I just watched Bowling for Columbine. It was put forward in the film that Canadians own just about as many guns per capita as Americans but there gun-death rate is much lower.
Just wondering why this is? Any thoughts are appreciated!
Here are a few WAG’s:
-
There probably are as many guns; however, more of them are probably for hunting - rifles, BB guns, etc. I’m saying this because in my life I’ve met one person (police excepted) that owned a hand-gun, and he had it illegally. I wouldn’t even know where to buy a hand-gun. In contrast, when I’ve been in the US I’ve seen them for sale in gun shops. (Canadian gun shops tend to have only the rifle type items.)
-
There are much fewer assult type weapons of the automatic, semi-automatic and convertable type in Canada.
-
You’re not allowed to “pack-heat” here.
So, to sum up, different type of gun = different gun-death rate. You can’t really go on a rampage with a 3030 - it takes too long to reload.
WAG #1: partly correct. Hand guns here have been restricted' since sometime in the seventies, meaning you need a license to possess or acquire, and you need to register them. 'course, now you need a license to possess or acquire any gun, and need to register them, so the restricted’ only means you need to spend 10 hours more in class to get the license… Handguns are available at most gun shops I’ve been to (although they could all conceivably be air guns for all I know; I’m not so interested and have never taken a closer look at the handgun displays). I’ve seen several people at the range with handguns, so they certainly exist. Still, if you broke down guns per capita'' into handguns’’ and ``longguns’’, I suspect you’d be correct that the handguns per capita would be way higher in the US.
-
I don’t think
assault'' guns is a meaningful category in any way shape or form. Certainly there are tons of semi-automatic long guns up here; many shotguns, target-shooting .22's and even hunting rifles are autoloaders. Correct me if I'm wrong, but full-autos have been banned or heavily regulated in the US for decades, too, as far as I recall. The whole furour overassault’’ weapons referred, as near as I can make out, to having scary black plastic stocks and a handle on top of the receiver… -
Yup. There are no concealed or otherwise carry provisions at all, that I’m aware of. (except for police, of course. I don’t think you can get carry permission for self-defense at all, but again, I’ve mostly paid attention to the long guns…)
Oh, and one more factor that I’ve heard: if you’re packing a handgun for protection/ aggression, one is often enough (not to steal a line from advil or anything 
) Whereas if you’re a target shooter/ hunter, then you’ll have your target .22, and your 30/30 for deer in brush, and your 270 Win for open-country mule deer, and your .250 something for long-range shooting at goats and sheep, and your .30-06 for moose, and your 375 magnum for grizzlies. Then you’ve got your autoloader 12-gauge for ducks, and a nice over-and-under for upland game, and your camo-patterned turkey gun. And so on. So the guns per capita where they are mostly hunting tools tend to be concentrated in the hands of fewer gun owners.
It’s never clear to me whether Moore is talking about estimates that include illegal guns, or just legally owned guns.
With respect to # 1, hand-guns had to be registered since sometime in the 30s. The amendments in the 70s introduced the “Firearms Acquisition Certificate” as a condition to buying a firearm.
With respect to automatics, the 70s package of amendments also prohibited the possession of automatic weapons, except for those individuals who were in lawful possession of automatics at the time the law came into force; those individuals and automatics were grandfathered.
With respect to #3, section 20 of the Firearms Act authorises transport licences to be issued for the protection of the individual, or where needed for the individual’s employment. Licences are often issued under the second category (e.g. Brinks truck guards), but the last estimate I came across for the protection provision was that they were very rare, maybe not more than 50 to 100 for the entire country. (Mind you, that was a few years ago now, so it may have changed.)
Apropos of nothing, I have a 1967 Canadian Centennial commemorative Winchester 94 with a 20" octagon barrel. (It would be nice to have the 24".) It’s never been fired, and never will be.
Maybe it is a different culture?
The point Moore was making, was that it is not availability of guns, or gun laws, or registration, that causes or results in high or low crime/murder rates.
If it was the Canadian gun laws, Canadian registration, availablity of handguns in Canada, availability of assault rifles, that had anything to do with different crime/murder rates in Canada, then we should expect to see the crime rates of those Canadians who move into the United States to increase substantially - since Canadians living in the United States can purchase these weapons, as resident aliens.
But that isnt what happens. Canadians do not go on a crime/murder spree just because they move to the United States where these guns become available to them.
Lots of Candians from Ontario and Quebec are living in Florida, and they seem to have a lower crime rate than the native Floridians even though they both live under the same laws, and the Canadians living in Florida even have a crime/murder rate lower than the Canadians still living in Canada.
I do think culture has a lot to do with it. I was raised in Alberta and there were always guns around the house. Most of them had been passed down from generation to generation. They were in boxes in the basement and never used. No one would ever think of taking a gun to settle a argument. It just would never enter your mind. I have had guns around most of my life and have never fired one.
Susanann and Dintyare, I believe, on point.
In Bowling for Columbine Moore hears a lot of simplistic reasons given for why gun violence is prevalent in The United States: it’s the fault of video games, it’s the fault of ethnic diversity, it’s the fault of our pioneer heritage, it’s the fault of violent movies, it’s the fault of Marilyn Manson.
And, as Moore points out, Canada has all of those things and still has far less gun violence, even with plenty of guns.
One used to hear the phrase “national character”. While no one conforms precisely to a stereotype, the fact remains that different places do embrace different attitudes and different standards. Norway and Sweden are neighbors, and have radically different suicide rates. Nice and Naples are in close proximity, but are very different environments.
A key point Moore seems to be making in his film–and which a lot of his critics have overlooked–is that rather than arguing about whether one nation has more or fewer guns, Americans who want to address the problem of gun violence in America need to face the problems of Americans–our anger, our simplicity in dealing with complex problems, our distrust of one another, our fascination with violence as a way of solving problems. The question of whether gun control or the lack of gun control has one effect or another in another nation is not as important as the question of what measures are needed to help the people of a nation so prone to gun violence.
No. The last numbers for Canada I saw were for 1998 - about 7.5 million firearms and a population of 30.2 million. That’s .25 per capita.
US in 1998 - about 220 million firearms with a population of 270 million. That’s .82 per capita.
And the previous comments on the different type of firearms is correct as well, mainly when it comes to the number of handguns.
JFTR: “packing ‘heat’” is actually quite rare in the US, and in some states is so strictly regulated as to be essentially illeagal.
May I point out relative population densities as a partial additional factor?
-
-
- There are two other factors that consistently occur in the same places as high crime rates in the US: high population densities and high amounts of social welfare consumption.
-
- Additionally, most guns typically recovered from high-crime areas in the US are typically not the deadliest, the highest-tech nor the most expensive. What this would seem to indicate is that aquiring firearms is not a primary concern among that group, and so eliminating firearms most likely won’t change the source of the social problems.
~
[/.]+5 Insightful.[//.]
The problems slipster points out are also applicable to other ‘problems of Americans.’ For instance, there’s nothing (to me) that sums up our difficulties in Iraq more than ‘our simplicity in dealing with complex problems.’
I know this isn’t helping the OP, but this thread will probably get moved to GD, as the OP isn’t factually answerable…otherwise Moore probably would have answered it.
High-density, poverty-stricken urban centres and a lack of government social programs? And yeah, the culture thing too, particularly the unwillingness to accept personal responsibility. (generally speaking of course).
We’re lousy shots.
Moore acknowledged in the film that the per capita rate of gun ownership in Canada is lower. He goes on to say that there are, nevertheless, a lot of guns in Canada and they are readily available to the citizenry. His point is that the rate of firearm-related crimes in Canada lags behind the rate in The United States by a far wider margin than gun ownership does.
Moore also mentions some differences in Canadian culture. He observes that the social welfare system there is far more extensive, that racial division is less acute, and that the mass media there, in his estimation, gives far less emphasis to violent and scary news, and reports it with less drama.
I am unsure how much urban density, in and of itself, can be blamed as contributing to gun violence. As Moore points out, large Canadian cities, even ones directly neighboring U. S. cities, have lower gun crime rates than their American counterparts.
I am also skeptical of the degree to which the existence of laws which restrict “packing heat” can be credited with reducing gun violence. While they may make some contribution, it does not seem credible that it is a major factor in explaining Canada’s lower rate of crime. In Missouri very few people are permitted by law to carry concealed weapons. Nevertheless, there are areas of St. Louis where the inhabitants bang away at each with frequency, and every weekend night is a meeting of the Gun and Knife Club at the local emergency rooms.
“An armed society is a polite society.” ~Robert A. Heinlein
More guns in the hands of that vast majority who are good, decent law abiding people would unquestionably deter that brutal, stupid minority who view guns as an acceptable primary tool for resolving interpersonal disputes.
I encourage all of you to learn the basics of gun handling and to try shooting. If for no other reason, you would be able to respond safely to the discovery of a firearm.
I will teach anyone who wants to learn. Further, I will take anyone in the Dallas, TX area who wants to go, to a public range for a basic orientation and shooting trip.
If you haven’t tried it, and educated yourself in at least the basics, you are not entitled to an opinion.
Shooting is fun, safe, and rewarding. I have taught many people to shoot, and all enjoyed the process.
I would be remiss in posting this without listing the…
FOUR RULES of FIREARM SAFETY:
1: Always treat firearms as if they are loaded. Check for yourself.
2: Never point any firearm at anything you are not willing to kill, destroy or buy. Keep your firearm pointed in a safe direction at all times.
3: Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you are about to shoot.
4: Know your target, what’s behind it, and what your ammunition is capable of.
~Wolfrick
ulfrikr AT hotmail DOT com
Huh? I checked it on the Encarta atlas, at they’re about 660 km/410 miles apart. Beeline.