Canada: Our Violent Neighbors to the North [Archive]

Goofball

01-25-2006, 16:10

Canada, it turns out, had a violent crime rate more than twice that of the USA's. Yes, twice. It turns out Canada isn't really the land of peace and security. You're more likely to get mugged in Toronto than New York.

First of all, as AII said, you're going to have to show the source of those stats if you want anybody to assign them any credibility. I don't discount them totally because I do agree we are a little too easy on criminals, but I would like to see the source.

Hmm. Arming citizens and punishing criminals vs disarming citizens and coddling criminals. I guess we know which works better.

Who said we are disarming our citizens?

By the way, any 8 year-olds shoot any 7 year-olds in Canada lately?

Xiahou

01-25-2006, 16:28

First of all, as AII said, you're going to have to show the source of those stats if you want anybody to assign them any credibility. I don't discount them totally because I do agree we are a little too easy on criminals, but I would like to see the source.You pretty much have to find it on your own. Both sets that I found are for crime reported to police per 100,000 people for 2003.

I saw the number for Canada in several places, but it was in a nice table here (http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040728/d040728a.htm#tab2ftnote1).

The US numbers were easy to find- I got this (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/pdf/03sec2.pdf) report straight from the FBI's website.

The total violent crime rates:
Canada - 963
USA - 504.8

Lentonius

01-25-2006, 16:46

people can make statistics match their opinions...:book:

although for canada this is quite odd, but looking at canada, being signnificantly colder in parts than thier sountherly friends, more people would live in the big cities, where as in the U.S many people still live in the 'old country' where crime is very rare

Crazed Rabbit

01-25-2006, 16:54

Thanks to Xiahou for showing the statistical tables.

And this passes for news in the Rabbit's universe? That is pathetic, you usually do much better.

Considering it's true, yes. ~D Now that my good friend Xiahou has provided the statistics, perhaps we can get on to the discussion instead of trying to deride the source.

Who said we are disarming our citizens?

Mainly, disarming wise, I'm speaking of not letting people carry firearms around with them, like the US states which allow concealed weapons.

*yawn*

Not much else to say when the facts contradict your theories on prison and gun ownership, is there?

Crazed Rabbit

Seamus Fermanagh

01-25-2006, 16:57

Are the multiple atrocities among the Inuit skewing the data?

Perhaps Canadian statistics include violence during hockey matches -- or is that hockey getting in the way of all that lovely droog-like violence?

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I can just see our grim-faced national guards lined up on the border, nervously checking their ammo clips as they await a ravening horde of....Canadians.

:knight: ~:confused: ~:eek: :charge: :surrender:

Sheep

01-25-2006, 17:10

Perhaps Canadian statistics include violence during hockey matches

YES!!! You are a genius!

Gun prohibition is unconstitutional. I am a huge supporter of the First Amendment so I can't help but also support the Second.

That doesn't mean there can be no control over guns where public safety is concerned. The First Amendment does not allow yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. But other than not selling them to kids or convicted felons, I don't think we should be too heavily regulated on our guns.

Also guns are cool.

PS - I realize that none of the above applies to Canada. :)

Adrian II

01-25-2006, 17:48

Thanks to Xiahou for showing the statistical tables.Oh yeah, I love them already. They flatly contradict what you said Carl Limbacher said Alan Gottlieb said when he quoted Donald Frum. Frum started by saying murder is going up in Canada. Hahaha. Here is what Xaihou's source says:

Canada's national crime rate increased 6% in 2003, its first substantial gain in over a decade. The increase was driven by a surge in counterfeiting across the country, as well as an increase in most property crimes and minor offences such as mischief and disturbing the peace. The violent crime rate remained virtually unchanged. (..) On the other hand, the national homicide rate fell 7% last year to its lowest level since 1967.That's a fine mess your friend got you in!

https://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1781/stan20laurel2je.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

Byzantine Prince

01-25-2006, 17:50

This is ridiculous, our crime rates are tiny. The city of Victoria for example has had something like 2 murders in the last 50 years. Beat that! :laugh4:

Azi Tohak

01-25-2006, 17:53

You can't see me! I have my head in the sand! You can't see me!

Azi

Goofball

01-25-2006, 18:07

You pretty much have to find it on your own. Both sets that I found are for crime reported to police per 100,000 people for 2003.

I saw the number for Canada in several places, but it was in a nice table here (http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040728/d040728a.htm#tab2ftnote1).

The US numbers were easy to find- I got this (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/pdf/03sec2.pdf) report straight from the FBI's website.

The total violent crime rates:
Canada - 963
USA - 504.8

I suspect that apples are not being compared to apples here, but I am not absolutely sure, because I couldn't find the source of the 504.8 number you quoted above. But a few points:

In Canada's violent crime rate, by far the largest number is "assault" with an aggragate number of 263,103 in 2003. Compared to the next highest number, "robbery" at 28,332, that figure is seriously skewing the total. Keep in mind the "assault" figure would include domestic violence (I will point out the significance of this in a moment) and bar fights. Which begs the question: How many of those bar fights or wife beatings would have turned into murders if we allowed people to walk around with concealed handguns?

Another thing skewing the figures is obvious if you are familiar with Canadian regional factors. The violent crime rates per 100,000 are by far the highest in Canada's least populated areas: Nanuvit, the NWT and the Yukon. Those areas are populated mainly by aboriginal peoples and most of that violent crime is attributable to domestic violence. This is due to a whole raft of social problems that are too numerous to go into now. It is certainly not due to (as conservative Americans would suggest) the fact that we don't have enough guns in Canada.

On that note, I would also point out that Alberta, which is Canada's leader in % of household that own firearms, ranks roughly middle of the pack for violent crimes committed in all of the provinces. So clearly, there is no demonstrable negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in Canada.

Crazed Rabbit

01-25-2006, 18:11

Oh yeah, I love them already. They flatly contradict what you said Carl Limbacher said Alan Gottlieb said when he quoted Donald Frum. Frum started by saying murder is going up in Canada. Hahaha. Here is what Xaihou's source says:

Do point out where. Frum only stated that murders have gone up in Toronto. :book:

That's a fine mess you've got yourself in!

https://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1781/stan20laurel2je.jpg
(That's a funny picture, by the way)

This is ridiculous, our crime rates are tiny. The city of Victoria for example has had something like 2 murders in the last 50 years. Beat that!

Translation: Facts?! Bah! We're better because I say so! Our crimes rates really are smaller! ~;)

Crazed Rabbit

Ser Clegane

01-25-2006, 18:17

Hurin_Rules

01-25-2006, 18:19

Canada's rates of homicide and assault per capita are much lower than in the USA. These statistics come from a couple of years ago, but the rates are not even comparable.

E.g. the homicide rate per 100,000 in Canada was 1.8 in 2002; in the USA for the same year, it was 5.5. For assault, it was a bit closer, but Canada was still lower, at 4.0 as opposed to 5.7.

Source: http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2002/olympic/indicators.htm

It is true that rates of violent crime have been rising of late, and the article does have a kernel of truth to it in arguing that our perception of Canada as violence free is erroneous. Rates for some types of crime are higher in Canada than in the USA. Nevertheless, when it comes to homicides, the two countries are not very close.

Much of the confusion may be attributable to differences in definitions of 'violent crime' and 'assault'. It seems, for example, that the Canadian statistics include a far wider range of things in the category of 'violent'.

e.g. "In Canada, Criminal Code classifications of violent crime include assaults ranging from less serious offences such as threats to use violence, or pushing or shoving, through serious attacks which result in physical injury; sexual assaults; robbery which may involve a threat to use force, a display of a weapon, use of a weapon and actual physical force; abduction; infanticide, attempted murder, murder and manslaughter. Most violent crime, 58% overall, consists of charges classified as minor assaults. Only 13% involves more serious assaults, 11% sexual assault, 11% robbery, and 7% `other' including 0.24% murder or manslaughter (Statistics Canada 1994)."

[Source: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:a1u6-XQBuHgJ:www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/fsw/fsw23/fsw23e01_e.shtml+%22violent+crime%22+Canada+USA&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3 ]

By contrast, it seems US statistics include only "murder/manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault". [Source: Xiahou's link to the FBI website].

So, in essence, the entire article is based on an erroneous assumption by the author of the article in the National Post. This is not unexpected. The Post is a very poor and wholly partisan newspaper that constantly makes serious errors. The author's mistake was in assuming that the definitions of 'violent crime' were the same. They are not. Most of Canadian 'violent crimes' are threats and displays of weapons, 'crimes' that are not even counted as 'crimes' by the US. You're comparing apples to oranges-- or, to be more exact, apples to a single orange.

If the National Post would make a more serious committment to objectivity--or at least hire more intelligent reporters-- we could have avoided all of this confusion.

Goofball

01-25-2006, 18:29

Hmmm ... comparing statistics ... fun :help:

Let's see where the differences are (thanks for providing the links, Xiahou :bow:):

"Murder" rate in the US 2003: 5.7
"Homicide" rate in canada 2003: 2

The US rate is considerably higher - but, is the definition for "Murder" in the US the same as for "Homicide" in Canada?
I would assume that it is very similar, but I am not sure here.

Now to the segment that is responsible for the higher "violent crime" rate in Canada:

"Aggravated Assualt" rate in the US in 2003: 295
"Assault (Level 1, 2, 3)" rate in Canada 2003: 746

Now, is anyone here familiar with the definition of "Aggravated Assault" in the US vs "Assault (Level 1, 2, 3)" in Canada?
As there seem to be various levels of "assault" included in the Canadian statistics I have the distinct feeling that we are comparing apples and oranges here.

As long as these definitions aren't clarified, argueing about the effects of gun control seems to be rather moot...

EDIT: just saw Goofball's post whioch goes into the same direction ... it seems I am typing to slow :brood:

Exactly. Here are the definitions: (source http://www.statcan.ca/english/kits/justic/2-10.pdf)

In Canada:

Assault Level 1: Minor assault (this would include things as minor as a somebody being puched and knocked down, if it was reported to police)

Assault Level 2: Incidents involving a weapon or bodily harm (this would still include most bar fights)

Assault Level 3: Aggravated assault.

In the US: (source, many, but here is one: http://www.denvergov.org/2001_crime_stats/template34716.asp)

Aggravated Assault: Aggravated Assault is an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

Duke of Gloucester

01-25-2006, 18:36

SG is right. The FBI defintion of violent crime is "murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robber and aggravated assault". In
Canada, violent crimes are: homicide, attempted murder, 3 levels of assualts, other assualts, 3 levels of sexual assault, other sexual offences, abduction and robery. It seems very unlikely that these two different defintions are comparable, unless aggravated assualt covers all of the individual crimes counted in the Canadian study.

Navaros

01-25-2006, 18:44

You're more likely to get mugged in Toronto than New York.

I find this highly unlikely.

Toronto has 4 or 5 really bad ghetto areas. If you are walking in any of those, you are indeed likely to get mugged.

However, if you are in any part of the city that is not in those ghettos, chances of being mugged are virtually zero.

I wager that the same principle would apply in New York, only with New York having many more bad areas.

Crazed Rabbit

01-25-2006, 19:00

Aggravated assault - Attack or attempted attack with a weapon, regardless of whether or not an injury occurred and attack without a weapon when serious injury results.

With injury - An attack without a weapon when serious injury results or an attack with a weapon involving any injury. Serious injury includes broken bones, lost teeth, internal injuries, loss of consciousness, and any unspecified injury requiring two or more days of hospitalization.

Threatened with a weapon - Threat or attempted attack by an offender armed with a gun, knife, or other object used as a weapon, not resulting in victim injury.

From the US Department of Justice: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvus/definitions.htm

It would appear, since aggravated assualt can mean assualt without a weapon when serious injury occurs, that aggravated assualt covers assualt levels 2 and 3 in Canada, according to Goofball.

E.g. the homicide rate per 100,000 in Canada was 1.8 in 2002; in the USA for the same year, it was 5.5. For assault, it was a bit closer, but Canada was still lower, at 4.0 as opposed to 5.7.

I don't think those stats were from 2002. It was published in the first half of 2002, and usually stats lag behind a few years. Nor does that site seem the most reliable; they aren't a governmental organization and don't really give sources. The homicide rate is not that surprising, but if assault really makes up the greater part of the violent crime rate for Canada, which is double that of the US (at least as reported-a has been said the comparisons may not be valid) then it would stand to reason that the assualt rate is higher in Canada.

e.g. "In Canada, Criminal Code classifications of violent crime include assaults ranging from less serious offences such as threats to use violence, or pushing or shoving, through serious attacks which result in physical injury; sexual assaults; robbery which may involve a threat to use force, a display of a weapon, use of a weapon and actual physical force; abduction; infanticide, attempted murder, murder and manslaughter. Most violent crime, 58% overall, consists of charges classified as minor assaults. Only 13% involves more serious assaults, 11% sexual assault, 11% robbery, and 7% `other' including 0.24% murder or manslaughter (Statistics Canada 1994)."
...
Most of Canadian 'violent crimes' are threats and displays of weapons, 'crimes' that are not even counted as 'crimes' by the US. You're comparing apples to oranges-- or, to be more exact, apples to a single orange.

As in the above definition, the US includes threats of attacks with weapons as aggravated assault. Thus, they do count most of the same crimes as Canada does. And if threats w/weapons are classified as minor assualts, then Canada's higher assault rate is not due to comparing different things.

Crazed Rabbit

Xiahou

01-25-2006, 19:18

Which begs the question: How many of those bar fights or wife beatings would have turned into murders if we allowed people to walk around with concealed handguns?Probably very, very few. If you think you can backup your implication though, I'd invite you to look into the percentages of total domestic violence occurences that involved firearms in the US. I could've sworn you were shotdown on this assertion before though.

It is certainly not due to (as conservative Americans would suggest) the fact that we don't have enough guns in Canada.I'm not suggesting that. I don't care if increased crime in Canada is due to firearm restrictions or not- you can do what you want. What I do think it suggests is that less guns does not equal less crime- which is the main fallacy used by US gun grabbers to justify their policies.

Duke of Gloucester

01-25-2006, 20:17

As in the above definition, the US includes threats of attacks with weapons as aggravated assault. Thus, they do count most of the same crimes as Canada does.

No, because violent crimes in Canada include 2 levels of assualt not covered in the US and a whole range of sexual crimes too. The biggest difference between the 2 figures seems to be the differences between "agravated assualt" and "assualts level 1, 2 and 3". I think it is clear that the definition of violent crime includes more offences in Canada than in the US, and this may tell us something about how violent the US is compared with Canada.

Watchman

01-25-2006, 20:54

Ser Clegane

01-25-2006, 21:14

While we're throwing numbers around, I figured I might as well add this (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Crime) to the pot since I've had it lying in my Favourites for a while now. I can't vouch for the site in general, but at least they appear to be working on standardized yardsticks which as everyone should know is the barest minimum for any even remotely acceptable statistical comparision.

Note, incidentally, what rank as "top stats" for the US and the company it keeps at the head of the per capita rankings... ~;p

While any effort to standardize this kind of data is indeed helpful, I am not so sure if these guys actually succeeded.

Some of the datasets seem very ... funny, e.g.

Colombia:
assaults per 1000 capita: 0.59
murder per 1000 capita: 0.62

Ukraine
assaults: 0.112
murder: 0.094

The ratios between assault and murder seem to be extremely unrealistic in these cases :shifty:

Xiahou

01-25-2006, 21:19

Also, the most recent data nationmaster uses for crime is from 2000. To me, that's getting a bit stale.

Watchman

01-25-2006, 21:30

They define "murder" as "intentional homicide". That's presumably distinct from mere "assault" presumably does not involve actually killing the victim. For example in "assaults per capita" Colombia ranks a puny #35 with 0.587116 per 1,000 people, but in "murders" a cheerful #1 at 0.617847 per 1,000 people. It comes a respectable second in "murders with firearms" at 0.509801 per 1,000 people. Those decimals make a major difference in comparisions.

Now, either Colombians "murder" each other far more often than "assault"; if this is indeed so, the place is in truly sorry state indeed. However, I suspect the key is the little disclaimer most entries in "Definitions" list - "Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence." I would hazard a guess that Colombians are so numb at serious lethal violence that they simply do not bother reporting or recording lesser cases, or consider them worth bothering the authorities with. Odds are the authorities, for as much or as little they care, are too busy with the "murders" to have time for such trifles.

Watchman

01-25-2006, 21:34

To me, that's getting a bit stale.*shrug* It's indicative, anyway. I have distinct trouble believing truly remarkable changes considerable enough to affect the overall rankings (ie. who's generally on top in what; some shuffling amongst closely ranked nations is of course only natural) would have happened in such a short time, as we'd be talking about fairly profound changes in whole societies.

Xiahou

01-25-2006, 21:41

Note, incidentally, what rank as "top stats" for the US and the company it keeps at the head of the per capita rankings... ~;p
By the way, what's it like living in the country with the 3rd most per capita crime? ~;p

Ser Clegane

01-25-2006, 21:44

However, I suspect the key is the little disclaimer most entries in "Definitions" list - "Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence." I would hazard a guess that Colombians are so numb at serious lethal violence that they simply do not bother reporting or recording lesser cases, or consider them worth bothering the authorities with. Odds are the authorities, for as much or as little they care, are too busy with the "murders" to have time for such trifles.

That is indeed very likely - and it emphasizes the problem that one has to face when trying to compare crime statistics from different countries.

If you then in addition try to - based on such statistics - show causalities with single factors you move into the realm of wild guessing.

I think the posts above have established the fact that saying that Canada has higher violent crime rates than the US is not supported by the given data.

However, it seems to be an equal simplification of the issue if we say that the higher homicide rates in the US as compared to Canada can be explained by the difference in how the respective countries regulate gun ownership.
The often cited Switzerland example shows that widely spread ownership of guns cannot explain high homicide rates.
Gun ownership might be a factor - it might be not a factor; Switzerland, Canada and the US certainly differ in more factors than just gun ownership regulation laws - so focussing just on the gun issue isn't enough to understand crime rates.

EDIT: removal of several pelling and grammatical errors - I blame it on the Scotch...

Crazed Rabbit

01-25-2006, 21:44

No, because violent crimes in Canada include 2 levels of assualt not covered in the US and a whole range of sexual crimes too. The biggest difference between the 2 figures seems to be the differences between "agravated assualt" and "assualts level 1, 2 and 3". I think it is clear that the definition of violent crime includes more offences in Canada than in the US, and this may tell us something about how violent the US is compared with Canada.

Actually, the US definition of Aggravated Assault would fit 2 levels of assault in Canada. The US also includes forcible rape in its violent crimes, and attempts to rape. While Canada may include some more categories of sexual crimes, it only makes up, according to Hurin_Rules' sources, 11% of Canadian violent crime. It is likely the USA would count most sexual offenses recorded as violent crimes in Canada as a violent crime. Even if they did not count all of them, the impact on the overall violent crime rate would be small.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/forcible_rape.html

Forcible rape, as defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Assaults and attempts to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included;

I believe the crucial thing to find out is Canada treats threats of assault with weapons as minor assault, and if minor assault covers assault level 1, or assault levels 1 and 2. Goofball's post would seem to indicate that minor assault only overs level 1.

Crazed Rabbit

Goofball

01-25-2006, 21:50

In Canada's violent crime rate, by far the largest number is "assault" with an aggragate number of 263,103 in 2003. Compared to the next highest number, "robbery" at 28,332, that figure is seriously skewing the total. Keep in mind the "assault" figure would include domestic violence (I will point out the significance of this in a moment) and bar fights. Which begs the question: How many of those bar fights or wife beatings would have turned into murders if we allowed people to walk around with concealed handguns?Probably very, very few. If you think you can backup your implication though, I'd invite you to look into the percentages of total domestic violence occurences that involved firearms in the US. I could've sworn you were shotdown on this assertion before though.

I like how you did that.

I posed a question, then using only two sentences, you transformed my question from an implication to an assertion (and not just any old assertion, but one over which I had previously been "shot down"), that you demanded I provide proof of.

Well played. You should run for public office.

I ask the question again, posed purely in the hypothetical as a point of interest relative to the thread. Let's use round numbers to make it easy. Assume there were 50,000 physical altercations (i.e. fistfights) between individual Canadians in a given year. Now, if Canada allowed people to carry handguns about with them, let's assume 0.50% of the population would be carrying guns around with them, which would extrapolate to a total of 500 handgun-armed people becoming involved in some sort of low-level physical conflict in that same year. So, out of 500 armed individuals attacking or being physically attacked by somebody else in a given year, how many do you think would escalate the confrontation into a shooting rather than a punch-up?

50? 10? 5?

I can guarantee you one thing (and yes, this next part is an assertion on my part): The number would without a doubt be higher than it would with the same five hundred individuals who were not armed with handguns.

Crazed Rabbit

01-25-2006, 22:05

Assuming a person armed with a handgun is being attacked, why should they not use their handgun in self defense? The loss of another criminal is no great tragedy. It is better a criminal gets shot than a good citizen beat up and possibly killed.

But what if a person with a pistol started fighting another person, then pulled out his gun to shoot his victim? The only case were a man with a pistol would start fighting another is if he was a criminal to begin with. Evidence from states which allow the carrying of concealed weapons indicates that those legally carrying guns are much more law abiding than the average citizen. Illegally carrying and possesing a gun is a different matter.

So, if any shootings did occur, it is logical to assume they were the result of people defending themselves from attackers.

Crazed Rabbit

Scurvy

01-25-2006, 22:12

i thoguth with crime..it was better if the statistics went up (ie. more crime found) as that means your police force is actually effective and bothering to report the crimes...

Watchman

01-25-2006, 22:20

By, the way, what's it like living in the country with the 3rd most per capita crime? ~;pDamn safe. I kinda scratched my head too when I noticed that little detail. Far as I can figure out it boils down to two partially related factors - domestic violence and drunk belligerence (our alcohol culture has some... issues), plus a sufficiantly efficient judicial system combined with law-abiding citizenry that even minor infractions tend to get recorded and processed.

Switzerland nigh invariably gets brought up in these firearms-ownership discussions. I think it's missing the most obvious point - what the Swiss have in their closets are assault rifles. For that matter Finland is also absolutely crawling with hunting guns. Either of the two is obviously not something you're going to tuck under your belt and go roll a store or mug a pedestrian with. However, what by far most firearms-related deaths come from is AFAIK handguns which to my knowledge are both comparatively few in number, frowned upon, and not generally viewed as necessary in either Switzerland or Finland.

Conversely it is my understanding the US has a definitely ludicrous number of handguns in circulation. And those things are not only concealable and easy to carry around, they have no real purpose beyond interpersonal violence at short ranges (that's the occasion soldiers tend to carry them for as backups too). This only makes the numerous other issues that contribute to the country's appalling violent crime rates more acute, as a high absolute number of handguns means that even if the proportion that goes to criminals through the black market were relatively small, it's still altogether too large in absolute numbers and as basic economics dictate the more there is of a product the lower its price goes overall.

Reverend Joe

01-25-2006, 22:20

STATISTICS WAAAAAAARS!!!
http://www.kekvitirae.com/AKcat.gif
:laugh4: Ridiculous.

Goofball

01-25-2006, 22:21

Assuming a person armed with a handgun is being attacked, why should they not use their handgun in self defense? The loss of another criminal is no great tragedy. It is better a criminal gets shot than a good citizen beat up and possibly killed.

So you find it reasonable then, that if I happen to be carrying a concealed weapon and some 18 year-old drunk yahoo who happens to be walking out of a bar throws a punch at me, that I should pull out my gun and kill him?

I guess that's where we differ.

At any rate, you've answered my question. With an armed population, there is more potential for minor scuffles to turn deadly than with an unarmed one.

And by the way, this statement:

The only case were a man with a pistol would start fighting another is if he was a criminal to begin with.

has so many holes in it I wouldn't know where to begin.

Watchman

01-25-2006, 22:25

Rabbit seems to be arguing an idea I find quite puzzling - that the arms race should be between the criminal and the commoner and not the criminal and the authorities. That seems to be somewhat entirely ignoring a fairly major raison d'être of organized societies and their mechanisms of legitimate violence.

'Course, by what I know of the US judicial system (and preciously little of it is positive), he actually might have a point...

It doesn't change the fact the authorities are by *far* better equipped to outpace the criminal in the race, though.

BDC

01-25-2006, 22:28

The drunks having a fight only become criminals when it gets serious. Which it would with handguns.

Friday nights here would end with a couple of bodies at least in the gutter.

Watchman

01-25-2006, 22:32

Ditto. We get enough corpses from the odd knife or bottle as is.

Adrian II

01-25-2006, 22:43

The Rabbit is leading us a merry dance again. After throwing around some fake statistics with regard to Canada, he can now happily shoot holes in other peoples' statistics about a supposed correlation between gun ownership and violence.

Country comparisons are notoriously error-prone. Evidence from within countries does point to a correlation in some countries, but not in others. In the U.S. private gun ownership has doubled over the past twenty years, yet violent crime seems to have gone down. On the other hand, non-gun murders in the U.S. are higher than the overall murder figures in most European countries.

Japan has practically no private guns and also a very low murder rate (explain that, Crazed Rabbit).

Norwegians and Swiss have hundreds of thousands of automatic and semi-automatic weapons in their homes, yet their murder rates are a trifle compared to Mexico or Brazil where God know show many people have both legal and illegal handguns (explain that, Goofball).

I guess we all know the common places of the debate by now.

In my view, it is the difference in social and political systems that explains much of the differences in crime rates. Prevailing attitudes in a given society determine much of the inhabitants behaviour in conflict situations.

I have long thought that differences in culture also speak to the prevalence of certain crimes in certain countries, i.e. people 'going postal' in the U.S. or the high incidence of cases of poisoning in Europe. But such comparisons are even more hazardous, it seems. Every study I read seems to complicate the issue rather than clear it up for me.

Goofball

01-25-2006, 23:10

Norwegians and Swiss have hundreds of thousands of automatic and semi-automatic weapons in their homes, yet their murder rates are a trifle compared to Mexico or Brazil where God know show many people have both legal and illegal handguns (explain that, Goofball).

Nothing to explain. I am not against gun ownership in all its forms. I am mainly against handgun ownership in general, and people being legally permitted to carry handguns around with them in particular. Neither of those two things are prevalent in Norway or Switzerland, as you talk about in your example. And IIRC, most (if not all) of the automatic weapons you are referring to in Swiss homes are actually government owned weapons issued to Swiss citizenry who are also military reservists. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

Crazed Rabbit

01-25-2006, 23:47

So you find it reasonable then, that if I happen to be carrying a concealed weapon and some 18 year-old drunk yahoo who happens to be walking out of a bar throws a punch at me, that I should pull out my gun and kill him?

I guess that's where we differ.

At any rate, you've answered my question. With an armed population, there is more potential for minor scuffles to turn deadly than with an unarmed one.

Yes. Ideally, one would be able to just pull out a gun and then the drunk would quickly make haste away. But considering the extreme cases of violence in some places, like the kids just randomly attacking drunks, it would not be drastic to assume that the drunk could do more than just throw a punch. I am also of the opinion that one should not have to endure an attack of serious nature and not be able to fully protect oneself.

And yes-it is more likely for muggings and the like to end up deadly-for the criminal. As it is, in the USA, defending one's self with a gun during a mugging or similar incident results in the least likelihood of injury for the victim.

I think the idea that gun ownership and legal possesion on the street will result in more deaths from things like bar fights and ordinary arguments between people (due to a traffic accident, say) to be an underestimation of human restraint, and contrary to facts. I remember the Brady gun control group saying how Florida would become like the Wild West after they allowed the carrying of concealed firearms.

In reality, none of that came to pass. Instead, it became a fufillment of 'An armed society is a polite society'.

Rabbit seems to be arguing an idea I find quite puzzling - that the arms race should be between the criminal and the commoner and not the criminal and the authorities. That seems to be somewhat entirely ignoring a fairly major raison d'être of organized societies and their mechanisms of legitimate violence.

It doesn't change the fact the authorities are by *far* better equipped to outpace the criminal in the race, though.

I think both citizens and authorities should have the means to defend themselves and, in the case of the authorities, apply the law.

In my view, it is the difference in social and political systems that explains much of the differences in crime rates. Prevailing attitudes in a given society determine much of the inhabitants behaviour in conflict situations.

I would agree. But I'd also say that the ability of citizenry to defend themselves presents a barrier to crime.

For, are not people allowed to defend themselves?

In a case of serious attack, should they not be able to defend themselves to the best of their ability?

Is not a handgun the best choice for a small, yet powerful, form of defense suitable for even those not physically powerful?

And that is why (among other reasons) I think people should be able to carry handguns; to defend themselves.

In the USA at least, the crime rate has dropped in states which allow concealed weapons, and many people use handguns to defend themselves each year. Why pass laws against it, when thos laws will be ignored by the only people causing problems with handguns; criminals?

Crazed Rabbit

P.S. AII-The stats ain't fake. Not exactly correlative, maybe, but not fake.

Reenk Roink

01-26-2006, 00:03

AII-The stats ain't fake. Not exactly correlative, maybe, but not fake.

True statistics can never be "fake" (unless purposely fabricated of course). But statistics can also be used to "prove" anything...

Soulforged

01-26-2006, 00:38

I don't know why this threads keep coming and coming. Threads wich only purpose are to point out that my country is better than yours. Sigh.

Beyond that is interesting to read some posts from the pro-gun groups (usually conservatives---what's that?:inquisitive: ) and notice that they seem to see a correlation between gun-owning and crime rate decreases. From a subjective point of view I don't know how to analyze this, I mean, I don't see myself carrying always a .38 in my pocket and looking all paranoid for "criminals" to rain over myself. That argument of selfprotection is so rubbish that it's laughable. For the record I agree that it cannot be forbidden, but it also cannot lack of regulation. I wonder what they'll say if everyone returned to carry an sword and walk on the streets like that?

Watchman

01-26-2006, 01:37

Rabbit, that "guns protect people from criminals" line kinda seems to fall flat in the face of the rather monolithic and unbudging truth that most Western countries get by right fine without their citizens getting murdered, mugged and whatever in spite of a virtual zero private handgun ownership nevermind concealed carry rate. And it's not like quite a few of those didn't have their share of acute social problems either.

So what gives in the equation ?

Kaiser of Arabia

01-26-2006, 04:07

By the way, any 8 year-olds shoot any 7 year-olds in Canada lately?
Low blow, but we still have enough population for that to happen and not lose a major tax base, unlike Soviet Canuckstan.

@Watchman
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3224.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42167
http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/blanks/081400.htm
http://www.guninformation.org/
http://www.universalway.org/guncontroltable.html

I find it funny the UN had the balls to try to get us to remove gun ownership from the constitution when they support people like Kim Jong il and Saddam Hussein. Bloody world politics. I blame FDR.

Kaiser of Arabia

01-26-2006, 04:34

Nothing to explain. I am not against gun ownership in all its forms. I am mainly against handgun ownership in general, and people being legally permitted to carry handguns around with them in particular. Neither of those two things are prevalent in Norway or Switzerland, as you talk about in your example. And IIRC, most (if not all) of the automatic weapons you are referring to in Swiss homes are actually government owned weapons issued to Swiss citizenry who are also military reservists. I have no problem with that whatsoever.
Yeah all 9 million fricken reservists. :2thumbsup:

Slyspy

01-26-2006, 05:09

I don't even trust my own country's official crime stats, let alone those from other countries or from uncertain sources. When the basis of the stats is reported or recorded crime then we are already looking at a narrowed sample which may not reflect reality on the ground. The very basis of the stat collection is flawed. This is especially true when comparing the crime stats of different nations, which of course have different levels of policing, varying states of trust between the public and police, varying criteria for recording crime and, of course, different definitions of the crimes themselves. Give it up guys - you prove nothing and merely make yourselves look foolish.

Kaiser of Arabia

01-26-2006, 05:22

Goofball

01-26-2006, 06:28

Yeah all 9 million fricken reservists. :2thumbsup:

Are you trying to claim there are 9 million fully-automatic weapons in Swiss homes?

Kaiser of Arabia

01-26-2006, 06:32

Are you trying to claim there are 9 million fully-automatic weapons in Swiss homes?
No I'm saying there's so many guns that, being as they are gov't property for reservists, there's a ton of reservists.

Goofball

01-26-2006, 06:44

No I'm saying there's so many guns that, being as they are gov't property for reservists, there's a ton of reservists.

Then you didn't read what I said before. Here, I'll help you out a bit:

Norwegians and Swiss have hundreds of thousands of automatic and semi-automatic weapons in their homes, yet their murder rates are a trifle compared to Mexico or Brazil where God know show many people have both legal and illegal handguns (explain that, Goofball).Nothing to explain. I am not against gun ownership in all its forms. I am mainly against handgun ownership in general, and people being legally permitted to carry handguns around with them in particular. Neither of those two things are prevalent in Norway or Switzerland, as you talk about in your example. And IIRC, most (if not all) of the automatic weapons you are referring to in Swiss homes are actually government owned weapons issued to Swiss citizenry who are also military reservists. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

If not having a point was people, you'd be China.

GoreBag

01-26-2006, 07:26

Ba-zing. Wasn't the exact same discussion had a few months ago?

Adrian II

01-26-2006, 08:08

Nothing to explain.
The stats ain't fake.Sure, sure. Why don't you guys explain South Africa to me. High percentage of private gun ownership, a longstanding 'gun culture' than runs deeper in many ways than in the United States. It has a humongous crime rate and most of all a staggering murder rate; Cape Town alone is murder capital of the world. Yet most murders there are non-gun murders. Go figure.

GoreBag

01-26-2006, 08:11

Cape Town alone is murder capital of the world. Yet most murders there are non-gun murders. Go figure.

More so than Mexico City?

Adrian II

01-26-2006, 08:45

More so than Mexico City?Well, in both cities underreporting must be pretty high too. I wouldn't know who got which trophy in what year exactly, but let us say the picture is quite similar for both.

Meneldil

01-26-2006, 08:50

Americans are so freaking scrary of themselves that they feel the need to have a gun wherever they go.
This is not a gun issue, it's a social issue. Just read some of the pro-gun people's post : they're full of fear, the fear of being mugged by some random crazy latino/black/drunk teen while they're walking in the street.
US are so screwed up that every single 18 year old scum doesn't give a crap about killing a few people to get 10 bucks, and that people would gladly shot someone asking them a cigarette just because they fear for their lives.
Ban gun and they'll use knives or anything else that will come to their mind. Surely less murders, but the problem will stay the same.

Unhappilly, the same thing is slowly happening in my country aswell.

GoreBag

01-26-2006, 09:40

Well, in both cities underreporting must be pretty high too. I wouldn't know who got which trophy in what year exactly, but let us say the picture is quite similar for both.

I remember hearing that there are three murders in Mexico City every day, one of which is a tourist.

Watchman

01-26-2006, 10:47

@Watchman
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3224.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42167
http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/blanks/081400.htm
http://www.guninformation.org/
http://www.universalway.org/guncontroltable.htmlFeel honored, Kaiser, I actually took a look at them. Point one: none of them did anything to address what I asked. Point two: whoever's made that last one seriously doesn't comprehend anything about anything.

I'm still waiting to hear an explanation why we unarmed citizens of First World countries aren't suffering from violent crime on a massive scale contrary to what the line of argumentation followed by the pro-gun side tends to imply.

Notice that I'm not actually questioning American gun ownership here - I'm in the opinion that society is so far gone down the drain armed self-defense really might be required. What I want to hear is an explanation how the citizens of less dysfunctional societies seem to on the average survive right well with the criminals they now happen to have without going armed.

Adrian II

01-26-2006, 11:01

Ba-zing. Wasn't the exact same discussion had a few months ago?Which kind do you mean? There are two kinds of gun ownership debate.

The first is the 'guns R 1337' kind, revolving around the 'I have the right to shoot any freaking bastard who breaks into my home/steals my car/ threatens my wife, don't I?' theme. The answer to that would be: it depends, but this kind of debate rarely reaches that level of sophistication.

The second is the kind of debate that revolves around the question of controlling violence in complex modern societies. It gets interesting when it reaches the stage where cultural differences and national history come into play. Sadly this kind of debate often winds down to the 'my culture rulezor/your culture sux' level at which t3h moderator usually steps in.

GoreBag

01-26-2006, 14:51

No, the hogwash about Canada being more violent than the US, I meant.

Redleg

01-26-2006, 15:18

Americans are so freaking scrary of themselves that they feel the need to have a gun wherever they go.

Oh look a emotional appeal generalization. I don't carry a weapon whenever I go out. In fact I don't own a handgun. I see no need for me to have one.

This is not a gun issue, it's a social issue. Just read some of the pro-gun people's post : they're full of fear, the fear of being mugged by some random crazy latino/black/drunk teen while they're walking in the street.

Again a false generalization. There is a precentage of the population that does indeed feel that way, but I know far more people who do not carry a handgun on thier person, then I do those that carry.

US are so screwed up that every single 18 year old scum doesn't give a crap about killing a few people to get 10 bucks, and that people would gladly shot someone asking them a cigarette just because they fear for their lives.

LOL someone been reading Michael Moore to much.

Ban gun and they'll use knives or anything else that will come to their mind. Surely less murders, but the problem will stay the same.

A true statement. Murder happens because someone wants to hurt another.

Unhappilly, the same thing is slowly happening in my country aswell.

Its been in your country for years - just like its in every other country out there - which is what I believe Adrian's point is alluding to.

Reenk Roink

01-26-2006, 19:16

Move to your peaceful neighbors to the north...Iceland, or any of these countries with very low murder rates:

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-lowest-murder-rates.html

Slyspy

01-27-2006, 03:09

Oh look a emotional appeal generalization. I don't carry a weapon whenever I go out. In fact I don't own a handgun. I see no need for me to have one.

You should get one man, its all the rage apparently. How else will you defend yourself from the bogeyman? :idea2: :duel: :croc:

Xiahou

01-27-2006, 03:26

This is not a gun issue, it's a social issue. Just read some of the pro-gun people's post : they're full of fear, the fear of being mugged by some random crazy latino/black/drunk teen while they're walking in the street.
Again a false generalization. There is a precentage of the population that does indeed feel that way, but I know far more people who do not carry a handgun on thier person, then I do those that carry.
The idea that someone would only carry a gun because they are "full of fear" is total hyperbole. Most people I know of that carry would tell you that if you're going to an area dangerous enough to expect to need a weapon, you shouldnt be going there to begin with. You carry because you have a legal right to do so and you can do so responsibly. It's not fear, it's the realization that bad things can still happen to decent people even after they take all reasonable precautions to avoid dangerous situations. We know they're used defensively. We know that the vast, overwhelming majority of people who carry legally do so responsibly. Where's the problem with it?

Watchman

01-27-2006, 10:42

Nowhere as such. I think the issue is more of what all that does to the overall perception about guns and 'legitimate' violence on the cultural level, and the blunt fact that the more handguns you have in circulation the more of them will end up in the criminal community.

I don't think there would be great problems if it was *just* responsible, law-abiding citizens having guns. Even if a great many of those are nevertheless prone to doing very idiotic things at times. But they manage to kill their families, spouses and whatever right fine without firearms too, reading the newspapers here proves as much.

It becomes troublesome when you have lots of violent crime and criminals who also have guns (somewhat unavoidable if you now have many of those things around to begin with), because that sort of... raises the stakes and makes people jumpy even if they don't consciously admit it. Heck, all you need is one basically okay but somewhat odd person who owns a gun, and you know what ? The folks around him get just a bit nervous. Now apply that dynamic on societal scale in a society with a towering crime problem and so many social tensions you could make a damn string instrument orchestra out of it...

Case in point: poor folks who try to earn a few pennies washing car windows at traffic lights every now and then get shot by jumpy people who suspect carjackers. People knocking on doors or wandering onto lawns because they got an adress wrong... every now and then get shot. And the list goes on.

All that doesn't exactly suggest healthy and level-headed attitudes to firearms and their use by even the legal owners, now does it ? And the things *do* make it awfully easy to cause other people serious bodily harm.

Xiahou

01-27-2006, 19:28

It becomes troublesome when you have lots of violent crime and criminals who also have guns (somewhat unavoidable if you now have many of those things around to begin with), because that sort of... raises the stakes and makes people jumpy even if they don't consciously admit it. Heck, all you need is one basically okay but somewhat odd person who owns a gun, and you know what ? The folks around him get just a bit nervous. Now apply that dynamic on societal scale in a society with a towering crime problem and so many social tensions you could make a damn string instrument orchestra out of it...Maybe Im misreading you, but are you saying that people in America are afraid of law-abiding neighbors who own guns on some level? If so, it shows how little you understand American culture. I'd say you're more likely to get a 'Now I know where to run if someone ever breaks into my house' reaction than an 'oh gosh, you're scary' one. :wink: