The Great Gun Control Debate

[Brad Sallows]

So the compelling argument against carrying handguns is "Because I say it's unnecessary".  I always feel better knowing my freedoms are limited for such important reasons.

 

[Torlyn]

Infanteer, Caesar, rw4th, et al:

We seem to be having a few running debates here, and we're starting to go in circles.  Now, in order to have a proper debate, we must first define the terms, as it were.  It seems fairly obvious that Infanteer and rw4th believe that the law should be changed to allow for the carrying of concealed weapons, whereas Caesar and I do not.

rw4th, you continually ask for a question to be answered, and it has been.  You are not understanding.  You seem to be basing your belief on one study, ONE, that coincides with your personal beliefs on the subject.  When Ceasar and I brought up the fact that people who are intrinsically more involved in the process than you (the police) are against this, you poo-poo the study, saying that they are just as in the dark as the average citizen.  If you are unwilling to at least accept the premise that the police may, just MAY, know what they are talking about, it will be impossible to continue this line of argument with you.  It's starting to become a "yeah, so?" which doesn't mean much.  As well, please note the bottom paragraph in regards to this study.  It DOES NOT reduce crime.  MErely relocates it.

In Canada, it is illegal to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.  We all agree on that.  rw4th, you make it sound as if this law doesn't exist, and that we'd be infringing upon your rights to "protect" yourself.  You do know that in the Criminal Code, self defence is only valid if the defence used is only enough to subdue the person?  If someone starts throwing punches, are you going to pull the gun, or are you going to ask that it be taken out of the conflict?  By having that firearm, you automatically escalate any confrontation of this sort you may have.

As for Infanteer's analogy of insurance, I think that falls down to risk assessment again.  Do I have house insurance?  Yes.  Car insurance?  Ditto.  Do I have earthquake or tornado insurance in Calgary?  No.  Is there a potential that a tornado or an earthquake could hit?  Yes, but the risk is too low to warrant such extreme action.  AS well, having insurance is different than carrying around the means to end someone's life in short order.  Not having broad-spectrum, all encompassing insurance  might cost you your posessions, the other someone's life.

I agree with you in the defence of one's home.  However, I don't know how one would legally be able to defend your home with a firearm, as they must be kept locked up, and amminution seperate.  During a B&E, I doubt I'll have time to put everything together in time.  In case anyone is thinking that we should also be allowed to have firearms loaded in the house, shake your head.  Basic weapon safety prohibits this, doesn't it?  An unloaded weapon will never go off.  A loaded one always has that potential.

I think that the difference is that with a weapon in the house, used in the defence of the house (home invasion, what have you) would be acceptable.  IF someone's invaded it, they have commited the actus reas required to warrant the discharge of said firearm in their vicinity.  There is a small likelihood that you will hit anyone else.  Houses have walls.    A caveat to this though, how many times have you read about someone worried about a thief, who ends up shooting their: son who came home after curfew, wife, family member, dog/cat, or child?)  In public it is another matter.  Using Infanteer's story regarding the two drug dealers, sure, let's say one of them came at you, or at another innocent person, and you draw your firearm.  Immediately, the situation has been escalated.  Now, say the druggie has a firearm.  He's gonna start shooting, and I'd imagine that you would to.

So, downtown vancouver and two people start firing.  Think someone's gonna die?  I'd say the chances of that would increase dramatically with you drawing a firearm.  You're in civvie clothes, and have no position of authority in this sitation, nor are you or the vast majoriity of the public trained in how to deal with these types of situations, which makes Bad Things Happen.  The net effect is that you've got two people shooting bullets at each other in public.  I know you've fired weapons before, and I don't have to tell you how much training it takes to keep a handgun on target from 30 feet out.  For those that don't know, it ain't like the movies. 

Lastly, if you believe that carrying a firearm reduces crime, you're wrong.  It just changes the location.  It's like in Calgary during stampede when they push all the hookers out of Victoria Park.  Are there still hookers?  Yup.  Just in a different place.  IF you truly believe in deterring crime, deter it, don't change it's location.  That study noticed a vast difference between "gun free" locations, and "guns in" locations.  Now, did the "guns in" really make their place safer, or just move the crime?  Let's say everyone was so armed.  Would criminals then go "oh hell.  Not worth the risk, let's quit crime and work at McDonald's" or would they escalate (ie. shoot first, rob second) in the commision of their crimes?

T

P.S. Infanteer, if I saw you tromping down the street with a broadsword strapped to your back, I think I'd be calling the boys with the padded rooms... 

EDIT: Had to fix the spelling of "Caesar".  :-[

 

[Brad Sallows]

On a related note, I would like to see much more stringent driver's exams and frequent requalifications.  I suppose it might mean some people no longer would have the privilege to drive.  But I don't think we'll really go there because too many people would realize they're not particularly attentive or competent on the road, what with their radios and cell-phones and inexplicable need to look face-to-face at the passengers to whom they are speaking and inability to judge traffic flow or use a turn signal and so forth.  So they'll revert to their usual moral reasoning - NIMBY - and fight any move in the direction of tightening up driving privileges.

Meanwhile, I'm treated to the amusing spectacle of Canadians who think nothing of playing the death-and-injury lottery by getting out on the roads in traffic with poor drivers, but whose spines melt at the thought of people carrying handguns.

 

[Torlyn]

Meanwhile, I'm treated to the amusing spectacle of Canadians who think nothing of playing the death-and-injury lottery by getting out on the roads in traffic with poor drivers, but whose spines melt at the thought of people carrying handguns.

Hehe...  Calculated risk, I suppose...    We could start a whole new thread on driving and licensing, but I'd imagine we'd spend too much time agreeing with each other. 

T

 

[KevinB]

Well I think we all know where I stand...

Guns are first and foremost inanimate objects - they are neither good nor bad, they are a tool.

I am going to toss the BS flag on the "training" issue, I have intimate knowledge of shooting training in MIL and LE fields - lets just say I'd feel just as comfotable with an armed civilian. In fact having run troops thru CQB scenarios this week...  I have taken Concealed carry training in several places - Canada, and US States and have the prerequisite training for a concealed carry permit in several states. 

The problem is mindset - 99.9% of Canadian are bleeting helpless sheep, who are spoonfed at birth the evils of firearms.  Criminals prey upon this, for they don't give a rats ass about law and will use whatever they can to dominate.


Now for storage -- If the firearm is under your care and control sotrage laws do not apply - IF I want to sleep with my Kimber TLE/RLII under the pillow cocked and locked guess what (I dont - not to worry folks - I have a bedside immediate access readisafe  ;D )

The one big thing I notice about naysayers in firearms issues - Is they have a very week understanding of the ROE for Armed Civilians  - the do's and don't, why is that you ask - they don't care, they "know" its bad and won't educate themselves.


http://www.packing.org/

Molôn Labé

 

[Zipper]

Ok, just out of curiosity?

Why the hell do you (anyone) need to carry a firearm for "protection"?

And why do you feel so threatened as to have a weapon at your bedside (quick access safe or not)?

Are you in some kind of line of work that has people coming after you?

Is there something in your house that is of such value? You can answer that one or not...          ...don't want to make you a target or anything. :

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Zipper,
I don't even like guns[ in fact I dislike], but if you can honestly ask those questions, well you lead WAY too sheltered a life or wear BIG blinders.......

 

[dutchie]

Guns are first and foremost inanimate objects - they are neither good nor bad, they are a tool.

I'd also like to add this to that: firearms are weapons, and they are designed to either kill or improve one's efficiency at killing. They don't protect, they destroy. If you feel you need to have one for protection, then you need to move to a better neigbourhood. They are very useful in the hands of the right person, but unfortunately very dangerous in the hands of the wrong person. As Kevin pointed out, most Canadians are sheep...those would be the wrong people to give firearms to.

Firearms make people nervous. They scare some people, and quite frankly, I would be very uncomfortable knowing any Joe Civie could be armed. I don't like it. It would diminish my enjoyment of our country. Someone asked earlier what's the difference between having firearms at home and using them for personal protection, and doing the same on the streets. The difference is that if I wish to avoid the risk of being shot by you, I can just not tresspass on your property. I can't do that if you carry them in public. Your home is your castle, and I EXPECT you to defend it (within reason). The same goes for you on civie street, but it does not include carrying weapons - something I consider outside of reason.

BTW, nice pistol Kevin.

 

[KevinB]

Zipper - Fine who needs guns - Cops? obviously not, nor soliders with your line of reasoning.  Life is beautiful and no one if ever harmed by anyone.

1) Why not - I have carried weapons in 6 countries and 7 Canadian provinces for the Crown - why can't I do it on Kevin time?

2) Because I can.  

3) Better to have and not need.


Personally I think a pistol is something you use to fight your way to a rifle - that you foolishly left somewhere you should not have.  You never need a gun - Till you NEED one.  I have been burglarized twice, once while I was home, anyone that would try to harm my family I'll kill.




The last point I'll leave you with is - the illegal gun is going to be there anyway, for the criminal does not care.  I'm betting if there was a school/restraunt/threatre whatever shooting that started up and you or your family was there - you'd much rather me take the shot so you could keep bleeting.



Caesar (okay I lied one or two more thoughts - but you posted while I was typing). 

By your logic my hands would be weapons

The typical soccer mom won't get a gun, however the criminal can't be sure, and it might just save a few lives that way.  I am not in favour of "shall issue systems" I want people to take mandatory firearms safety (and not the bozo gov't mandated crap with the FAC/PAL) - I would require Use of Force Trg , and sufficient LE style marksmanship.  But it would be THEIR choice, if they wanted to take on that responsibility.

I shoot way over 20,000rds a year on my own - plus works little allotment.  If I where King we would VERY stringent training for any and all armed pers (probably half the LE and 75% of CF people would be desk bound)

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Again, I will state that I am not a gun fan whatsoever, but,
Quote,
If you feel you need to have one for protection, then you need to move to a better neigbourhood.

.....yea nobody from "bad" : neighbourhoods would ever think of using a car.......
Quote,
Firearms make people nervous. They scare some people, and quite frankly, I would be very uncomfortable knowing any Joe Civie could be armed. I don't like it. It would diminish my enjoyment of our country

...as has been discussed anyone can be armed, 100 bucks and there ya go, that easy........feeling diminished?

What I believe the gun "advocates" are trying to say is that they don't want to walk around armed all the time but want the "bad" people to wonder if they are armed or not. Like I said, as someone who has no love for guns, this makes sence to me.[ of course I get the added bonus of working with the criminal mind everyday :rage:]

Kevin B, saw you posted but went anyway...hope we are not saying the same thing. ;D

 

[KevinB]

Bruce, 100%

And FWIW - I'd arm (optional-but at least 25%/school) Teacher and (mandatory) Pilots.  They make decisions that involved huge life and death decisions everyday (and yes I am including teachers there).

 

[rw4th]

rw4th, you continually ask for a question to be answered, and it has been. You are not understanding.   You seem to be basing your belief on one study, ONE, that coincides with your personal beliefs on the subject.

When, were, what's the answer? I have never since I have owned a gun (15+ years) seen a study that shows that responsible civilian ownership and use of firearms constitutes a threat to society. If you have one, please let me know where it is.

The bottom line is the pro-registration/anti-gun crowd does not have any actual evidence to support their position beyond what they believe. All criminal gun use statistic they quote fail to differentiate between crimes committed with legal and illegal weapons and the bulk of their, and your, arguments are light on facts and fueled by emotion. In the only study I have ever read that even tried to differentiate between legal/illegal guns, it concluded that of all crimes committed with handguns, those attributed to legally owned handguns represented 1% or lower of the total (I don't have a reference, but I believe it was in Toronto).

If you have actual proof to refute what has been posted here, again please show me where it is. I used to believe as you do. I used to think that guns belonged in the hands of professional (police and military) and that's it. It wasn't until I started examining the actual facts that I changed my mind.

When Ceasar and I brought up the fact that people who are intrinsically more involved in the process than you (the police) are against this, you poo-poo the study, saying that they are just as in the dark as the average citizen.   If you are unwilling to at least accept the premise that the police may, just MAY, know what they are talking about, it will be impossible to continue this line of argument with you.   It's starting to become a "yeah, so?" which doesn't mean much.   As well, please note the bottom paragraph in regards to this study.   It DOES NOT reduce crime.   MErely relocates it.

First of all the police are not involved in making gun legislation, the politicians and the special interest groups the fuel them are. The police had very little to do with drafting of the latest set of gun laws.

That said, I â Å“poopooâ ? on the police's opinion for the following reasons

1- As I recall a lot of police forces still stand by the current gun laws and long-gun registry as a factor in reducing crime. We've already debunked it enough so I won't go there now, but suffice it to say we all agreed it's bullshit. So if it's obvious it does nothing to increase personal or police safety, why are they still behind it? Might the motives of police chiefs be political?
2- All crime statistics published by police forces fail to differentiate between crimes committed with legal and illegal weapons. In the only study I ever read that even tried, it concluded that of all crimes committed with handguns, those attributed to legally owned handguns represented 1% or lower of the total (I don't have a reference, but I believe it was in Toronto).
3- I know several police officers in both Montreal and Ottawa. Most of them are woefully misinformed when it comes to gun legislation and facts surrounding criminal gun use in both Canada and the US. In fact most thought that the lifting of the â Å“assault weaponsâ ? ban in the US meant that fully automatic weapons were now going to be readily accessible there. They were convinced this constituted a serious risk to their safety since these automatic weapons could be easily smuggled into Canada. Where did they get this information? They were told this by their superiors at work. Where did their superiors get it?
4- Believe or not the average police officer is as interested in guns and gun legislation as the average Canadian (seeing as they are average Canadians that makes some sense doesn't it). Their knowledge reflects this, and their opinion reflects their knowledge.

In Canada, it is illegal to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.   We all agree on that.   rw4th, you make it sound as if this law doesn't exist, and that we'd be infringing upon your rights to "protect" yourself.  

I was attempting to deconstruct the reasoning behind the law to show it was flawed from the beginning. You'll notice my questions and reasoning still go unanswered or unchallenged by either of you.

You do know that in the Criminal Code, self defence is only valid if the defence used is only enough to subdue the person?   If someone starts throwing punches, are you going to pull the gun, or are you going to ask that it be taken out of the conflict?   By having that firearm, you automatically escalate any confrontation of this sort you may have.

Ok, do you know anything about CCW and the people who actually choose to exercise this right in the US? While a lot of people support it, very few actually choose to exercise it simply because they are intrinsically aware of the information you posted above. Someone who carries a firearm cannot indulge in road rage, cannot get drunk in bar, and has to avoid and de-escalate any and all confrontations. The people on this site constantly rip at Americans for being a â Å“belligerentâ ? people, yet CCW has been around for quite a while and their have not been any incidents of fist fights turning into shootings. So if Americans can be trusted to walk around armed, why can't Canadians?

As for Infanteer's analogy of insurance, I think that falls down to risk assessment again.   Do I have house insurance?   Yes.   Car insurance?   Ditto.   Do I have earthquake or tornado insurance in Calgary?   No.   Is there a potential that a tornado or an earthquake could hit?   Yes, but the risk is too low to warrant such extreme action.   AS well, having insurance is different than carrying around the means to end someone's life in short order.   Not having broad-spectrum, all encompassing insurance   might cost you your posessions, the other someone's life.

That is YOUR risk assessment, not mine. I should have the right to make my own risk assessment and act accordingly. Again, I don't think we listen to same news or read the same newspaper. Your sheltered belief does not dictate my reality.

I agree with you in the defence of one's home.   However, I don't know how one would legally be able to defend your home with a firearm, as they must be kept locked up, and amminution seperate.   During a B&E, I doubt I'll have time to put everything together in time.   In case anyone is thinking that we should also be allowed to have firearms loaded in the house, shake your head.   Basic weapon safety prohibits this, doesn't it?   An unloaded weapon will never go off.   A loaded one always has that potential.

Well that's a major flaw right there isn't it? This clearly supports my thesis that self-defense has in fact been made illegal.

how many times have you read about someone worried about a thief, who ends up shooting their: son who came home after curfew, wife, family member, dog/cat, or child?)

Very rarely, in fact I can't remember the last time I read about a case like this.

In public it is another matter.   Using Infanteer's story regarding the two drug dealers, sure, let's say one of them came at you, or at another innocent person, and you draw your firearm. Immediately, the situation has been escalated.   Now, say the druggie has a firearm.   He's gonna start shooting, and I'd imagine that you would to. So, downtown vancouver and two people start firing.   Think someone's gonna die?   I'd say the chances of that would increase dramatically with you drawing a firearm.   You're in civvie clothes, and have no position of authority in this sitation, nor are you or the vast majoriity of the public trained in how to deal with these types of situations, which makes Bad Things Happen.   The net effect is that you've got two people shooting bullets at each other in public.   I know you've fired weapons before, and I don't have to tell you how much training it takes to keep a handgun on target from 30 feet out.   For those that don't know, it ain't like the movies.

Your description is flawed. CCW does not make you an auxiliary police officer. If you see bad people doing bad things, you call the police and stay out of it. This is the mentality every American I know who carries a gun has, and this is the attitude all â Å“self-defense mindedâ ? Canadian I know have. Again, those people in the US who choose carry are intimitlay aware of their responsibilities and the law. Why should we assume Canadians would be any less responsible?

Lastly, if you believe that carrying a firearm reduces crime, you're wrong.   It just changes the location.It's like in Calgary during stampede when they push all the hookers out of Victoria Park.   Are there still hookers?   Yup.   Just in a different place.   IF you truly believe in deterring crime, deter it, don't change it's location.  

That study noticed a vast difference between "gun free" locations, and "guns in" locations.   Now, did the "guns in" really make their place safer, or just move the crime? Let's say everyone was so armed.   Would criminals then go "oh hell.   Not worth the risk, let's quit crime and work at McDonald's" or would they escalate (ie. shoot first, rob second) in the commision of their crimes?

Remember, we are taking about violent crime here, not prostitution or pick-pocketing. Violent criminals pick targets based on likely hood of success. They look at their prey and make a risk-assessment. If you throw potential concealed weapons into the equation then you offset the risk assessment. Would they choose to just go straight? Doubtful, but I think they would most likely move on to indirect/technical forms of crimes, such as nighttime burglaries and computer crime, where direct human confrontation is unlikely, but where the risk of getting caught is also much higher.

Yes, you might only move the crime (I don't think you will ever get rid of crime altogether, it's impossible) but if you shift it from violent crime to indirect/non-violent crime by adding concealed weapons as a deterent, is that not a measure of success?

 

[rw4th]

KevinB: nice piece.

I need a digital camera  :-[

 

[Torlyn]

When, were, what's the answer? I have never since I have owned a gun (15+ years) seen a study that shows that responsible civilian ownership and use of firearms constitutes a threat to society. If you have one, please let me know where it is.

I went back through the threads, and couldn't actually find the question.  Please re-ask.

The bottom line is the pro-registration/anti-gun crowd does not have any actual evidence to support their position beyond what they believe. All criminal gun use statistic they quote fail to differentiate between crimes committed with legal and illegal weapons and the bulk of their, and your, arguments are light on facts and fueled by emotion. In the only study I have ever read that even tried to differentiate between legal/illegal guns, it concluded that of all crimes committed with handguns, those attributed to legally owned handguns represented 1% or lower of the total (I don't have a reference, but I believe it was in Toronto).

According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Studies, legally owned firearms were involved in 21.5% of all murders in Ontario over a 30 year period.  67% was committed through other means (beatings, stabbings, etc)  It states that 2% of all murders in this time people were done with handguns.  Now, before you jump up and down and say "I told you so" let's look at the ratio between us and the states.  1/3 of all firearms registered in the states are handguns.  2/3's long barrel.  So, .28 handguns per person in the states.  (Bureau of Justice Statistics)  In Canada?  0.04 handguns per capita, or 1/7 of the amerians.  Now, let's relate those stats to the murder rates, shall we?  In canada, death rate by handguns: (including accidental, murder, etc) .23 per 100,000.  US? 3.3 per 100,000.  Do the math.  We increase the number of handguns, we increase the likelihood of death resulting from handguns.  You wanted irrefutable proof, you got it.  There is a DIRECT and OBVIOUS correlation between the number of handguns and the number of handgun-related deaths.  Increase handgun ownership = increase in handgun related death.

4- Believe or not the average police officer is as interested in guns and gun legislation as the average Canadian (seeing as they are average Canadians that makes some sense doesn't it). Their knowledge reflects this, and their opinion reflects their knowledge.

You know, that's funny.  I've got my degree in Crim, and many of my class mates are now currently serving with CPS or the RCMP, and you know what?  They are MUCH better informed than the average Joe.  Don't paint all cops with the same brush as the ones you've come in contact with.

I was attempting to deconstruct the reasoning behind the law to show it was flawed from the beginning. You'll notice my questions and reasoning still go unanswered or unchallenged by either of you.

The numbers I've shown above should show you that the above statement is irrelevant now, as it proves that the law was created with meaning.

T

 

[Slim]

Lets face it...No gun law is going to deter criminals who are growing pot up here and taking it to the states to trade for guns so that they can commit crimes with said guns up here.

Gun laws only effect the gun owners who are trying to be honest about their ownership of firearms.

Sorry...All statistics aside thats the way it is currently.

One other point. I watched anti-gun activist Wendy Culkier oin television the other day, going on about how guns are so evil...Sorry to say it folks but she is a politician with an agenda, just like the rest of them. I know her sister was killed by a gun (not a handgun I might add!) but Wendy has grabbed that and turned it into a campeign platform. I view her as very dishonest and very biased as she doesn't have the "greater good" in mind when she speaks, no matter what she wants us to think!

I'm not a gun-nut, nor do i own any firearms. To me the problem isn't the ineffectualness of the registry, or the myriad of laws surrounding who can own and who can't...The issue is putting harsher laws into service and getting rid of the wishy-washy criminal justice system that allows convicts to flourish in prisons across this country. The focus needs to shift from rehabilitation to confinement, so that the public at large don't suffer every time one of these clowns is releasded ony to kill someone else.

Torlyn...The absense of a firearm will not deter criminal intent.

Slim

 

[Infanteer]

There is a DIRECT and OBVIOUS correlation between the number of handguns and the number of handgun-related deaths.  Increase handgun ownership = increase in handgun related death.

Who cares what is used?   If a suicide, murder, robbery or assault is carried out with a handgun or not, it is still a crime.   The way you're presenting those statistics is so full of holes I could drive a car through it.

- You include suicide; so are we to assume that if Johnny Depression didn't have the Glock, he would have abstained from throwing himself onto a freeway?
- You include accidental deaths; so, are we to assume that idiots will blow themselves away (or let their children do it) with pistols but not with long-guns?
- Handguns are the most popular weapon for committing a homicide in the US, but as DJS statistics show, these are handgun crimes spike with young males (most likely being youth gang members).   Where does "gun ownership" factor in with this, considering that these guns are all illegal to start with (if in Canada, they are acquired from the State - as the article posted earlier pointed out)?   Like young Indo-Canadian males (who happen to be "known to police") in Canada - who are popping eachother off at alarming (and statistically higher) rates - illegal weapons when combined with social problems (drug trade) seem to lead to high-gun deaths.   Are these problems directly correlated with access to guns, or, like the Gebusi and the Yamamano, are these sub-groups particularly prone to violence regardless of the weapon used?

The only reason your statistical gymnastics would have any validity in this argument is if these statistics of handgun deaths (since your stats stuck strictly to deaths) would disappear with the absence of handguns (ie: Handguns is the prime motive for the act instead of the facilitator used).

If this is what you are arguing, then you dispute the claim being made for the last 15 pages or so (and backed with evidence - Ghiglieri, etc, etc) that guns and crime are unrelated?  My impression is to say "Who cares about an "increase in handgun related death" because people will commit the violent act with whatever they can get their hands on" - it is an increase in the violent crime rate (murder or otherwise) that we should be concerned about, isn't it?   Are you trying to claim (and validate) the statement that carrying handguns in Canada will DIRECTLY CORRELATE to an increase in violent crime?

If gun ownership = increase in violent crime/murder/accidental shootings (which seems to be the concern), then I think you should prove it, since the evidence put up on this thread seems to indicate otherwise (remember the Switzerland/Japan example).

As well, as for the higher US murder rate (since your stats look at murders), I believe that there is a bit of a skew by "outliers" which fail to allow the statistic to represent a general trend within an entire society.  I think America's murder rates (since your stats look at murders) have more more to do with the grievous social problems faced by inner-city (especially minority) groups who face rampant drug and violence issues in urban "ghettos".  I'll put up my previous quote for posterity (and because I like to hear myself talk....)

The murder rate of the United States in 1996: - 7.4/100,000 people.

Higher then other states, which had no guns or had more guns per capita, but as the research points out, the violence was not a general trend but rather concentrated in certain violent sub-cultures - eg. murder Rate of Juvenile US Gang Members (ages under 18 and of all ethnic groups) - 463/100,000.

The most violent society (measured) on Earth?   The Gebusi Tribe of remote New Guinea at an average of 568/100,000 people.   And I imagine that is because they all had access to assault rifles [or concealed handguns], right?

We don't have anything near the level of intercity problems that US cities face (I could walk down East Hastings tonight and not be too worried).  When you strip these obvious social problems away (they are issues that are unrelated to the availability of guns - like the Gebusi there is something deeper at work), mainstream Canada and mainstream U.S. are fairly similar in terms of Violent Crimes and Murders committed (again, what is used is irrelevant - it is the fact that a murder or an assault is carried out that counts); case in point:

The Bureau of Justice Statistics states that   "The sharp increase in homicides in the late 1980's and much of the subsequent decline is attributable to gun violence by juveniles and young adults" and that "The percentage of homicide victims killed with a gun increases with age up to age 17 and declines thereafter."; since most US murders are committed by handguns and the spike in handgun deaths is due to juvenile crime, then law-abiding adults who possess a CCW wouldn't really factor into your comparison, as they would fit into a statisical group where gun and non-gun homicides are almost equal.

Bottom line (for the one-millionth time) is that the levels of violent crime in society are related to socioeconomic problems rather then availability of weapons (I know that is a bit of a no-brainer, but think about it and how it pertains to Canada).   By linking "Crime" and "Guns" together you are covering up the real problems.

Finally, I suspect that your arguement of an increase in the instances of handgun deaths due to a CCW permit in Canada is built around some irrational assumptions:

IRRATIONAL ASSUMPTION 1: CCW Will Mean More People Committing Crime

1)  Most people who would have a CCW would most likely be the people who already legally own handguns - why they would suddenly be prone to committing crime is a mystery to me.   Are you implying that gun-owners are prone to crime if they have a pistol (as opposed to anything else) on them?

IRRATIONAL ASSUMPTION 2: CCW Will Be a Free For All

2)  As KevinB highlighted in his earlier post, a CCW would not simply be a right but a responsibility (just like a drivers license is) - of course proponents of a CCW argue for proper training and vetting.   For some reason, the "anti" crowd seems to suppose that allowing a CCW will all the sudden turn Yonge Street into the Wild West.  Clearly, the evidence from the States shows that this is not what happens.  Sounds like some of you are prone to over-excitement.

IRRATIONAL ASSUMPTION 3: CCW Will Lead to a Dramatic Increase in Firearms Ownership

3)  People who use handguns in a crime aren't going to go and get a CCW before committing it.  Why do you folks constantly link CCW to increased crime?  The weapons that a CCW would allow for are, for the most part, already legally owned in Canada.  The only difference is that these citzens will now be able to legally take them out of their homes.  I'm not sure how CCW will suddenly create a gun-craze in Canadian society, prompting everybody to go by a nice Glock - are you going to try to prove that "CCW = increased gun ownership?".   If this is indeed true, would it be at any level significant enough to turn Canada into an "armed society"?   Where is the red herring of "increased amounts of guns in Canada" getting inspired from?

I simply see none of these 3 things (which you guys have argued would happen) playing out.   If you think that any of these would occur in Canada, then please prove it - even with some sort of theoretical argument.  

I'm interested to hear what you have to say - guys like myself, Slim and Brad Sallows have admitted to not having any sort of personal stake in this (we don't own pistols and interest in firearms is minimal) - but to date, all the arguments for gun control in general (less guns = less crime) and arguments against a CCW permit in Canada in specific (more CCW = more gun crime) have been unsatisfactory on both a moral level (just because you don't like it) and a factual level (obtuse, irrelevant, or non-existent data).

Fire away, gentlemen.
Infanteer

 

[glock17]

There is some good information here http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/   look for the pdf of their concealed handgun laws. Also,
www.packing.org outlines the regs state by state.

One of the prominent people stateside involved in the training of LE is L/Col (Dr) Dave Grossman ex US Army Ranger, he says that most homocide based stats are flawed, we should be examining strictly " violent assault" rates. The advances in med tech over even the last couple decades has skewed them so badly. This shows a tremendous escalation in violent crime since the mid 60's, he blames it on media violence, video games, tv etc. In fact the number of legally owned firearms in Canada has remained fairly stable during that time period, the crime rate has soared. He addresses Canada in particular during his seminar entitled " The bulletproof mind"   www.killology.com

   The US has shown a drop in the aggravated assault rate since 1998 (2%) however there are more cops out there, better trained and more motivated, and unfortunately getting killed more often. Officer deaths are up about 21% over the last ten years.

Slim:   Good points, but I have it on good account that you may in fact have ACCESS to firearms.... :threat:    Clarify?

Infanteer:   Could you use another example, like Beretta or S&W?   I'm getting a complex   :crybaby:

"Anything outside of arm's reach, is well within rifle range"      

 

[McG]

I think that we're running two parallel arguments on this thread:

1)  That increased amounts of firearms (both in numbers and availability) will increase crime in a society.

2)  That increased access to firearms for law-abiding citizens will reduce crime in a society.

Which one are we arguing for/against here?

I'm suggesting that it is more complex.  Increased access to legal firearms will manifest a corresponding increased access to illegal firearms.  While this leads to the potential for more firearms related deaths, it does not lead to more criminal deaths (by the statistics).  However, based on the US studies, an increased illegal access without a corresponding increase in legal access will result in more criminal activity.

. . . so, how does one reduce illegal access to firearms when there is higher legal access just across a rather porous boarder?

 

[KevinB]

Increased access to legal firearms will manifest a corresponding increased access to illegal firearms?

WHY?  I am unsure of the context of this statement.  Are you correlating access to legal gun with access to illegal guns?  If you are am extremely worried with this line of rationale.  We already have legal firearms - NOTHING is removing that. 

Illegal guns come from many sources - theft, and importation - however the largest segment IMHO is the stupidity of the "deactivated" firearms laws.  In Canada anyone can simply fax the gov't with a form saying X gun is now deactivated and as such no longer a firearm, so please strike it off the registry.  The term paper dewatts comes to mind...

However all three methods are still criminal - unless there is a way to stop criminal activity, criminals will still have access to firearms.  So given you will have illegal guns (sorry as much as I'd like it not to be fact it is), what can you do about it?  (this is the line of rationale I hope MCG was pursuing).

1) Tougher (and Mandatory) Sentences for offenders who use weapons.
2) More Police and Customs on the streets (so abolish the assinine long gun registry)
3) Allow armed (trained) civilians
4) A more robust ROE for defence of life and property.

 

[Infanteer]

1) Tougher (and Mandatory) Sentences for offenders who use weapons.
2) More Police and Customs on the streets (so abolish the assinine long gun registry)
3) Allow armed (trained) civilians
4) A more robust ROE for defence of life and property.

Going on the notion that violent crime is a social problem and not a functional one based on access to firearms, I think this would be far more effective then restricting firearms in preventing and lowering the crime rate.

Looking at Col Grossman's work, there is an interesting set of statistics he gives (although a bit dated, I think the general trend is useful):

http://www.killology.com/art_weap_sum_worldwide.htm

Murder (as per 100,000) in gun-happy USA is the same as in Sweden and is surpassed by places like Scotland and the Netherlands (are these places shooting galleries?).   The rate of increase (per 100,000) is higher in every other country in the study.   The U.S. has the lowest level of increase except for Canada, which has a decline.

However, violent crime in Canada is more then twice as high then anywhere else.   Violent crime in the United State is about on par with England and New Zealand.

Again, these stats are dated, but I think the general trend is obvious - perhaps we can update them with a little use of Google.   Here is a start:

http://142.206.72.67/04/04b/04b_002a_e.htm

Violent crime rates vary significantly across the country. Although Quebec reported an increase in violent crime in 2002, it still had the lowest incidence of violent crime in the countryâ ”719 per 100,000. Nova Scotia's violent crime rate was the highest east of Ontario, with 1,099 reported incidents per 100,000, although rates remained generally higher in the western provinces. Manitoba's and Saskatchewan's rates of violent crime were the highest among the provinces with over 1,600 and 1,800 incidents per 100,000 people, respectively.

Although the data sets used by Grossman and used in the stats above are probably pretty different, it seems we are still pretty high (over 1,000/100,000 in some provinces).   Would this be worthwhile in looking at your "risk assessment" claim - people stand a 1% chance of being the victim of a violent crime in Canada.   Looking at the odds for other things, that gives the "self-defence" claim fairly reasonable grounds, don't you think?

Grossman's stats don't show whether a gun was used or not in the commission of the offence because it is irrelevant - violence is something that is independent of the available means to commit it with (in this case firearms).   So again, who cares about firearms statistics; a look at the facts shows that Canada is not in the condition to thumb its nose at the US with regards to violent crime and murder.

I think that, rather then worrying to death on who legally owns a gun and what they do with them, that we should put our energy and our resources into reactive measures, as Kevin highlighted above, and proactive measures like getting a grip on children and what they do at school and home.   We probably need to take a tougher line on parents who abscond from their responsibilities rather then a gun-owner who hasn't.   As well, tightening up the border and refugee process would probably help - I just read in the news that a good proportion of the drug peddlers in Vancouver are Latin Americans claiming refugee status; since drugs and violent crime ARE linked, why aren't we getting these people out of Canada as soon as possible (since they are criminals and not refugees).

Again, I'm basically adopting the "who cares" approach to stats on gun violence because the evidence seems to show that their is no relationship of causality between guns and violence - if people wish to rob and murder, they will use what they can get their hands on (and this has been the premise derived from Ghiglieri's work that I've pounded on for 10 pages now).