Re: OT Canadian Gun Control

Chris Guynn wrote:
> <cam.barr@beer.com> wrote in message
> news:ce5skk$nir@odbk17.prod.google.com...
> >
>
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...727/COGUNS27//
> <snip>
>
> > And we know there would be far greater costs to public safety. It
is
> > perhaps too early to thoroughly assess the impact of the 1995 law,
but
> > death, injury and crime have plummeted with progressively stronger
gun
> > control.
>
> That is probably true. Now the question begs to be asked, what
happened to
> the non-gun related violent crime rates?
>
> > In 2001, there were 842 deaths involving firearms, compared
> > with 1,367 in 1989.
>
> What about the deaths not involving firearms? How did they change
(if at
> all)?
>
> > Nowhere is that more obvious than in Canada, where about half the
> > handguns recovered in crime originate in the United States.
Suggestions
> > that the presence of smuggled guns proves gun control doesn't work
are
> > ill-founded and misleading. Even with a huge smuggled-gun problem,
> > Canada had only 149 gun murders in 2002, compared with more than
10,800
> > in the United States -- proof that controls on firearms are
effective.
>
> That alone isn't proof. The population density of America is
approximately
> ten times that of Canada. If you assume a linear relationship
between
> population density and murder rate, that would put Canada at an
adjusted
> 1,490 murders. You could assume a similar situation for population.
It's
> feasible that murder rate is *partially* determinedby both total
population
> and population density (the more people you have, the more will be
killers
> and the closer people live to each other, the easier it is to get on
their
> nerves). If that is the case (again, assuming linear realtionships),
that
> would give Canada an adjusted murder rate of 14,900. Granted that's
based
> on assumptions, but they seem relatively valid to me.
>
Your assumptions stink.
Let's take Toronto for example. There are only about 60 murders per
year. Toronto is just as densely populated as any average North
American city, 2.4 million in 247 square miles. Still think U.S.
population density is the problem? Name a city even half Toronto's
size in the U.S. that comes close to our murder rate.
So if we don't have lots of guns you would guess we kill each other
by different means? Not so. Over 40% of murders are committed with guns
despite controls. Why? I guess that is one thing guns do well.
I'm not a supporter of Michael Moore, I don't believe half of what
he says, but I did watch Bowling for Columbine. Charlton Heston
embarrassed himself and the N.R.A. when Moore pressed him for an answer
as to why there is such a disparity between our two countries murder
rates. I nearly puked when he answered 'racial mixing'. Toronto is
a very diverse city. We still seem to get along okay.
So what's the answer? Would Toronto's murder rate go down if we had
more guns? Or would yours go down if you had fewer?
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/homicide/statistics.php
http://www.toronto.ca/toronto_facts/diversity.htm

<cam.barr@beer.com> wrote in message
news:ce6fk1$fim@odah37.prod.google.com...

> So what's the answer? Would Toronto's murder rate go down if we had
> more guns? Or would yours go down if you had fewer?

Neither.

Guns aren't the problem.

<cam.barr@beer.com> wrote in message news:ce6fk1$fim@odah37.prod.google.com...
>
> Chris Guynn wrote:
> > <cam.barr@beer.com> wrote in message
> > news:ce5skk$nir@odbk17.prod.google.com...
> > >
> >
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...727/COGUNS27//
> > <snip>
> >
> > > And we know there would be far greater costs to public safety. It
> is
> > > perhaps too early to thoroughly assess the impact of the 1995 law,
> but
> > > death, injury and crime have plummeted with progressively stronger
> gun
> > > control.
> >
> > That is probably true. Now the question begs to be asked, what
> happened to
> > the non-gun related violent crime rates?
> >
> > > In 2001, there were 842 deaths involving firearms, compared
> > > with 1,367 in 1989.
> >
> > What about the deaths not involving firearms? How did they change
> (if at
> > all)?
> >
> > > Nowhere is that more obvious than in Canada, where about half the
> > > handguns recovered in crime originate in the United States.
> Suggestions
> > > that the presence of smuggled guns proves gun control doesn't work
> are
> > > ill-founded and misleading. Even with a huge smuggled-gun problem,
> > > Canada had only 149 gun murders in 2002, compared with more than
> 10,800
> > > in the United States -- proof that controls on firearms are
> effective.
> >
> > That alone isn't proof. The population density of America is
> approximately
> > ten times that of Canada. If you assume a linear relationship
> between
> > population density and murder rate, that would put Canada at an
> adjusted
> > 1,490 murders. You could assume a similar situation for population.
> It's
> > feasible that murder rate is *partially* determinedby both total
> population
> > and population density (the more people you have, the more will be
> killers
> > and the closer people live to each other, the easier it is to get on
> their
> > nerves). If that is the case (again, assuming linear realtionships),
> that
> > would give Canada an adjusted murder rate of 14,900. Granted that's
> based
> > on assumptions, but they seem relatively valid to me.
> >
> Your assumptions stink.
> Let's take Toronto for example. There are only about 60 murders per
> year. Toronto is just as densely populated as any average North
> American city, 2.4 million in 247 square miles. Still think U.S.
> population density is the problem? Name a city even half Toronto's
> size in the U.S. that comes close to our murder rate.
> So if we don't have lots of guns you would guess we kill each other
> by different means? Not so. Over 40% of murders are committed with guns
> despite controls. Why? I guess that is one thing guns do well.
> I'm not a supporter of Michael Moore, I don't believe half of what
> he says, but I did watch Bowling for Columbine. Charlton Heston
> embarrassed himself and the N.R.A. when Moore pressed him for an answer
> as to why there is such a disparity between our two countries murder
> rates. I nearly puked when he answered 'racial mixing'. Toronto is
> a very diverse city. We still seem to get along okay.
> So what's the answer? Would Toronto's murder rate go down if we had
> more guns? Or would yours go down if you had fewer?
> http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/homicide/statistics.php
> http://www.toronto.ca/toronto_facts/diversity.htm

Unfortunately is not a debate of facts, it's emotion. The gun people believe they
have a right to own and carry guns and they feel safer with guns, and no amount of
debate or presentation of facts is going to change that.

Adam

>From: "Adam Helberg" sendspamhere@yahoo.com

>Unfortunately is not a debate of facts, it's emotion.

Absolutely priceless.


Popeye
"Best thing for him, really. His therapy
was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector.

<cam.barr@beer.com> wrote in message
news:ce6fk1$fim@odah37.prod.google.com...
>
> Chris Guynn wrote:
> > <cam.barr@beer.com> wrote in message
> > news:ce5skk$nir@odbk17.prod.google.com...
> > >
> >
>
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...727/COGUNS27//
> > <snip>
> >
> > > And we know there would be far greater costs to public safety. It
> is
> > > perhaps too early to thoroughly assess the impact of the 1995 law,
> but
> > > death, injury and crime have plummeted with progressively stronger
> gun
> > > control.
> >
> > That is probably true. Now the question begs to be asked, what
> happened to
> > the non-gun related violent crime rates?
> >
> > > In 2001, there were 842 deaths involving firearms, compared
> > > with 1,367 in 1989.
> >
> > What about the deaths not involving firearms? How did they change
> (if at
> > all)?
> >
> > > Nowhere is that more obvious than in Canada, where about half the
> > > handguns recovered in crime originate in the United States.
> Suggestions
> > > that the presence of smuggled guns proves gun control doesn't work
> are
> > > ill-founded and misleading. Even with a huge smuggled-gun problem,
> > > Canada had only 149 gun murders in 2002, compared with more than
> 10,800
> > > in the United States -- proof that controls on firearms are
> effective.
> >
> > That alone isn't proof. The population density of America is
> approximately
> > ten times that of Canada. If you assume a linear relationship
> between
> > population density and murder rate, that would put Canada at an
> adjusted
> > 1,490 murders. You could assume a similar situation for population.
> It's
> > feasible that murder rate is *partially* determinedby both total
> population
> > and population density (the more people you have, the more will be
> killers
> > and the closer people live to each other, the easier it is to get on
> their
> > nerves). If that is the case (again, assuming linear realtionships),
> that
> > would give Canada an adjusted murder rate of 14,900. Granted that's
> based
> > on assumptions, but they seem relatively valid to me.
> >
> Your assumptions stink.
> Let's take Toronto for example. There are only about 60 murders per
> year. Toronto is just as densely populated as any average North
> American city, 2.4 million in 247 square miles. Still think U.S.
> population density is the problem? Name a city even half Toronto's
> size in the U.S. that comes close to our murder rate.

According to http://irawrites.com/Informationdata...dercities.htm:

Austin is about 1/4 and only had about 28 murders in 2000. I realize it's
not half, but the population only counts the actual city of Austin which is
quite small. OTOH, it probably only counts the murders in Austin as well...

How about Nassau County... (part of the New York Metropolitan area).
Population in 2000 was 1.3 million. Murders in 1998 were 9

San Antonio Texas had a population of 1.145 million in 2000 (close to half
of Toronto) with 85 murders. I'd say that's pretty close.

San Diego California had a population of 1.2 million in 2000 with 54
murders.

Has Toronto had explosive growth in the last 10 years or so? My source
shows Toronto with a population of about 653,000 in 1996 with 55 murders in
1987 and 78 in 2001.

> So if we don't have lots of guns you would guess we kill each other
> by different means? Not so. Over 40% of murders are committed with guns
> despite controls.

What about other violent crimes? What were those rates like? when I
mention violent crimes, I am including things like rape, aggravated asault,
aggravated robbery, etc...

Perhaps Canadians are just more interested in following the law. How do the
rest of the crime statistics compare?

"Adam Helberg" <sendspamhere@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ORzNc.579$cK.262@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink .net...
<snip>

> Unfortunately is not a debate of facts, it's emotion. The gun people
believe they
> have a right to own and carry guns and they feel safer with guns, and no
amount of
> debate or presentation of facts is going to change that.
>
> Adam

We don't believe that we have a right to carry guns. We DO have a right to
carry guns. As a matter of fact, the Second amendment is supposed to
guarantee that right. Unfortunately, the anti-gun people believe they have
a right to take our guns away simply because someone got shot once.

Facts? You want facts?

Alaska passed their concealed carry law in 1994. They had 501 murders that
year. 1994 was the highest murder total since the beginning of the decade.
During the nineties, prior to 1994, the lowest murder total was in 1992 at
455. For the rest of the decade, the murder totals looked thusly:
1995: 475
1996: 444
1997: 426
1998: 354
1999: 345

Coincidence?

How about this:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html

"With the publication of the Lott-Mustard study, "Crime, Deterrence and
Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," advocates of shall-issue licensing
systems have significant criminological support for the claim that
shall-issue systems save lives, prevent rapes and robberies, and confer
benefits that extend well beyond those garnered by the people who are issued
the permits. Analyzing crime data from all 3,054 counties in the United
States throughout the period 1977-92, Lott and Mustard found that when
shall-issue licensing laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by
7.65 percent, rapes fell by 5.2 percent, robberies fell by 2.2 percent, and
aggravated assaults fell by 7 percent. "

Interesting, don't you think?

Florida statistics tend to be the most widely used to further the cause of
the "gun people". Florida enacted it's concealed carry laws in 1987.
Before the laws went into effect, Florida's murder rate was 36% above the
national average. Afterwards it declined (4% below the national average in
1991).

Chris Guynn wrote:
> <cam.barr@beer.com> wrote in message
> news:ce6fk1$fim@odah37.prod.google.com...
>
>>Chris Guynn wrote:
>>
>>><cam.barr@beer.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ce5skk$nir@odbk17.prod.google.com...
>>>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...727/COGUNS27//
>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>And we know there would be far greater costs to public safety. It
>>
>>is
>>
>>>>perhaps too early to thoroughly assess the impact of the 1995 law,
>>
>>but
>>
>>>>death, injury and crime have plummeted with progressively stronger
>>
>>gun
>>
>>>>control.
>>>
>>>That is probably true. Now the question begs to be asked, what
>>
>>happened to
>>
>>>the non-gun related violent crime rates?
>>>
>>>
>>>>In 2001, there were 842 deaths involving firearms, compared
>>>>with 1,367 in 1989.
>>>
>>>What about the deaths not involving firearms? How did they change
>>
>>(if at
>>
>>>all)?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Nowhere is that more obvious than in Canada, where about half the
>>>>handguns recovered in crime originate in the United States.
>>
>>Suggestions
>>
>>>>that the presence of smuggled guns proves gun control doesn't work
>>
>>are
>>
>>>>ill-founded and misleading. Even with a huge smuggled-gun problem,
>>>>Canada had only 149 gun murders in 2002, compared with more than
>>
>>10,800
>>
>>>>in the United States -- proof that controls on firearms are
>>
>>effective.
>>
>>>That alone isn't proof. The population density of America is
>>
>>approximately
>>
>>>ten times that of Canada. If you assume a linear relationship
>>
>>between
>>
>>>population density and murder rate, that would put Canada at an
>>
>>adjusted
>>
>>>1,490 murders. You could assume a similar situation for population.
>>
>>It's
>>
>>>feasible that murder rate is *partially* determinedby both total
>>
>>population
>>
>>>and population density (the more people you have, the more will be
>>
>>killers
>>
>>>and the closer people live to each other, the easier it is to get on
>>
>>their
>>
>>>nerves). If that is the case (again, assuming linear realtionships),
>>
>>that
>>
>>>would give Canada an adjusted murder rate of 14,900. Granted that's
>>
>>based
>>
>>>on assumptions, but they seem relatively valid to me.
>>>
>>
>
We seem to see the highest murder rates where gun control is the
strongest, like NYC, Detroit, Chicago, LA...

"Chris Guynn" wrote ...
> Perhaps Canadians are just more interested in following the
> law. How do the rest of the crime statistics compare?

Perhaps Canadians are too busy freezing their asses off to commit crimes?

On 28 Jul 2004 08:52:10 -0700, cam.barr@beer.com wrote:

>Chris Guynn wrote:
>>According to
>http://irawrites.com/Informationdata...dercities.htm:
>
>>Austin is about 1/4 and only had about 28 murders in 2000. I realize
>it's
>>not half, but the population only counts the actual city of Austin
>which is
>>quite small. OTOH, it probably only counts the murders in Austin as
>well...
>Austin covers 266 square miles and has a population of 656,000.
>That's twice the murder rate and one quarter the population density.

Austin's had two firearms murders this year. How (really) does that
compare to Toronto?


--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

Bjórrúnar skaltu Chris.Guynn rista --

> "With the publication of the Lott-Mustard study, "Crime,
> Deterrence and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,"

Anyone citing that old and now discredited study really needs
to get up to date on Lott and his research.

For more current research and information on Lott's MGLC,
research read these:

http://tinyurl.com/zcs2
http://tinyurl.com/xlnr
http://tinyurl.com/zcrr
http://tinyurl.com/zcsh
http://tinyurl.com/zcsk