I do completely agree with Y_Guy, but I think we should still keep in mind that the statistics may not be completely reliable. Many other factors influence the amount of gun crime, including cultural differences, population and density, and geographical location. Even with the same laws, I would expect gun crime in the US to be more common than in Canada because of our proximity to Mexico.

I think density play a huge factor into gun crimes. If you take a look at the map posted, you'll notice several states in the U.S. like Minnesota or North Dakota that have extremely low amounts of deaths per capita, and probably have the lowest population density of all the states.

 

Here's another interesting statistic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

 

On average, there are 90 guns per 100 citizens in the US, the highest in the world. Third is Switzerland, with 46.

If you cross reference the number of gun related deaths per 100,000 citizens, you'll see that the U.S. is at 10.2, Switzerland is at 6.4, and Canada is at 4.78.

Canada didn't make the chart of guns per 100 citizens meaning its probably less than 1.0 (Nigeria has 1.0 per 100, and its lowest on the list). This means the U.S. has more than 100 times the guns per 100 citizens than Canada, yet the gun related deaths are only about twice as high.

 

 

 

Um.

As many people possess multiple weapons and many others possess none, this number is not a representation of the percentage of people who possess guns in each nation. Nor does it recognize that there are government supplied weapons for militia such as Switzerland. Alternatively, a civilian supplied country such as the USA, can have the data significantly distorted by owners that are collectors that have huge collections of weaponry.

Also you said Canada didn't make the chart of guns per 100 citizens, yet I see Canada quite clearly at rank 9 :blink:

 

 

I don't know where you got the gun related deaths numbers from so I looked for some myself.

Canada:

#

# Between 1970 and 1996, 14% of all firearm-related deaths involved homicides.

 

# Between 1987 and 1996, 79% of all firearm-related deaths were suicides. During this period, approximately 28% of all suicides involved firearms, or an average of 1,030 firearm suicides per year.

 

Plus something I thought was interesting

 

# Approximately 32% of all homicides involved firearms over the last ten years (1988-1996). Twenty-nine percent involved stabbing, 20% beating, 11% strangulation and the remaining 7% involved other methods (e.g., fire, poisoning).

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/deaths_deces-eng.htm

 

 

Also did a lazy search for America

In 1999, 58% of all gun deaths were suicides, and 38% were homicides. (SOURCE: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)

 

 

 

 

And on the topic of population density, in Canada our highest rates of firearm related deaths are in the Northwest Territories & Yukon, which have two of the lowest population density in our country. It's the definition of [cabbage] hole up there though, it's a terrible, terrible, forgotten place

You can add the northern halves of the western provinces to there. It's pathetic, but 75% of geographical Canada is basically a third world country.

You can add the northern halves of the western provinces to there. It's pathetic, but 75% of geographical Canada is basically a third world country.

 

Yup. Whenever I watch documentaries on the north it's always so depressing, but the people there are amazing and really resilient to their [cabbage]ty conditions

Perhaps they're more resilient on TV...when I went to a native reservation for a community service project five years ago the stuff they went through was ridiculous. Rampant alcohol abuse, many of the kids were functionally illiterate, violence and vandalism galore, no police presence...and this was 400k north of Winnipeg. I can't even imagine how much worse it would get going further north.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Berens+River,+Manitoba,+Canada&sll=52.339535,-96.793671&sspn=0.463159,1.757812&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Berens+River,+Division+No.+19,+Manitoba,+Canada&ll=52.353796,-97.003784&spn=0.926024,3.515625&z=9

Perhaps they're more resilient on TV...when I went to a native reservation for a community service project five years ago the stuff they went through was ridiculous. Rampant alcohol abuse, many of the kids were functionally illiterate, violence and vandalism galore, no police presence...and this was 400k north of Winnipeg. I can't even imagine how much worse it would get going further north.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Berens+River,+Manitoba,+Canada&sll=52.339535,-96.793671&sspn=0.463159,1.757812&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Berens+River,+Division+No.+19,+Manitoba,+Canada&ll=52.353796,-97.003784&spn=0.926024,3.515625&z=9

 

Ah, do you live in Winnipeg too? Furthest north I've been is The Pas, beautiful lake there but I didn't spend any time in the city. Yeah they have a lot of [cabbage] to deal with and lots of addiction and crime, but I just admire their culture so much. They always seem like yeah it sucks a lot up here, but things could be worse and we're just trying to make the best of it

No, I live in the GTA. Went to Winnipeg on the same trip though....

 

We should probably stay on topic though lol :P

Also you said Canada didn't make the chart of guns per 100 citizens, yet I see Canada quite clearly at rank 9 :blink:

 

Honestly missed that when I was scanning through.

 

 

I don't know where you got the gun related deaths numbers from so I looked for some myself.

Canada:

# Between 1970 and 1996, 14% of all firearm-related deaths involved homicides.

# Between 1987 and 1996, 79% of all firearm-related deaths were suicides. During this period, approximately 28% of all suicides involved firearms, or an average of 1,030 firearm suicides per year.

 

Plus something I thought was interesting

# Approximately 32% of all homicides involved firearms over the last ten years (1988-1996). Twenty-nine percent involved stabbing, 20% beating, 11% strangulation and the remaining 7% involved other methods (e.g., fire, poisoning).

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/deaths_deces-eng.ht

 

Also did a lazy search for America

In 1999, 58% of all gun deaths were suicides, and 38% were homicides. (SOURCE: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)

And on the topic of population density, in Canada our highest rates of firearm related deaths are in the Northwest Territories & Yukon, which have two of the lowest population density in our country. It's the definition of [cabbage] hole up there though, it's a terrible, terrible, forgotten place

Poverty may be a bigger factor then, or the Northwest Territories / Yukon are truly the last wild west in North America.

 

Poverty may be a bigger factor then, or the Northwest Territories / Yukon are truly the last wild west in North America.

 

That's what I was eluding to. Getting rid of or making gun control more loose wouldn't solve anything. Wanna lower the homicide rates and violent crime rates? Fix the problems. Poverty, unemployment, education, addiction, etc.

 

The north is a really terrible place. REALLY terrible

Looks it: http://upload.wikime...itehorse_-b.jpg

a: Downtown Whitehorse, capital of the Yukon territory. (Gareth Sloan, 2008)

 

I can literally see no life at all in that picture. It's quite... haunting. :unsure:

Looks it: http://upload.wikime...itehorse_-b.jpg

a: Downtown Whitehorse, capital of the Yukon territory. (Gareth Sloan, 2008)

 

I can literally see no life at all in that picture. It's quite... haunting. :unsure:

 

Yeah, the north is characterized by extreme poverty, physical abuse, suicide, and substance abuse. Hell, a lot of the places even have circuit courts, where once every x amount of time a judge is flown out to hold court for a set amount of time.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Ahh ok, so you're just as scared of a random guy than a random guy with a gun. Right.

If a guy pulls a knife on me I'd be just as scared as I would if he pulled a gun. Now if I were to have an equal item to defend myself with, I would feel extremely safe.

Would you though? He's still holding something that could end your life in a heartbeat if he dared pull the trigger. You holding a gun at the same time hasn't changed that.

 

Sorry, but the 'mutually assured destruction' argument doesn't play out in the stats. You feel safe now, you wouldn't if it was actually happening.

If you feel the same when faced with a knife than with a gun, you're stupid. A crippled old woman with one arm and one eye could kill you with a gun. A knife, while still dangerous, both gives you a lot more chance to fight for yourself and reduces the risk of accidental injury.

Would you though? He's still holding something that could end your life in a heartbeat if he dared pull the trigger. You holding a gun at the same time hasn't changed that.

 

Sorry, but the 'mutually assured destruction' argument doesn't play out in the stats. You feel safe now, you wouldn't if it was actually happening.

 

the statistics bear out that no connection exists between violent crime and gun ownership.

Oh, really? Well if that's the case, not only are they not killing on balance, but not protecting either. Since it should be presumed that violent weapons should be taken from normal citizens unless they have good reason to need them (A piece of paper doesn't count, I'm talking physical needs not legal ones), where's the need to keep hold of them?

Looks it: http://upload.wikime...itehorse_-b.jpg

a: Downtown Whitehorse, capital of the Yukon territory. (Gareth Sloan, 2008)

 

I can literally see no life at all in that picture. It's quite... haunting. :unsure:

Beautiful, though. I'd love to travel up north...

Oh, really? Well if that's the case, not only are they not killing on balance, but not protecting either. Since it should be presumed that violent weapons should be taken from normal citizens unless they have good reason to need them (A piece of paper doesn't count, I'm talking physical needs not legal ones), where's the need to keep hold of them?

 

The government should be afraid of its citizens, not the other way around. That was a big reason the Anti-federalists wanted the Bill of Rights - they hated the idea of an overbearing government. It's also the reason that the right to bear arms is #2 on the list and not #10.

Yeah... That really sucks about living in the UK. The Army are forever traipsing into my house unannounced and stealing my wife. Don't get me started on HM&C. Threatened to have SWAT teams on my ass for not agreeing to "donate" obscene amounts to them. If only I had guns to protect me from such clear and tangible threats against my independence..

 

The evidence that gun control leads to dictatorship through democracy is obvious.

The thing is, you will not eliminate guns and gun violence by making them illegal. If people want something, they will find a way to get it. Like illegal drugs.

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato

 

^Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the issue. Even if guns are outlawed, criminals will still be able to obtain them... just normal citizens won't be able to defend themselves or their families (at least so effectively). Or maybe the baseball bat under your bed will scare the burglar off as he's pointing his revolver at you [/sarcasm].

 

I would consider my family to be "good people," and even if we owned guns (we don't) I'm positive we would only use them in dire situations. My town has one of the lowest gun crime rates (for populations of 100,000+) in the Midwest, so owning a gun here would be kind of pointless. If I lived in the actual city of Detroit, that would be a different story.

@studio - and in Canada, owning a gun for personal safety is already pointless in most of the country(population wise at least).

I don't know enough about gun control in Canada to make a strong reply, but I'll try. Since the % of households in my town that owns guns is barely under 2%, no one feels the need to own a gun. Is this kind of like Canada (other than the difference of legality)?

 

Places in the South and big cities where the number is (I'm guessing) well over half, it might be a bit more necessary. If it was realistically possible to remove all guns from the country, I would support it. The problem would be that rednecks would assume the government would be trying to take over or something stupid like that. As long as guns do exist, it is necessary for some people to own them. Otherwise, [bleep] guns.

 

Personally speaking, I hate guns and would never want to own one.

I don't know enough about gun control in Canada to make a strong reply, but I'll try. Since the % of households in my town that owns guns is barely under 2%, no one feels the need to own a gun. Is this kind of like Canada (other than the difference of legality)?

 

 

A lot of my family are farmers, and they all own long guns for the purpose of killing coyotes and other animals that go after their livestock. I don't know anyone aside from family members that own guns, and I don't see the reason to unless you are hunting

Yeah... That really sucks about living in the UK. The Army are forever traipsing into my house unannounced and stealing my wife. Don't get me started on HM&C. Threatened to have SWAT teams on my ass for not agreeing to "donate" obscene amounts to them. If only I had guns to protect me from such clear and tangible threats against my independence..

 

The evidence that gun control leads to dictatorship through democracy is obvious.

Maybe not right now, but historically WITH America and Britain that WAS the case. In fact, I believe we have you to thank for our Bill of Rights, considering you guys violated every single one of them. So, on behalf of America, thank you.

 

All it takes is a crisis for a peaceful society with no need for guns to become a dictatorship with no freedoms, and no one able to speak out against it.

So you're suggesting that Canada and the UK are doomed to dictatorship when a crisis hits?