Canada's Gun Violence: Blame America

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Having a gun is not the end all be all of self defense.

They are the tool of last resort, when all else has failed. But at that point, a gun is the best darned thing you can have.

Attack, Injury and Crime Completion Rates in Robbery and Assault
Incidents:

Rates of Crime Completion by Victim's Method of Protection:


Robbery 

No self protection ........................  89%      

Tried to get help or frighten attacker ....  64%

Threatened or reasoned with attacker ......  54%

Non-violent resistance/evasion ............  51%

Physical force ............................  50%

Other measures ............................  49%

Knife .....................................  35%

Gun .......................................  31%


Rates of Injury by Victim's Method of Protection:


Robbery  Assault

Physical force ............................  51%      52% 

Tried to get help or frighten attacker ....  49%      40%

Knife .....................................  40%      30% 

Non-violent resistance/evasion ............  35%      26%

Threatened or reasoned with attacker ......  31%      25% 

Other measures ............................  27%      21% 

No self protection ........................  25%      27%

Other weapon ..............................  22%      25%

Gun .......................................  17%      12% 


From:   Kleck G, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America", 

Table 4.4.

Source: Analysis of incident files of 1979-1985 National Crime Survey 

public use computer tapes (ICPSR,1987b).

Note:   Percentages do not total to 100% since any single criminal

incident can involve several different types of self-

protection methods. 

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Gosh, it must be a flat-out miracle that guns are used successfully in self-defense by average citizens up to 2 million times per year.

I think that's a strong argument that guns are not too complicated for average people to use successfully.

You are ignoring my qualification of without proper training. And we are also not talking about average people, but scared women who have ineffective restraining orders against their exes.

Unless you are trying to say that firearms training is not beneficial.

You are trying to counter a point I didn't make. You are too eager too read anti-gun into any post that doesn't toe the NRA line.


You are trying to put words in my mouth, trying to make me out to be pro gun control.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

They are the tool of last resort, when all else has failed. But at that point, a gun is the best darned thing you can have.

Sadly, you don't seem to have any applicable statistics that compare the benefits of having a gun for a trained vs. for an untrained victim per my post that you are replying to. I suspect they would show that with proper training, having a gun is even more beneficial, while without training, guns don't help as much.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Again you are relying on statistics irrelevant to the conversation.

If you are going to respond to my posts, you should at least respond to points I actually make.

[mikkey 0]

John, the stats are BS (no matter where you got them from) and you know it. We had something like 2 threads on the UK recently where your claims were proven wrong. And don't start me on the Austrailan "numbers" in your "piece". I live in Australia and probably am a little closer to it. The numbers are complete rubbish.

Anyway, can't be bothered going over all this again. People who are interested can just refer to the earlier threads.

Your obsession with countries who have gun control amazes me. Why don't you just focus on your domestic debate? In OZ the UK in Canada - people are perfectly happy with their gun laws (check the polls) and crime stats (no matter what you claim) do not indicate that we need to change that.

That does not mean that gun control is the right thing for the US. Really none of my business and really - I think people in the UK and OZ (and mayby Canada) really do not care what you guys do in the US. But FFS leave us alone with your mis-information - we do not want to be used. And really - conditions in the US are so different from the above mentioned countries - why would you? In spite of what some of you guys think - some of us are perfectly happy with our societies - soime of us actually think they live in the best place in the world (I do) and we really do not want a society that is exactly the same as the US. Believe it or not...

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

I think that people who act reflexively with violence, can kill someone anyway with whatever happens to be available: clubs, knives, hammers, or lamps. And such people who are unable to control their emotions, quickly develop a criminal record in life, and become barred from gun ownership under already existing laws.

Pretty much what I was saying there (falls under "other scenarios").

Quote

We shouldn't determine what is allowable for the good folks, by using a standard set by criminals. I don't want my government to treat me like I'm no more trustworthy than a criminal.

That's gold right there, and it applies in a ton of areas. Couldn't agree with you more.

Quote

A massive government study on a wide variety of gun-control measures has already determined that there is no correlation between any gun-control laws and crime levels.

I'll look into what you subsequently posted. Sounds like good reading.

Quote

It's about accepting responsibility for our actions, and doing what is right.

Again, in total agreement.

*looking out my window for pigs on the wing*

[mikkey 0]

BTW John - I found a new Avatar for you.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[ViperPilot 0]

Who really cares what Canada does (from a US perspective anyways)? If you guys are happy w/ gun control laws, fine. I don't live there, I don't care. But as far as the US goes, I will damn well have my guns!

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Who really cares what Canada does (from a US perspective anyways)? If you guys are happy w/ gun control laws, fine. I don't live there, I don't care. But as far as the US goes, I will damn well have my guns!

See... I am happy with this attitude. Gun control is a domestic issue and I don't think us "foreigners" should get involved in your debate and on the other hand John and the NRA should not try to drag our local laws into the debate....(especially by using, mis-information).

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Gun control is a domestic issue and I don't think us "foreigners" should get involved in your debate and on the other hand John and the NRA should not try to drag our local laws into the debate....

I think both are plenty fine. The former provides insight from outside the U.S., which really can't ever hurt -- those with ruffled feathers should just choose to ignore it if it bothers them so much.

The latter is just as helpful, as it provides real-world examples of what it's like when some of the variables, such as culture or law, are different -- again, if reviewed and discussed objectively, it couldn't ever hurt either, regardless of whose position the data supports.

I know I, myself, have learned a lot from both contributions to many domestic debates, not only here, but also from other sources, as well.

EDIT: Euthanized stray prepostion.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Quote

Gun control is a domestic issue and I don't think us "foreigners" should get involved in your debate and on the other hand John and the NRA should not try to drag our local laws into the debate....

I think both are plenty fine. The former provides insight from outside the U.S., which really can't ever hurt -- those with ruffled feathers should just choose to ignore it if it bothers them so much.

The latter is just as helpful, as it provides real-world examples of what it's like when some of the variables, such as culture or law, are different -- again, if reviewed and discussed objectively, it couldn't ever hurt either, regardless of whose position the data supports.

I know I, myself, have learned a lot from both contributions to many domestic debates, not only here, but also on from other sources, as well.

I don't know - gun control is a very complex issue. Even the term itself. There is gun control and then there is gun control. Allowing hand guns but banning assault rifles is gun control - banning all guns is gun control.

I am especially against using crime stats in comparing countries. First of all both the UN and the US DOJ have both stated that comparing national crime stats is apples and oranges. There are such big differences in the definition of crimes and the collection of data that you can't do it. The only exception being murder.

Also, I have a big issue using crime stats as an argument for or against gun control. Variations and number of crimes can have many different reasons.

But if you want to use crime stats - don't rely on people like Lott, the NRA or John Rich. The "numbers" they are using are "massaged" and chosen selectively.

I refer to John's earlier post "showing" that Australian crime is on the up and up since we increased gun control in 1996/97.

The number are pure BS - the same with the UK numbers.

The following is the latest from Victoria Police (Victoria being the second largest state in Oz population wise):

• In 2004/2005, Victoria Police recorded a total of 373,917 offences, which is 6.2% lower than 2003/2004. This year Victoria Police recorded the lowest annual number of offences since 1993/94.
• Recorded offences per 100,000 population for crime against the person increased by 9.8%, crime against property decreased by 9.7%, drug offences decreased by 9.8% and offences classified as other crime increased by 9.1%.
• The rate of assault offences per 100,000 population has increased by 12.5% from 2003/04, to 562.0 in 2004/05. This increase can be attributed to the Code of Practice introduced by Victoria Police for the investigation of Family Violence on 31 August 2004.
• The rate per 100,000 population for robbery offences recorded is down 11.1% from 51.9 in 2003/04 to 46.2 recorded in 2004/05. The 2,309 robbery offences recorded in 2004/05 is the lowest annual figure since 1996/97.
• In 2004/05 the number of recorded Burglary (Residential) as a rate per 100,000 population decreased 10.9% from 735.2 in 2003/04 to 655.3 in 2004/05.
• The number of drug offences recorded was 273.0 per 100,000 population during 2004/2005. This is 10.9% lower than the previous financial year.
• Theft from motor vehicle offences is at its lowest level since 1993/94. The rate of this offence per 100,000
• The number of shopsteal offences recorded as a rate per 100,000 population during 2004/2005 has decreased 10.9% to 370.6
• There were 21,279 theft of motor vehicle offences recorded in 2004/05, which is the lowest annual total since the introduction of LEAP in 1993.
• The number of recorded victims of crime against the person increased by 11.1% in 2004/05. The number of female victims of assault has increased significantly by 25.3%.
• As a result of the introduction of the Code of Practice for the Investigation of Family Violence:
o Family incident reports have increased by 5.4% over the past year.
o Among all family incidents attended, Police sought intervention orders in 4,523 instances during 2004/05, which is a significant increase of 72.2% from the previous financial year.
o 5,185 family incidents attended by police, in 2004/05, resulted in laying charges against one or more parties involved. This is an increase of 73.2% on the previous year.
o The number of family incident related assaults has increased significantly by 73.3% in 2004/05 compared to
o 2003/04, whereas non-family related assaults has increased only by 2.3% over the same period.

So crime is down and in many areas the lowest in 12 years. The only increase is in assault because a change in policy how to treat domestic violence has changed the way it is approached and how it is classified (as assault). (BTW - a good example how change of methodology changes stats). Anyway the Victorian stats are based on a consitent database which has been in use since 1993.

So John (or Lott or NRA) claim that Australian crime is increasing - no exploding - is again proven rubbish.

Anyway, if crime had become rampant post gun control - we would not have 83% supporting it with only 12 % against. See attached poll (most recent).

You can do the same exercise in regard to John's (or Lott or NRA) claims in regard to UK crime - but I haven't got the time and we have done this previous anyway.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

In other words, in 99% of the cases, the gun belonging to the intended victim either helped in self-defense, or was at worst neutral. Those are good odds in favor of the victim!

You completely missed the point of my post, unless you are claiming untrained persons are better qualified to use firearms than those who have had sufficient firearms training. Is that what you are telling us?

Quote

Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

So which is it? An untrained person is going to "point and shoot". It's the semi-trained person that is going to be more liable to try and get the perfect sight picture, etc...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Personally, I think statistics on actual crimes committed are more reliable than a phone survey.

As I've pointed out several times now though John, you are on your own in that conclusion. The people who produce the statistics on the number of recorded crimes say not to use their statistics because they don't show a true picture of trends because of a whole host of deficiencies. Everyone instead says that you should use the BCS stats that you don't like because they've stayed the same for the past 25 years and thus provide a constant data form.

In fact this advice is reproduced in the preface to the BCS. As it is by all the academics in the field. And all the statisticians. In fact, it's only you and the odd reporter or politician pedaling an agenda who actually try to rely on police reported crime figures alone.

Crime is higher than police records alone show – oddly enough they don't get ALL crimes reported to them. Who'da thunk it? Crime in the UK has also been quite conclusively shown to be going down, NOT up as you keep claiming.

Now, didn't I say in my last thread with you on this topic that if you tried claiming this again without noting that you are actually out on a limb of your own, without any support for your mad-cap ideas from anyone else in this field that we'd all know once and for all that you were knowingly and deliberately trying to misleading people?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

We already know that waiting periods have killed a 'handful' of women with ineffective restraining orders against their ex'es.

I'm not buying that argument without better evidence. Simply having a handgun is unlikely to save your life without proper training. I don't see a short waiting period to have much of an impact on reducing murder due to an ineffective restraining order.

Having a gun is not the end all be all of self defense. If police officers can have their guns taken away from them by criminals, what makes you think the same could not happen to an untrained civilian who just bought her very first handgun?

Well, at this point, you're making the assertions without foundation, so it's your duty to support the claims with facts.

We already know:
1- women have been killed during their waiting period by the ex'es. In many cases, having called 911 and waiting for the police to arrive. These sort of stalkers tend to repeatedly violate their restraining orders and eventually the police start tuning the women out.
2- a small women with a firearm has more options than one without.
3- brandishing a weapon is the most frequent defensive gun use, and very effective.

The cop getting their gun taken away is a red herring. They have to deal with more ambiguous situations and can't leap to shoot to kill. A stalker with a restraining order banging on the door and then breaking in is a simple situation.

I've trained a half dozen Canadians (keeping it on topic!) to operate a gun and shoot decently well at 25ft in less than an hour. For this worst case scenario, take the phone and the gun into a room with only one door - if the guy comes in, shoot.

How many lives are we talking about? Probably not too many - we were using the word handful. But when restrictive laws are proposed as benificial if they 'save just one child,' then the handful lost on the other side become pretty relevent.

I know that if a female friend of mine was in a situation where she feared waiting 10 days, I'd be lending her at least one of mine. It's also a strong argument for buying a gun now even if you have no real need for it. You might later, or you might have other people deciding for you that you never have such a need.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Gosh, it must be a flat-out miracle that guns are used successfully in self-defense by average citizens up to 2 million times per year. I think that's a strong argument that guns are not too complicated for average people to use successfully.

You are ignoring my qualification of without proper training. And we are also not talking about average people, but scared women who have ineffective restraining orders against their exes.

Proper training is nice. But even without it, average people manage to use guns successfully in self defense, up to 2 million times per year.

When some stranger is in your home coming at you with a knife, it doesn't take "proper training" to figure out that you need to shoot the bastard to save yourself.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Sadly, you don't seem to have any applicable statistics that compare the benefits of having a gun for a trained vs. for an untrained victim per my post that you are replying to. I suspect they would show that with proper training, having a gun is even more beneficial, while without training, guns don't help as much.

You don't seem to have any statistics that show that "proper training" is a necessity for successful armed defense. I would bet that the majority of gun owners have never had military firearms training or a commercial training class. Yet they still manage to use guns successfully to defend themselves.

Spin it any way you want, but it doesn't change that fact.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Again you are relying on statistics irrelevant to the conversation. If you are going to respond to my posts, you should at least respond to points I actually make.

I'm providing information on the utility of a firearm in self defense. That's what this thread has come to be all about. I don't have to just stick to what you said - you don't get to determine by yourself what direction things will take here. You're talking about how untrained people won't be able to use guns successfully in self defense. And those statistics I quoted showed that a gun is the most effective means of self defense available. That's directly relevant and on-point to what you are talking about. Just because the statistics refute your perception, doesn't mean they are irrelevant.

You're doing a lot of complaining about what I post, but you haven't done anything to refute the information I've provided.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

John, the stats are BS (no matter where you got them from) and you know it.

I didn't get them from anywhere. They came from John Lott - he's the one that got them from somewhere. He's a respected professor and researcher on a great number of subjects, and has published books on this kind of stuff. His research, facts and analysis are top-notch. So if you want to go up against him and call his info "BS", do so at your own peril. Personally, I choose to believe a respected researcher, over mikkey. But hey, if you know something he doesn't, go to his web site, contact him, and straighten him out.

Quote

In spite of what some of you guys think - some of us are perfectly happy with our societies...

You don't get to speak for everyone. There are also lots of folks that are quite unhappy with the gun laws in the UK and Australia, which have punished the innocent, because of the actions of a few criminals.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Gun control is a domestic issue and I don't think us "foreigners" should get involved in your debate and on the other hand John and the NRA should not try to drag our local laws into the debate...

Your perception and interpretation of the point of this debate is once again incorrect. I'm not trying to tell Canadians what they should do. I'm using the Canadian gun control example to point out what a failure their system is. Hopefully, that example will be studied by anyone here in America considering implementing the same thing on our own soil. It's not about telling others what to do. It's about learning from other's mistakes. Kind of like the "Incidents" forum. Canadian gun control is a fatality with a series of errors from which others should learn.

Gosh, I managed to disagree with you, and explain myself, without once calling you a liar. See how that's done?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Also, I have a big issue using crime stats as an argument for or against gun control.

But if you want to use crime stats - don't rely on people like Lott, the NRA or John Rich. The "numbers" they are using are "massaged" and chosen selectively.

The following is the latest from Victoria Police (Victoria being the second largest state in Oz population wise)...

So John (or Lott or NRA) claim that Australian crime is increasing - no exploding - is again proven rubbish.

Oh, I just love the irony!

First, you say that you don't like using crime stats to argue gun control, but then you go ahead and do exactly that.

Then you claim that Lott's numbers are invalid because they are chosen selectively, but then you go ahead and do exactly that by offering up statistics for just one single province.

Finally, using these two methods which you claim are flawed, you jump to the conclusion that you have proved that Lott's statistics are invalid.

Beautiful!

It's a great example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Once again, I've disagreed without calling you a liar. It's really quite easy, with a little patience and practice. And it garners much more credibility and respect than the tactic of personal attacks. You ought to try it some time.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Gosh, it must be a flat-out miracle that guns are used successfully in self-defense by average citizens up to 2 million times per year. I think that's a strong argument that guns are not too complicated for average people to use successfully.

You are ignoring my qualification of without proper training. And we are also not talking about average people, but scared women who have ineffective restraining orders against their exes.

Proper training is nice. But even without it, average people manage to use guns successfully in self defense, up to 2 million times per year.

When some stranger is in your home coming at you with a knife, it doesn't take "proper training" to figure out that you need to shoot the bastard to save yourself.

JohnRich, reading your BS again and again is really hurting my heart. Taking the handling of any weapon that easy seems to a crime itself. Giving a hand gun to just anyhone w/o any training seems to be a crime itself.

"When some stranger......" and suddenly it's your wife just in front of you? Someone who's not trained, not well aware what to do with a gun/hand gun, always is in danger to shot or hurt someone else. YOU should know. And you just never stop spreading your BS around. Unbelievable!

You're surely a better trained hunter than I am. I really try to be "à jour", as I do not leave to a desert every WE. But, let's say, twice per year or one time per year going to another country (France/Alsace or Cameroon) - I only know that I have to train A LOT before going to handle my weapons properly!

Your easy going way of handling guns/hand guns is Scheisse, dear John Rich. With that attitude, you quickly would be forced to give up hunting, giving up owning weapons here, in good old Germany. And that's OK. Your attitude is dangerous, JohnRich. But, what do I know about your way of living? Perhaps, for your it's normal.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

it's only you and the odd reporter or politician pedaling an agenda who actually try to rely on police reported crime figures alone... you were knowingly and deliberately trying to misleading people?

So I guess England's Home Office and America's FBI are deliberately trying to mislead people by collecting and publishing statistics on recorded crimes? Gosh, I wonder why they bother to do all that work if the numbers are so meaningless. Maybe you should consult with them and tell them to abandon all that work, and just call people on the phone!

It's really cute how you and mikkey are so quick to call me a liar, simply for citing statistics that don't agree with your personal beliefs.

On the other hand, it just could be, maybe a chance in a million, that you and mikkey are wrong. Maybe it's an important and valuable perspective that should not be overlooked. Maybe a bloody crime victim in front of a police officer is more credible than an anonymous voice on a telephone. Maybe statistics on actual incidents of crime are important... Could it actually be true?

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Quote

John, the stats are BS (no matter where you got them from) and you know it.

I didn't get them from anywhere. They came from John Lott. He's a respected professor and researcher on a great number of subjects, and has published books on this kind of stuff. His research, facts and analysis are top-notch. So if you want to go up against him and call his info "BS", do so at your own peril. Personally, I choose to believe a respected researcher, over mikkey. But hey, if you know something he doesn't, go to his web site, contact him, and straighten him out.

Quote

In spite of what some of you guys think - some of us are perfectly happy with our societies...

You don't get to speak for everyone. There are also lots of folks that are quite unhappy with the gun laws in the UK and Australia, which have punished the innocent, because of the actions of a few criminals.

You really are the Iraqi Information minister.

1) You are relying on Lott who is known to be a gun advocate and there were no references to where he got his numbers from. It has been documented that your UK stats are BS (both in this thread and in other threads) and I have just posted some of the latest police stats from down here showing his/your claims are BS.

2) I just posted a poll from Australias largest polling organisation - Newspoll owned by News Ltd. the same company who owns Fox News - documenting that over 80% are pro-gun control and only 12% against - and you make a claim like above.

You are funny....just like your friend the minister.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Quote

Gun control is a domestic issue and I don't think us "foreigners" should get involved in your debate and on the other hand John and the NRA should not try to drag our local laws into the debate...

Your perception and interpretation of the point of this debate is once again incorrect. I'm not trying to tell Canadians what they should do. I'm using the Canadian gun control example to point out what a failure their system is. Hopefully, that example will be studied by anyone here in America considering implementing the same thing on our own soil. It's not about telling others what to do. It's about learning from other's mistakes. Kind of like the "Incidents" forum. Canadian gun control is a fatality with a series of errors from which others should learn.

Gosh, I managed to disagree with you, and explain myself, without once calling you a liar. See how that's done?

You are repeatedly drawing the UK and Australia into the debate by making claims about the effect of gun control in these countries which have been documented again and again to be untrue. You done it again in this thread and I am of course referring to this. So you are spreading disinformation and trying to mislead readers.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Your easy going way of handling guns/hand guns is Scheisse

*swoon*

Have I told you... lately... that I love you?