Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[whitedog]

Okay folks, I went crazy.

I got thinking about the insistence of the anti-gun folks that we don't want to be like the AMERICANS, with no gun control, and blood running in the streets! I had read that murder was so high in American ghettoes that it skewed national figures, as (obviously) there could be social causes for murder in those circumstances.........SOOOOOO

I went looking to isolate two populations, as close as possible in population make-up, culture, etc, with the ONLY difference being gun control laws. I settled on the west, the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta in Canada, and the three American states that border them, Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota. These seemed to be the best examples, as they are the two areas of Canada and the United States that are the most alike in population culture, etc., yet most different in gun legislation.

Let me lay it out for you.

In Canada, before you buy a long gun, you must pass a safety course, undergo an investigation, get references including your spouse, obtain a license, and register the firearm. Most military semi-autos are prohibited. Semi-auto rifles can only have magazines with 5 rounds

In these states, if you want the semi-auto version of the American military M-16, you walk into the gun store, put down your cash, buy the piece and as many 30 round magazines as you like. You wait a federally-mandated 7 days, and go get your rifle. No license, no registration, no course, any rifle is OK.

In Canada, the vast majority of handguns are prohibited. If you want a handgun, you must either be a collector, or a target shooter. Self-defense is NOT allowed. You must have a long gun license (see above), pass ANOTHER course, and register your pistol. You must belong to a gun club, and you are ONLY allowed to transfer the weapon back and forth from the club to home, it must be trigger locked, and in a locked case.

If you want a handgun in any of these states, it is exactly the same as the process for buying a military "assault" rifle in the Sates, as laid out above. No license, no registration, no course, no NOTHING. NO handguns are prohibited.

In Canada, getting a license to carry a handgun is practically impossible.

In these states, the gov't MUST give you a license to carry a handgun for self-defense if you don't have a criminal record.

Just to make it clear, here are the ratings for the states given by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: Montana (F), North Dakota (D), Minnesota ( C-)

Believe me, Canada would get an A+++ from Sarah Brady.

So, Canada is a wonderful, peaceful place where everyone is safe and happy, but step across the border and you trip over bodies and fall into the mess of blood, guts and expended shell casings, right?

Well, maybe not.

MURDER RATES
------------------------2000...2001...2002...2003...2004
Manitoba------------ 2.61...2.95...3.12...3.70... 4.27 (per 100,000)
(2002 - 1,151,000)-----30.....34......36.....43..... 49 (murders)

Saskatchewan------2.58...2.70... 2.71...4.12...3.92
(2002 - 1,000,000).... 26.... 27..... 27.....41.....39

Alberta---------------1.96...2.29... 2.25...2.03...2.69
(2002 - 3,056,000).... 60.....70......69.....62 .... 82

Montana.............1.80...3.80....1.80...3.30...3.20
(2003 - 917,000).......17.....35......17......30.....29

North Dakota.......0.60...1.10... 0.80....1.90...1.40
(2003 - 633,000)........4.......7.......5......12.......9

Minnesota..........3.10... 2.40... 2.20... 2.50...2.20
(2003 - 5,059,000)..157.....121.....111....126....111

HERE'S THE SHOCKER!


MURDER RATES PER 100,000
----------------------------------2000...2001...2002...2003...2004
Canada West-----------------2.22----2.52----2.54---2.80----3.26 (per 100,000)
Population 5,207,000........116.... 131.....132....146....170 (murders)

USA Northwest---------------2.69----2.47----2.01---2.54----2.25
Population 6,609,000........178.... 163......133....168.....149

GUN CONTROL IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME!
BTW Figuring this out took me HOURS.............Canadian stats are from Stats Canada, American Stats on population are from U.S. Population by State, 1790 to 2012 | FactMonster.com

American Stats on murder rates are from Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

Facts on state gun laws are from Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence | Millions marching to end gun violence

Math concerned is by ME.

Edited to say: DAMN, I had those all set out in coherent tables, but all spacing disappeared when I submitted it........so (being computer illiterate) I've used spacers......sorry about that)

I must question your study. Did you compare murder by gun? Did you compare the type of murders (1st, 2nd, manslaughter etc.) did you compare the population makeup? Who's committing the murders in these states vs. the examined provinces? For instance, in Manitoba, the bulk of folk in the penal system are fn, and some of those reserves are really in rough shape, that could easily explain a higher murder rate, as could a higher rate in Chicago vs. Bismark. Like common, you found a stat that served your objective and you announce the vindication of the gun.

Back to the drawing board with you, you've got a shat load more work to do to demonstrate the gun is just another mastercraft tool.

 

[taxslave]

You got about 3000 more posts to read before you are qualified to make any comments on here. The other 1200 or so are just regurgitated trash from the anti gun crowd.

 

[Colpy]

I must question your study. Did you compare murder by gun? Did you compare the type of murders (1st, 2nd, manslaughter etc.) did you compare the population makeup? Who's committing the murders in these states vs. the examined provinces? For instance, in Manitoba, the bulk of folk in the penal system are fn, and some of those reserves are really in rough shape, that could easily explain a higher murder rate, as could a higher rate in Chicago vs. Bismark. Like common, you found a stat that served your objective and you announce the vindication of the gun.

Back to the drawing board with you, you've got a shat load more work to do to demonstrate the gun is just another mastercraft tool.

I choose states and provinces of roughly the same population, just across the border from each other, which should mean they both have roughly equivalent racial demographics.

However, the racial aspect is irrelevant.

The "type of murder" means nothing, it is irrelevant.

The tool of murder means nothing, it is irrelevant.

Always distrust studies that do a bunch of adjustments....it usually means they are fudging the numbers.

If gun control is useful, then it must be shown to decrease murders, of whatever type. As for the weapon, if gun control simply forces the killer to turn to another weapon, which he uses to the same effect, then gun control can be said to be "completely useless". Indeed, this is the case with suicide. The US and Canada have suicide rates that are close to identical........but in the USA, gus are used most often, while Canadians opt to hang themselves.

The attempt was simple. Take two roughly equivalent populations, one with easy access to the most feared types of firearms, and the other existing in a realm of strict gun control......and see who has the highest pile of dead bodies, and use that comparison to judge the effectiveness of said gun controls. Full stop.

It was simply an exercise born of my interest in the subject. Accept the results or no, it makes little difference to me.

 

[whitedog]

I choose states and provinces of roughly the same population, just across the border from each other, which should mean they both have roughly equivalent racial demographics.

However, the racial aspect is irrelevant.

The "type of murder" means nothing, it is irrelevant.

The tool of murder means nothing, it is irrelevant.

Always distrust studies that do a bunch of adjustments....it usually means they are fudging the numbers.

If gun control is useful, then it must be shown to decrease murders, of whatever type. As for the weapon, if gun control simply forces the killer to turn to another weapon, which he uses to the same effect, then gun control can be said to be "completely useless". Indeed, this is the case with suicide. The US and Canada have suicide rates that are close to identical........but in the USA, gus are used most often, while Canadians opt to hang themselves.

The attempt was simple. Take two roughly equivalent populations, one with easy access to the most feared types of firearms, and the other existing in a realm of strict gun control......and see who has the highest pile of dead bodies, and use that comparison to judge the effectiveness of said gun controls. Full stop.

It was simply an exercise born of my interest in the subject. Accept the results or no, it makes little difference to me.

Your study. Your result. You're happy. Okie.

 

[Colpy]

Your study. Your result. You're happy. Okie.

Not "my" result.

The result.

 

[whitedog]

Not "my" result.

The result.

Yeah sure. So lets compare another statistic. (I've used this before if it looks familiar) thousand folk live in city A, one earns a billion, the rest are out of work and earn nothing. city B, 1000 folk, half earn 60 k/yr the other half earn 40 K / yr. City A, average income is 100,000 /yr City B, average income is 50k/yr. Clearly the folk in city A are better off, the average income is twice that of City B. Stats don't lie.

 

[Colpy]

Yeah sure. So lets compare another statistic. (I've used this before if it looks familiar) thousand folk live in city A, one earns a billion, the rest are out of work and earn nothing. city B, 1000 folk, half earn 60 k/yr the other half earn 40 K / yr. City A, average income is 100,000 /yr City B, average income is 50k/yr. Clearly the folk in city A are better off, the average income is twice that of City B. Stats don't lie.

WTF are you talking about, and what relevance does it have to the subject at hand??

And that would be correct............the average incomes as listed.

But, of course, this is COMPLETELY inapplicable as an analogy related to this debate, as you can only kill someone ONCE. The death rate remains the same, one per person. You can't kill someone a billion times The question is do guns either expediate that result, or not.

So far, I fail to see any relevance in your comments. If you wish to enter the debate, fine. Contribute something. significant

So far, you've been outsmarting yourself.

 

[whitedog]

WTF are you talking about, and what relevance does it have to the subject at hand??

And that would be correct............the average incomes as listed.

But, of course, this is COMPLETELY inapplicable as an analogy related to this debate, as you can only kill someone ONCE. The death rate remains the same, one per person. You can't kill someone a billion times The question is do guns either expediate that result, or not.

So far, I fail to see any relevance in your comments. If you wish to enter the debate, fine. Contribute something. significant

So far, you've been outsmarting yourself.

Sorry I should have been more clear. When you get into the business of statistics, you can't just pick what you think is fair for comparison - unless of course, it gives you the results you hoped for. There are some cities in Canada that have no murders in a given year, would you then agree that gun control works? You'd say how does that prove anything? And I'd say, the sample size/composition I used was fair, and gun laws were in force, so it does work. And anything, just like you said to me, you may use to challenge that position is nonsense. And murder by any weapon somehow relates to gun regulation? Sure, that fella in NB would have stabbed all those RCMP officers to death. Honestly? That wack job in Alberta that killed all those mounties, yup gun, knife, wouldn't have mattered. And one thing I am certain of, there are many a moron that doesn't lock up their weapons, that keep them loaded, ready to fire, and if their weapon ended up being used in a robbery, injured one of mine, aside from the robbers, I'd love to get a team of lawyers to lay waste to the lazy fuc*er, if he/she couldn't prove they used a torch to open the gun cabinet, ransacked the home to find the pin and the ammo. But without a registry, how would I know?

Oh and one other thing, I've never said I'm for or against gun control, but if you were trying to prove a point to someone other than yourself and those already in favour of US type control, well, improve your study.

 

[Colpy]

Sorry I should have been more clear. When you get into the business of statistics, you can't just pick what you think is fair for comparison - unless of course, it gives you the results you hoped for. There are some cities in Canada that have no murders in a given year, would you then agree that gun control works? You'd say how does that prove anything? And I'd say, the sample size/composition I used was fair, and gun laws were in force, so it does work. And anything, just like you said to me, you may use to challenge that position is nonsense. And murder by any weapon somehow relates to gun regulation? Sure, that fella in NB would have stabbed all those RCMP officers to death. Honestly? That wack job in Alberta that killed all those mounties, yup gun, knife, wouldn't have mattered. And one thing I am certain of, there are many a moron that doesn't lock up their weapons, that keep them loaded, ready to fire, and if their weapon ended up being used in a robbery, injured one of mine, aside from the robbers, I'd love to get a team of lawyers to lay waste to the lazy fuc*er, if he/she couldn't prove they used a torch to open the gun cabinet, ransacked the home to find the pin and the ammo. But without a registry, how would I know?

Oh and one other thing, I've never said I'm for or against gun control, but if you were trying to prove a point to someone other than yourself and those already in favour of US type control, well, improve your study.

Ah....the point is that our strict gun control DID NOT stop Bourque from killing the three Mounties.

As for the guy in Alberta, he used a 7.62mm H&K Model 91.........a prohibited weapon in Canada, and a 20 round magazine for same (also prohibited in Canada) and an unregistered Beretta 9mm. Exactly WHAT gun law would have stopped him?

I resent your assertion that I cheated on the numbers. If you are going to make an accusation, you had best have the ability to back it up. So far, everything you have said simply shows you are disturbed that I did not fudge the data with irrelevant adjustments to make it come out the way YOU wanted.

It is really quite simple: two areas, similar populations, geographically as close as one can get, separated only by a line on the ground. One with strict gun control, one without. Does the strict gun control save lives?

No.

Full stop. No fudging necessary.

 

[spaminator]

Perhaps you could explain the point of all this, if there is one?? Which I doubt.

i was just trying to consoldate threads/posts. if you would prefer seperate threads/posts in the future that can be done as well.

 

[JamesBondo]

Nothing wrong with consolidating thread posts, thanks for clearing that up.

 

[bluebyrd35]

Just the facts: Gun violence in America - U.S. News This of course does not include any deaths suffered while serving in the arm forces.

2886 deaths by gun a year. 89 people die every day. And these stats are probably not complete.

 

[DaSleeper]

From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 347 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents.

CDC - Water-Related Injuries Facts - Home and Recreational Safety - Injury Center


Let's ban swimming pools....

 

[bluebyrd35]

CDC - Water-Related Injuries Facts - Home and Recreational Safety - Injury Center


Let's ban swimming pools....

Oh so, water is not essential to life here or was invented with one purpose in mind....ie killing people or animals?? What kind of stupid argument is that!! I can come up with even a more ridiculous argument.....How about banning all procreation of humans. Without any people around we would be safe from both drowning or shooting accidents.


Are you aware that most "massacres" are not reported widely anymore and that they happen practically everyday?? These days, more than 2 to 3 killed in a shooting are classed at a massacre.

Ah....the point is that our strict gun control DID NOT stop Bourque from killing the three Mounties.

As for the guy in Alberta, he used a 7.62mm H&K Model 91.........a prohibited weapon in Canada, and a 20 round magazine for same (also prohibited in Canada) and an unregistered Beretta 9mm. Exactly WHAT gun law would have stopped him?

I resent your assertion that I cheated on the numbers. If you are going to make an accusation, you had best have the ability to back it up. So far, everything you have said simply shows you are disturbed that I did not fudge the data with irrelevant adjustments to make it come out the way YOU wanted.

It is really quite simple: two areas, similar populations, geographically as close as one can get, separated only by a line on the ground. One with strict gun control, one without. Does the strict gun control save lives?

No.

Full stop. No fudging necessary.

3 Mounties - that was tragic, but is it a bit ludicrous to be comparing that to the 115 massacres since 2009, here in the US.

 

[DaSleeper]

Oh so, water is not essential to life here or was invented with one purpose in mind....ie killing people or animals?? What kind of stupid argument is that!!

Now who's being stupid.....When has swimming become a necessity of life?

I can come up with even a more ridiculous argument.....How about banning all procreation of humans. Without any people around we would be safe from both drowning or shooting accidents.

Now that's so bouncing off the wall stupid to deserve an answer>>

Are you aware that most "massacres" are not reported widely anymore and that they happen practically everyday?? These days, more than 2 to 3 killed in a shooting are classed at a massacre.


3 Mounties - that was tragic, but is it a bit ludicrous to be comparing that to the 115 massacres since 2009, here in the US.

 

[JamesBondo]

Oh so, water is not essential to life here or was invented with one purpose in mind....ie killing people or animals?? What kind of stupid argument is that!! I can come up with even a more ridiculous argument.....How about banning all procreation of humans. Without any people around we would be safe from both drowning or shooting accidents.


Are you aware that most "massacres" are not reported widely anymore and that they happen practically everyday?? These days, more than 2 to 3 killed in a shooting are classed at a massacre.


3 Mounties - that was tragic, but is it a bit ludicrous to be comparing that to the 115 massacres since 2009, here in the US.

Well duh! Everyone knows that canada had an awesomely low massacre count before it passed gun control laws, so it really is a bit ludicrous for you to try and make a point by mentioning the 115 massacres in the USA.

 

[petros]

Gun crime in Regina decreasing, say police


While the proximity of the shootings could raise alarm bells, it looks like firearms-related crimes in the city are decreasing, according to Regina Police Service (RPS) statistics from the past 10 years.

“The best answer I can give is it doesn’t appear that our firearms offences are higher this year than last year or the highest they’ve been in the last 10 years,” said police spokeswoman Elizabeth Popowich.

To date, there have been 44 firearms occurrences in 2014, compared with 57 last year and a high of 70 in 2008.

This does not distinguish between violent offences and other, less serious, crimes involving firearms; the RPS system is not set up to aggregate data, said Popowich.

Gun crime in Regina decreasing, say police

 

[bluebyrd35]

Well duh! Everyone knows that canada had an awesomely low massacre count before it passed gun control laws, so it really is a bit ludicrous for you to try and make a point by mentioning the 115 massacres in the USA.

No, everyone does not know that. The law was instituted (and it was really a registration program) in 1995 and it was brought in because of the Polytechnic shooting which killed nine young women in Montreal, in 1989. The shooter Lepine also shot himself. The law was to "encourage" the safe storage of guns under lock and key and to purchase and sell firearms legally. As far as I know, or can find, that sort of shooting or massacre has definitely diminished. There are certain firearms that are restricted.


Between 1995 and 2007, total firearm deaths declined by almost 1/3.


Something else that proves gun control works, is India's low rates of gun deaths and violence. In this forum, a lot of fiddling with areas in the US and Canada that somewhat resemble one another simply proves stats will prove whatever the one looking wants to find. Try that with the population of India which has many times the population of the US and it absolutely proves gun control works.


The hunters can shoot anything that moves within the period allowed, as long as it isn't human. You can use a gun for protection, but you have to be sure the other human involved waved their gun about first.


Something I found looking at the stats, was the amazing statement that 80% of those having fatal accidents through drowning and also through firearms were males!!

 

[Colpy]

No, everyone does not know that. The law was instituted (and it was really a registration program) in 1995 and it was brought in because of the Polytechnic shooting which killed nine young women in Montreal, in 1989. !

Fourteen women died, not nine.

The law was to "encourage" the safe storage of guns under lock and key and to purchase and sell firearms legally. As far as I know, or can find, that sort of shooting or massacre has definitely diminished. There are certain firearms that are restricted.
!

It was not to ""encourage" the safe storage of guns under lock and key"

For the billion plus dollars the system cost, the gov't could have bought every licensed gun owner in Canada a gun safe. A very nice gun safe. With hundreds of millions of dollars to spare.

http://www.cabelas.ca/product/58938/stack-on-eight-gun-cabinet

And yes, the murder rate has declined. It was declining before the 1995 law, it actually went up briefly after full registration in 2003, but then began to decline again, and has continued to decline since the Conservatives dumped the registry.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...s_homicides_hit_lowest_level_since_1960s.html

The LGR was dumped in April of 2012.

What good was it again??

Something else that proves gun control works, is India's low rates of gun deaths and violence. In this forum, a lot of fiddling with areas in the US and Canada that somewhat resemble one another simply proves stats will prove whatever the one looking wants to find. Try that with the population of India which has many times the population of the US and it absolutely proves gun control works.


!!

In India, licensed individuals can own "assault" rifles, and are allowed to carry handguns for self-defense.

Wanna run that one by me again??

 

[JamesBondo]

No, everyone does not know that. The law was instituted (and it was really a registration program) in 1995 and it was brought in because of the Polytechnic shooting which killed nine young women in Montreal, in 1989. The shooter Lepine also shot himself. The law was to "encourage" the safe storage of guns under lock and key and to purchase and sell firearms legally. As far as I know, or can find, that sort of shooting or massacre has definitely diminished. There are certain firearms that are restricted.


s!!

While it is ok to make a statement like this without backing it up with evidence, you are limiting your level
Of acceptance based on how reasonable and believable your claim.

I believe that I am being more reasonable and believable when I say that that sort of shooting or masacre has diminished to about the same level as what we were enjoying in the decades prior to and change in laws.