Horseshoe" alone (Toronto and the region around it, extending to Niagara Falls). It is one of the most racially / culturally / ethnically diverse populations on the planet.

In 2002, there were 178 homicide victims in Ontario, a homicide rate of 1.47/100,000 (an increase from 170 and 1.43/100,000 in 2001, but hardly a signficant one). From 1992 to 2001, the number and rate averaged 182 and 1.63/100,000.

Ontario's population size is comparable to the populations of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Illinois (which run from somewhat over 11 to somewhat over 12 million, I believe), with similar population patterns, i.e. heavily/densely urban, and similar economic bases. Ontario is of course very much larger geographically, but the population is concentrated in the southern area, which is comparable in size to those states.

1998 homicide rates in those states, taken from http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_rtcstates.html for good measure, were:

Illinois: 8.4/100,000 (1,008 homicides)
Ohio: 4.0/100,000 (443 homicides)
Pennsylvania: 5.3/100,000 (633 homicides)

Yup, there are lots of differences between Ontario and those states that relate to factors affecting the homicide rate.

And the availability of firearms is one factor.

.

[MrBenchley]

69. I guess it's your fault

that somebody hasn't got a clue about politics in Canada...or much of anything else.

[KS_44]

71. How can this be?

Assault weapons with collapsoble stocks, short 11 inch barrels, flash hiders, pistol grips, and detachable magazines are legal to own over their!

Their should be blood in the streets!