Firearms deaths declining in Canada

[Jodie]

An interesting read, for those who are statistically inclined



Firearms deaths declining, says StatsCan


FROM CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA — The latest figures available indicate that the risk of death involving firearms is declining in Canada and was a fraction of the U.S. rate.

Statistics Canada says that in 2000, the rate of homicide involving a gun in the United States was 3.8 for every 100,000 population, nearly eight times Canada's rate of 0.5 for every 100,000 people.

In Canada, homicides accounted for 18 per cent of deaths involving firearms in 2000, compared with 38 per cent in the United States.

The report says that in Canada in 2002 there were 767 males and 49 females who died from injuries related to firearms.

And between 1979 and 2002 the rate of death by firearms in Canada declined by more than one-half.

During that period, about 80 per cent of firearms-related deaths were suicides, while homicides accounted for about 15 per cent of such deaths, and about four per cent were unintentional.

Among males, that was a rate of 4.9 deaths for every 100,000 population, down from 10.6 in 1979, and for females the rate fell to 0.3 deaths for every 100,000 population from 1.2 during the same period.

Statistics Canada also found that:

In 1979, the rate of deaths related to firearms was highest among young people aged 15 to 24. By 2002, the differences between age groups had largely disappeared for people aged 15 or older.

Police records indicate that handguns accounted for two-thirds of homicides involving firearms in 2002, up from about one-half during the 1990s.

In 2002, 31 people were unintentionally killed by firearms, less than one-half of the total of 71 in 1979.

 

[mustangjoe]

Meh, I'm not too convinced how well Canada keeps the general population safe from firearms. I mean after all, they did issue ME a Firearm possession and aquisition licence with asking very little questions. I could go into any local gunshop and buy everything behiend the counter and nobody would say nothing.

 

[luckydog71]

I do not know why that would be news worthy.

If Canada banned the use of all motorcycles, would you be surprised if the rate of deaths from motorcycles went down?

How about if you ban the sale of red meats, would you be surprised if the rate of death from chocking on meat went down?

You can apply this logic to almost anything. Restrict or ban the use of x and you can produce a stat that will show how that benefited society.

The best way to improve society is to sterilize all stupid people so they do not pollute the gene pool.

 

[Webster]

I do not know why that would be news worthy.

If Canada banned the use of all motorcycles, would you be surprised if the rate of deaths from motorcycles went down?

Are you under the impression that Canada banned the use of all firearms?

 

[georgebushmoron]

You can apply this logic to almost anything. Restrict or ban the use of x and you can produce a stat that will show how that benefited society.

Like reducing taxes and then produce stats that show how employment improved, right? Just goes to show how humans like to fool themselves, cherry picking "facts" to support their way of thinking.

There are some correlations that appear to make sense, however. Making guns legally inaccessible would probably correlate with less gun deaths. On the other hand, reducing corporate taxes does not have a particularly strong correlation with increased employment even though it has a strong correlation with increasing investment. Think about the mechanics involved in cause and effect.

The best way to improve society is to sterilize all stupid people so they do not pollute the gene pool.

Sterilize everyone except you and those that think like you? You'll be happy to know that it is already working that way! We've made great strides in the commercialization of the news, such that the end result is sterilized information and a sterilized public. The ultimate product would be to produce people who make statements like the one you made. But we must continue by making sure your thoughts are thoroughly patterned in the prescribed way, which is why we laud you with complements such as "you're so informed!", "gee you're smart!", "you're intelligent, I'm stupid!". And those who really want to indoctrinate you don't even bother to point out that you are cherry picking, to ensure that you continue lying to yourself. After awhile, once your cognitive distortions become more permanent, the ones who help you along further not the ones that complement you but the ones who criticize you with such words as "you idiot!", "only a fool would think that!", "you fascist!". That's when your resolve to protect your distortions sets in.

Dig your own grave.

 

[smackyo]

I do not know why that would be news worthy.

If Canada banned the use of all motorcycles, would you be surprised if the rate of deaths from motorcycles went down?

How about if you ban the sale of red meats, would you be surprised if the rate of death from chocking on meat went down?

You can apply this logic to almost anything. Restrict or ban the use of x and you can produce a stat that will show how that benefited society.

The best way to improve society is to sterilize all stupid people so they do not pollute the gene pool.

guns are not banned in canada nor restricted in thier use, they are just registered and you have to take a test to be able to buy and posses one, as well as a criminal backround/physc ceck. it's not like in some states down there or gun shows where you can buy fucking rocket launchers and shit with no checks or anything.

did you know that per capita canadians actually have the same or more amount of guns then americans? probibly didn't did you? don't believe everything your nra tells ya.

 

[luckydog71]

guns are not banned in canada nor restricted in thier use, they are just registered and you have to take a test to be able to buy and posses one, as well as a criminal backround/physc ceck. it's not like in some states down there or gun shows where you can buy fucking rocket launchers and shit with no checks or anything.

did you know that per capita canadians actually have the same or more amount of guns then americans? probibly didn't did you? don't believe everything your nra tells ya.

Actually I made the assumptions guns were banned, because every time I cross the border they ask me if I have a weapon in the car.

So if I register my gun in Canada (that is if I owned one) and passed the test I would be allowed to cross the border with my pistol?

 

[HankQuinlan]

You can't bring a weapon into Canada without the correct permit. The following is a quote from the Canada Border Service website:

Requirements for Non-residents
Non-residents who wish to bring a firearm to Canada and who are at least 18 years old can meet Canada’s licence and registration requirements by filling out the Non-Resident Firearms Declaration and having it confirmed by a customs officer. A confirmed declaration serves as a temporary licence and registration certificate for the firearm being imported. Non-residents also have the option of obtaining a PAL and registering their firearms in Canada.

Hunters who come to Canada do this all the time. You would have to check out the regulations for carrying hidden weapons --- I suspect they are more difficult to obtain a license for.

 

[Kev]

Actually I made the assumptions guns were banned, because every time I cross the border they ask me if I have a weapon in the car.

So if I register my gun in Canada (that is if I owned one) and passed the test I would be allowed to cross the border with my pistol?

NO!!!

B.C. and Washington are really on the same page when it comes to bringing handguns/guns into their own domain. Both juridiscatons want to know why.

Both State/Province are more tougher when it comes to handguns.

You have to provide proper paper work that 'says you are invited to participate at this firing range.' You can not deviate from this Washington or B.C. it doesn't matter. You say "your bringing guns to do this" then thats all you are allowed to do.

If i don't have written confirmation from a gun club, or a tournament i want to attend whether i'm travelling North to South or vise versa i will not be allowed across the border with my guns. PERIOD!!!

America is getting really tough with their gun laws despite the NRA. And when i read i can buy a grenade launcher.............

The sale of such items are everywhere..........but try to buy one. You can't buy automatic weapons, grenade launchers in Canada, and you can't buy the same weapons in the USA, in any State.

 

[smackyo]

hifi i agree with you about the gun registry being a joke, but blaming all todays problems on the liberals since 1972???? they weren't the only party in power you know. remember those dark Mulroney years????? anyway the stat is from 1972 til now so the gun registry hasn't even been in existence for the majority of that time.

also you know it's really funny how all these americans are so surprised that they can't bring their guns to other countries just like that???? what is up with that type of thinking? also luckydog, just because they ask you if you have weapons you assume that means guns are banned here?????? they are customs officers that is their job, to protect their country. the boys on your side ask us if we have any weapons sometimes too. but we all sure know that guns sure as hell are not banned in the u.s. thats for sure

 

[luckydog71]

Actually, Smako, I was not surprised that I was asked if I had a weapon. When I go to Canada I expect to obey the laws of the country I am in. I was questioned why I thought guns were banned in Canada and this was the basis for my assumption.

I do not own a gun and I do not want to own a gun. I just do not want my government telling me I can’t. If your government says you can’t own a gun (and I now understand that is not the case) then I will obey your laws while I am there.

The US has a law that says felons can not have a gun. But that does not stop them. They are felons, they break the law. So if we have a law that says no one can have guns, what part of society do you think will obey the law and not have guns, and what part will get them anyway. You got it, only the felons will still have guns.

 

[georgebushmoron]

So if we have a law that says no one can have guns, what part of society do you think will obey the law and not have guns, and what part will get them anyway. You got it, only the felons will still have guns.

That's so true!!! If a felon can have a gun then everyone else should. Why should a felon have more rights than a law-abiding citizen?? In fact, as a law-abiding citizen, I should still keep my gun when I go from law-abiding to felon by way of stupidity with a gun! And aren't most of us stupid?

 

[mick_eight]

as all ex service men know ''this is my rifle,this is my gun,this is for shooting,this is for fun'' now go back and sub dick for gun.....georgie I'm surprized u didn't know

 

[Cali Scott]

It's a shame. The purpose of the 2nd ammendment allowing is U.S. citizens firearms is so that the government is kept in check from becoming too fascist or too tyranical.

With them slamming airliners into buildings (or allowing it to happen, either one)and pulling all the other crap that they do I'd say it doesn't seem to be working very well, eh?

 

[luckydog71]

It's a shame. The purpose of the 2nd ammendment allowing is U.S. citizens firearms is so that the government is kept in check from becoming too fascist or too tyranical.

With them slamming airliners into buildings (or allowing it to happen, either one)and pulling all the other crap that they do I'd say it doesn't seem to be working very well, eh?

Scott……you and I have a different view why our founding fathers wanted us to have guns…….

I do not believe they thought it was to keep government in check.

The constitution ensured federal powers were very limited and it was the local government that had most of the power.

The federal government today has no resemblance to what was envisioned by our constitution.


The reason we have a right to bear arms….is so we can provide our own first level of protection. Even now with the ever increasing limits on gun ownership in the US there is still that uncertainty that the guy I am about to rob may have a gun.

When I drive down the I5 even at 3AM and pull into a rest stop, I have never been approached or threatened. I am convinced the reason is the bad guys are thinking……that SOB has a gun….if I try to rob him….he will blow my head off.

I do not own a gun….but the bad guys have no way of knowing.

 

[pickupjoe]

Firearms deaths declining, says StatsCan

FROM CANADIAN PRESS

Statistics Canada also found that:

In 1979, the rate of deaths related to firearms was highest among young people aged 15 to 24. By 2002, the differences between age groups had largely disappeared for people aged 15 or older.


yup, in other words, all the stupids between aged 15 to 24 just eliminated one another. Yup, one way of getting rid of all them delinquents. Good.

 

[Cali Scott]

Luckydog71,

I appreciate you viewpoint. My views come primarily from the Federalist papers and in particular, Thomas Jefferson's writings therein. He believed that every now and then we need to have a little revolution to stir things up and keep 'em honest. If we have weapons then we're not so easy of a target and they'd have to proceed more cautiously. Perhaps this is the only thing that has kept them in check so far.

Sure, they are for home protection and the formation of militias as well. Home protection from robbers was probably not as much of a problem in those early days - you just got yer head blowed off if you did something stupid like that.

You're absolutely correct that the Federal government today is not at all what was envisioned. For starters, everyone now thinks that we are a Democracy. We are actually a Constitutional Republic which is a much different animal
(see http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm or http://www.c4cg.org/republic.htm).

The reason Canada is safer against armed crimes goes beyond the fact that the general public doesn't own handguns. IMHO, It has to do with the general attitude there and the way that folks are. It's such a non-violent country compared to America. Same thing goes for Japan.

Australia dis-armed it's public a couple of years ago. The following was forwwarded to me a couple of months ago:

From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia

Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down
Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced
by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our
own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not! and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed
robbery w! ith firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12
months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
elderly.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has
decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in
"successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this on the
American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State
Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens
save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the
law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's too late!

 

[Kev]

American Constitution.

...fuck the American Constitution. It don't mean shit.

Americans were dieing because they didn't have to wear a helmet. Each state evaluated what it meant to them and acted accordingly. Most states in the United States of America require you to wear a helmet, despite the, 'its against the American constitution.' Its all about dollars and who will pay in the end.

To many Americans are dieing because of guns and the US goverment is trying to do something about it. Many states that have already acted.

Try to buy a .50 caliber rifle in California...........you can't. Some dick wad say 'hey look at the sniper killings of last year back East, we can't let that happen here'...............and the wheels turned and in California .50 caliber weapons are BANNED...effective a few months ago. You can buy them in Canada whoever.


Americans should wake up to the reality when it comes to gun control. You may think that you have more rights or privileges (on some levels you do, however...) you don't.... very quitely the doors behind you are being closed. The reason being "Americans are dieing." Very quitely the constitution you hold so dear is being washed away.

 

[georgebushmoron]

I appreciate you viewpoint. My views come primarily from the Federalist papers and in particular, Thomas Jefferson's writings therein. He believed that every now and then we need to have a little revolution to stir things up and keep 'em honest. If we have weapons then we're not so easy of a target and they'd have to proceed more cautiously.

You're right on the money! The Founding Fathers' intention by permitting guns was to keep the gov in check, perhaps even overthrow it. This was in the heyday of overthrow of the Loyalist forces.

But luckily the American public easily forgets and its concept of American values is easily manipulated. We've done such a good job of it, especially lately! Look at how easily we've made the gun issue one of "personal freedom" instead of what it was really supposed to be about. Look at how easily we've divided the country into left and right. Look at how easily we get the public to believe almost anything even as we change course in our alibis.

But back onto the topic of guns: not long ago, a little man named "Johnny" decided to switch sides, take up a gun, and fight US Forces. He was labelled an "unlawful combatant", a definition we've imposed due to the fact that he wears no uniform and represents no nation. He actually had no right to trial, by that definition. But we tried him for treason anyway, if at least to make it look real good. After all, only an unlawful combatant who is American deserves a trial.

In their time, we, the progratinists heralded by our Founding Fathers, when we were un-uniformed and represented no recognized nation, we fought against the government and were never given a trial. Instead we were put to death. As you can see, we now have afforded trial because our concept of Justice is now much more advanced. We've advanced as a civilization, I might add.

Did you miss the point? Good! It is an easy tactic to take the view of the Left and turn it into a view of the Right, discarding their point in the meantime. All of a sudden the listener believes the argument of the Left is thrown into disrepute. We use this all the time. The stupid neutral ones fall for it always. The stupid Left become confounded, and the stupid Right were glad that they didn't have to think because in the end the argument turned out to go their way anyway. Sorry to sound so condescending (not targetted at you, Cali). I'm just feeling mean.

 

[georgebushmoron]

From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia

Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down
Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced
by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our
own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not! and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed
robbery w! ith firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12
months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
elderly.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has
decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in
"successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this on the
American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State
Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens
save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the
law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's too late!

So they're surprised that after taking guns away, the crime rate went up???

Are they naive, stupid, or what?

Guns are not like any other property. Guns are more like a virus. Once it gets into the general population (the law abiders and the criminals), you can never get them out properly. If you ban them from the law abiders, they are then left defenseless. You then need law abiders to have guns to fight those who illegally possess them. Now that's a healthy society!!!

It amazes me that we've turned a large population into total deviants. From the values of our Founding Fathers - just and noble, to guns merely for self-protection, to guns now for the lust of gun lovers in the name of Freedom. Don't forget now that Jesus=Freedom, therefore Jesus=Guns. Why do I know this? I rode a taxi of a Las Vegas cab driver with a crucifix hanging off his rearview mirror who told me so.