Our northern neighbor has experienced increasingly stringent gun control regulations over the last few decades. "In the late 1970s, controls of intermediate strength were introduced. In the mid 1990s significant increases in controls occurred." I wonder how that's been working out for them.
The firearm homicide rate was 1.15 per 100,000 in 1977 and dropped to 0.50 in 2003 while the non-firearm rate went from 1.85 per 100,000 to 1.23 per 100,000 in the same time period.
Spousal homicides committed with firearms dropped by 77% for women between 1974 and 2000 and by 80% for men during the same time period.
The number firearm suicides in Canada dropped from a high of 1287 in 1978 to a low of 568 in 2004 while the number of non-firearm suicides increased from 2,046 in 1977 to 3,116 in 2003.
Shame on you America. With this example of what we could have with a little sacrifice and a little cooperation, I would think gun control laws would be welcomed by all. Instead, the ones who know about these things keep mum. Mum's the word when it comes to whether gun control laws can work or not.
What's your opinion? Do you think it would be worth the inconvenience to gun owners to have to get licensed and register their guns, if we too could experience these types of improvements?
Please leave a comment.
Now you believe statistics? Why is that?
ReplyDeleteI think they fudged the numbers. Prove they didn't.
The number firearm suicides in Canada dropped from a high of 1287 in 1978 to a low of 568 in 2004 while the number of non-firearm suicides increased from 2,046 in 1977 to 3,116 in 2003.
ReplyDeleteSo they ended up with a net INCREASE in suicides. Boy, sure sounds like success MikeB!
"I would think gun control laws would be welcomed by all."
ReplyDeleteYet even millions of Canadians think it's BS.
You're claiming absolute causality MikeB.
By your logic, I can claim that CCW being passed in over 2 dozen states caused the drop in crime after '94.
Do you accept that argument?
In America, prohibited persons could not be asked to register their guns due to their 5th Amendment Rights against self-incrimination.
ReplyDeleteThe only guns that could be registered are those held by law-abiding citizens.
So the firearm homicide rate dropped by .65 per 100,000 and the non-firearm homicide rate dropped by .62 per 100,000. That sounds more like an overall drop in the homicide rate.
ReplyDeleteAs Mike also said, firearm suicides drop by 720 but non-firearm suicides increase by 1070. Looks like no suicides have been averted, just method of killing has changed to jumping off of bridges and hanging rather than putting a bullet in one's head.
These statistics actually support (not prove) that their gun control laws have had the opposite effect at worse or no affect at best. To use statistics to prove one's point, you must look at all of the dataset (which would include Canada and the UK). The studies done in the US which did not cherry pick data show that more guns = less crime or more guns = no change in crime. None of them show that more guns = more crime as you seem to be implying.
Even if they could be registered, criminals are not going to come forward and say "yeah, here are my guns."
ReplyDeleteMillions of average citizens won't come forward either. You would see MASSIVE non-compliance with any licensing and registration scheme. I for one will not register my guns.
The Canadian gun registry has cost BILLIONS and has been an abject failure. Partly because of massive non-compliance by Canadian gun owners (good for them)
A word about the suicides. Just like in Japan, if you have a certain number of suicides and very few guns, and you were to flood the population with guns, it stands to reason that you'd have more suicides not less.
ReplyDeleteThe overall increase in suicides, in spite of the decrease of guns is very significant because had there been the same number of guns, or more, there would have been even that many more suicides.
It's not like the question of DGUs outnumbering criminal use of guns. With suicides, guns are highly successful compared to other means, therefore, limiting the people to the other means saves lives.
"guns are highly successful compared to other means, therefore, limiting the people to the other means saves lives."
ReplyDeleteExcept that the evidence says otherwise. # of guns dropped, suicides increased. Fewer guns is supposed to save lives right? No matter how you try and spin it, it didn't work.
What you say Mike is
ReplyDelete"Well, even though fewer guns DID NOT equal fewer suicides, it would have been worse without the drop in number of guns."
It's pure crap with no factual basis whatsoever. Additionally, if your claims were true we'd see obvious evidence of it. Fewer guns would mean a decrease in suicides. That is what you continually say, and yet your own quoted numbers show that not to be the case.
"there would have been even that many more suicides."
ReplyDeleteUm no.
You guys seem to be ignoring the rate stats and looking at the total values which makes no sense considering that there are now 10 million more people here to kill themselves than there were in 1977.
ReplyDeleteMike, you should not trust Wikipedia as a source of information. While they are improving on the information they give any Tom Dick or Harry can input any information they want.
ReplyDeleteAs for Canada's statistics, you have to remember that Canada's population is less than ours. Canada's population is around 33.6 million, compared to the US' population being around 300 million. Naturally with less population comes less crime. Also Mike, take into account the US population is growing, and as I recall a few years ago Canada's is decreasing, of course I heard this on Fox Noise.
mikeb,
ReplyDeleteWith regards to suicides. Your logic is absolutely faulty. Adding more guns will not increase the suicide rate. The Canada rate that you brought up shows that. Suicides don't happen because there are guns. Suicides happen due to depression and mental problems. It just so happens that a bullet to the head is a very effective way of killing oneself. Turns out jumping off of bridges is also just as effective. So when Canadians are deprived of one means they simply turn to another. If more guns means more suicides, than less guns must mean less suicides. Since the data across the United States and the world don't support this then we have to assume that inanimate objects do not cause suicides.
To say that there would have been even more suicides in Canada means that you cannot be honest with the statistics that you have and nothing will convince you. Any contrary statistics (such as Canada's) you will merely assume that it would have been greater with guns.
The claim was made that the Canadian Government fudged the numbers and then ask MikeB to prove they didn't.
ReplyDeleteHow lame is that?
I would think that if one was making the claim that data had been fudged, then the onus of proof would be on the person who made the accusation.
firstly wilipedia is not the place to get statistics...go to the country in questions gov't stats.
ReplyDeletesecondly the numbers for murder and other violent crimes have been dropping steadily since the mid 70's, not just since gun control was implemented.
Lastly...we (Canadians) have a lot more firearms than most Americans believe...a LOT more!
The UK have lost MOST of thier firearms(with the exception of single shot rifles and shotguns)...this is why using the UK for a comparison is valued , UK's gun homicides and other violent crimes committed with guns has increades.
Mike W. said...
ReplyDeleteEven if they could be registered, criminals are not going to come forward and say "yeah, here are my guns."
Millions of average citizens won't come forward either. You would see MASSIVE non-compliance with any licensing and registration scheme. I for one will not register my guns.
The Canadian gun registry has cost BILLIONS and has been an abject failure. Partly because of massive non-compliance by Canadian gun owners (good for them)
-----------------------------------------
Exactly Mike W
To all who condone gun control:
Shortly after gun registration/control comes gun confiscation.
For those who aren't aware...you should check out your history books to see what happened to peoples who lived under tyrants who confiscated their guns.
ie: Soviet Union (Lenin)
Germany (Hitler)
China (what's his name?)
to name a few.
Think about it!
why should only the gov't have guns?
So they can RULE us?
Thanks Colin for pointing out the obvious. Of course, my interlocutors wouldn't mention that when denying my hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteThe increase in population over these decades has been so great that there should be proportionally that many more suicides. The fact that the totals are more or less the same means that the "missing" ones are all those who would have succeeded in killing themselves had there still been the gun availability of old.
Colin & Mike
ReplyDeleteSince you didn't provide the rate of suicides, only the number here goes:
"The number firearm suicides in Canada dropped from a high of 1287 in 1978 to a low of 568 in 2004 while the number of non-firearm suicides increased from 2,046 in 1977 to 3,116 in 2003."
Using your source of wikipedia, the population in the years of comparison is as follows:
1977 - 23726345
1978 - 23963967
2003 - 31676043
2004 - 32299496
So firearm suicide rate went from 5.37/100000 to 1.75/100000.
The non-firearm suicide rate went from 8.62/100000 to 9.83/100000.
So by the rate method, we see that taking away guns reduces firearm suicides (no duh!) but it does not necessarily reduce suicides (because most of the firearm suicides will use another method).
Guns do not cause someone to want to commit suicide. By insinuating that you are only putting your head in the sand to the mental health problem.
As to the overall decrease in suicides in Canada, back in the early 90s they recognized that they had a problem and started doing something about it. Their initial approach was to reduce the availability of guns. Except then they had a 10% jump in suicides between '97 and '99 (there certainly wasn't a 10% jump in the number of guns during that time). Then they wised up and realized it really was a mental illness issue (depression, low self esteem, etc).
I fully agree, if you take away every means of killing yourself, then it is very difficult to kill yourself. That doesn't change that you want to kill yourself.
If you really believe that more guns = more suicides, then the US should have seen an increasing trend of firearm suicides since we have continually had more and more guns in this country right?
From WISQARS: suicide by firearm
1991 - 7.32 1999 - 5.95
1992 - 7.08 2000 - 5.89
1993 - 7.29 2001 - 5.92
1994 - 7.13 2002 - 5.94
1995 - 6.95 2003 - 5.82
1996 - 6.74 2004 - 5.71
1997 - 6.44 2005 - 5.75
1998 - 6.32 2006 - 5.65
This clearly shows a declining trend that leveled off from 1999 to 2002 and then declined at a slower rate. Yet there were approximately 3 million more firearms in the US each year! By your logic, you should be saying that more guns=less suicide. However, as I emphasize again, guns are an inanimate object and are not the cause of someone wanting to commit suicide.
microdot,
ReplyDeleteThank you for proving MikeB's hypocrisy.
He denied the drop in US crime reported by the FBI and stated he believed they fudged the numbers w/o any evidence to support that.
How lame is that?
Thirdpower, You keep putting words in my mouth. I never said anybody "fudged" anything. I always say that possibility exists and we should take stats with a grain of salt. Why do you mischaracterize my remarks and keep repeating it?
ReplyDeleteThe Canadian stats are a perfect example. I wonder if they're underreported the way some say the U.K. numbers are. Sometimes the police do this to look better, or not to look so bad. Of course, our FBI is above reproach, one should never question them. Is that your idea?
Is it so unreasonable to consider these things when viewing statistics?
Mr. Reputo reminds me of Bob S. The stats are enough to make my head spin.
ReplyDeleteLet's try this.
1.Suicides increased but not nearly as much as the population.
2.The proportion of gun suicides to non-gun suicides shifted, reflecting the decrease in firearm availability.
3. I conclude that if guns had remained available, there would have been more gun-suicides in the later years. The reason is we're talking about "successful" suicides. The success rate with a gun is so much higher than the other means, if guns are plentiful, the percentage of successful suicides to unsuccessful suicides would increase.
"I conclude that if guns had remained available, there would have been more gun-suicides in the later years. "
ReplyDeleteAnd now you're changing qualifiers. That's NOT what you originally claimed.
MikeB said:"Why do you mischaracterize my remarks and keep repeating it?"
ReplyDeleteHere's what I asked.
Thirdpower said, "Or do you think the NRA forced them to doctor the numbers?"
MikeB replied:"No, not the NRA but the FBI themselves. Don't they get some credit when crime goes down?"
The 'FBI themselves' doctored the numbers.
So MikeB stated that he believes that the FBI changed the numbers to get credit.
Your words MikeB.
Yet in this post, you don't question the Canadian numbers at all nor do you EVER question the numbers from the Brady Campaign, Gun Guys, or any other anti-gun group.
It's sad that MikeB's position necessitates lying on his part.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteLet me correct your logic:
1.The number of firearms were reduced in Canada.
2.The non-firearm suicide rate went up!
3. I conclude that if guns had remained available, there would have been less non-firearm-suicides in the later years. Because when someone wants to kill themselves, there aren't many things more effective than a bullet to the head, so in order to decrease the total non-firearm suicides to zero, we should issue a sidearm (with one round) to everyone at birth.
(Do you see the ridiculousness of your arguement?)
Meanwhile in the US, the total number of firearms increased by approximately 50 million over the period of 1981 to 2004 (WISQARS doesn't have earlier data) and the the firearm suicide rate went from 7.03 to 5.71 and the non-firearm suicide rate went from 4.99 to 5.35. The article is right, shame on America for decreasing the number of suicides. Gosh, don't we all want more people killing themselves. We better arm Canada more (to increase firearm suicides) and disarm America (to increase firearm suicides) because that is what the statistics show. Except for that pesky thing called causation, which the numbers from the two countries show increased/decreased numbers of firearms are not the cause of increased/decreased suicides.
No one is arguing that taking away people's firearms will decrease the firearm suicide rate, what we are disputing is that firearms are the cause of suicide.
Once again, it-is-a-mental-health-issue. Pretending otherwise is only going to have you pissing in the wind. If your goal is to have less firearm suicides (because somehow, they are so much more tragic than a suicide by slitting your wrists) then by all means advocate the abolishment of firearms. But don't try and pretend that you are doing anything to alleviate the causes of suicide.
Mike W., When you said, "It's sad that MikeB's position necessitates lying on his part," were you thinking that's a contribution to the discussion? Were you trying to educate the others about me?
ReplyDeleteI've asked you to stop with the personal attacks and the unnecessary insults. Your other comments are very much appreciated, so please don't ruin it with this silly shit.
And it is silly shit, I'll tell you why. Thirdpower has been insisting that I contradicted myself or that I lie. I've countered that he's misinterpreting me. This latest quote, the one you offered your opinion on, is taken out of context. The context was why I take stats with a grain of salt. The context was why I have doubts. I've never said the FBI fudged the stats or any of the other crazy things I've been accused of.
Furthermore, to spend three or four or five comments back and forth about whether I intended one thing or another or whether I contradicted myself or whether that counts as lying is completely off topic. The topic is guns and whether they cause more harm than good, not my character and veracity.
How about we try to stay on the topic and away from the personal attacks, please.
"This latest quote, the one you offered your opinion on, is taken out of context. The context was why I take stats with a grain of salt."
ReplyDeleteYou take them w/ a 'grain of salt' because you believe they were 'doctored' by the FBI to make themselves look good.
All w/ no proof.
Yet you STILL take any other number w/o a single question as to its accuracy.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteThe topic is guns and whether they cause more harm than good, not my character and veracity.
Wrong! The topic is our rights. You say you a person just trying to do good in the world, right?
But if your character and veracity can't be trusted on things like statistics...how in the world can we trust that stated goal?
In short, how do we know when or if you stop lying?
Bob said, "The topic is our rights. You say you a person just trying to do good in the world, right?
ReplyDeleteBut if your character and veracity can't be trusted on things like statistics...how in the world can we trust that stated goal?
In short, how do we know when or if you stop lying?"
Did I say that? Did I say I'm "a person just trying to do good in the world?"
I don't think I did, I certainly never proclaimed that that's the purpose of this blog. Yet you say this is my "stated goal."
What are you talking about Bob? The stated goal is to write about things that I enjoy, like politics, guns, capital punishment, movies and music.
So, although I agree that we often end up talking about your rights as a gun owner, the fact that all your talk and all your stats have not convinced me of anything does not make me a liar. I pointed out to you what a liar is on your blog. When a person disagrees with you and tries to do it respectfully like I have to call him a liar is to resort to a petty arguing device. It's name calling, and it's false name calling at that.
Please stop persisting with this. Try to offer your comments with only substance and no superfluous crap. Do you think you can do that, Bob?
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteA while back some folks had a few contentions about the way things worked.
Then others came along and showed proof that it wasn't the way people thought.
While the ideas were in debate, both sides contented they were right.
But after a while the proof was easy to find that one side was right -- the Earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around.
The proof was easy to see that the Earth wasn't flat.
When a person continues to insist in the face of the proof that the Earth is flat, he is lying.
When a person continues to insist in the face of the proof that the sun goes around the Earth, he is lying.
When that person can't offer any proof to counter the known facts, but insists anyways, he is lying.
What are you offering to show otherwise?
When you are called a liar, it isn't about what you offer as opinion...things like there is a flow of guns.
You are called a liar when you say it is 10% and offer no proof in the face of the overwhelming evidence that it isn't anywhere close.
You are called a liar when you say things like "guns never solve anything" but then deny saying that when you comment things like "glad she had a gun".
When you attack gun owners, every so politely of course, but say that you didn't attack US, you are called a liar.
When you say you doubt all statistics yet accept the Brady Campaign numbers without a qualifier, you are called a liar.
If the NRA lied frequently, wouldn't you point that out?
If people can't be trusted, if they can be shown to be liars, the people reading the arguments need to know which side of the argument that liar is on.
That is as meaningful as the analogy for responsibility that you won't address.
If gun owners are responsible for the crimes committed by others, a useful analogy is seeing if you will accept responsibility for the crimes of others.
All right have it your way, Bob. I still want you to get a bit more substantive and less accusatory. Can I ask that, since it is my blog? Or does your whole argument depend upon your being able to express yourself this way, repeating the word "liar" as much as humanly possible and often starting your sentences out with "The anti-freedon and pro-ignorance crowd ...?"
ReplyDeleteYou know what Weer'd said once? He said it's not as much fun since I started comment moderation.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteI am commenting less and less on your site because of things like that "30 or 40" accidental deaths a day - you realize that works out to 10,950 to 14,600 accidental deaths a year?
I used common sense to look at the defensive gun uses, can't you do the same when you post numbers?
Does it sound reasonable to say there are more accidental deaths per day than there are suicides and homicides?
I invite you to discuss things on my blog, I've extended that invitation in the past. You've not commented frequently or in depth on my site. Why should I do so here?
I've invited you to a substantial debate to be hosted on both sites, you've refused.
Why should I write substantial comments here that MIGHT not get to see the light of day because you don't like my argument?
(something that has happened in the past).
You don't like to talk about a substantial analogy to your "shared responsibility". Why should I discuss that when you handicap my argument?
You want substantial discussion MikeB; come over to my blog and discuss things.
Look Mike, if you LIE we are going to point it out. If you don't like it then refrain from lying.
ReplyDelete