(1) Everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter how ignorant you might believe their opinion is. I’m not saying that everyone’s opinion is right, I’m just saying that everyone has a right to an opinion.
(2) Knowing how to fire a gun and knowing basic firearm safety has precious little, if any, bearing on anyone’s ability to look at statistics comparing gun ownership rates with murder rates.
(3) It’s not entirely gun-related, it’s also about culture differences, as outlined in this quote:
[quoteThis far exceeds the difference in non-firearm homicides, which is only about two to one.[/quote]
I think the problem with saying ‘The US has more guns therefore more gun violence’ is that it ignores the very VAST differences between say, the higher crime inner city areas where few or no law-abiding citizens can have guns and the areas like (just for example) Washington and Greene counties in Pennsylvania where there is a high population of armed law-abiding citizens.
You’re right, there are those who just want your money. Of course that doesn’t mean they won’t severly injure you or possibly kill you while trying to take your money. There are situations where the crime begins as robbery or burglary and end up as homicides, assaults, or rapes. I don’t believe it is a good idea to rely on the criminal not to hurt me.
As has already been pointed out, you dont hear of mass murders when they dont occur because a ccw holder stops it from happening in the first place.
If the criminal is shot dead in a ccw state before he kills even one innocent, it does not make national news, why should it?
California is not a ccw state, so of course, mass shootings are much more likely there.
If you want to kill a lot of people, and not worry about someone stop you, then do it in California where the people are defenseless and wont be able to stop you.
I’m very dissapointed to see how far off topic this thread has gone, as the OP’s question is a very important one. The point made by Michael Moore, and something that most people will probably agree with, is that gun violence does not stem primarily from legal constraints or lack thereof.
The issue is really a larger one of cultural attitudes and behaviours, social conditioning and pathologies. Guns are a political issue, violence (gun or otherwise) is a social issue. I’m not surprised that politicians confuse these two issues, but I expected more from Dopers.
Here’s an interesting discussion of one factor that may contribute to the problem of violence (“simple solutions to complex problems”) in US society.
On the other hand, within the States, states with more permissive ccw laws have lower homicide rates, which would suggest that all those guns are making them safer.
As has been suggested, and ignored, repeatedly in this very thread, perhaps the relationship between gun ownership and violence is highly complicated, and involves several other socio-economic, cultural, historical, etc. variables, which can easily reverse the guns-safety balance, depending on what exactly you are comparing.
I don’t particular understand what this arguement about “getting in the crossfire” is. I have military training, and a fundamental element is control. Breath Aims Relax Squeeze the trigger. Plus it isn’t housewives that were lisenced 10 years ago on paper targets that make a properly armed citizen. Pop-up ranges are used in the military for the reason being that enemies will pop up and move quickly. Acquiring the target and following the BARS format without comtemplating the steps is how real results with shooting can be acheived.
And for pete’s sake, stop the liberal, “don’t touch it, it’s evil” bias that prevents real, lifesaving, training.
And is also not what I’d expect from the average guy in McDonald’s, surprised and pulling out a gun to shoot the aggressor before he gets shot.
If you want to have ‘proper armed citizens’, and housewives who took the course ten years ago don’t cut it, what do you recommend? Should we give everybody the same military training, and follow up to make sure their skills stay fresh and current, and to make sure everybody has the same stress reactions as an armed soldier in wartime?
Real lifesaving training, like what’s keeping all those Canadians from murdering each other, eh? Yup. Those canucks are all ‘properly armed citizens’, with fresh, sharp skills and are ready to stop in a moment anyone who walks into their restaurant to kill them.
Except, as RickJay says, Canadians don’t have this miracle training. What they have is simple licensing (from what I can tell, they take the course once, and it’s far from ‘military’). They also have plenty of guns. And they have a much, much lower rate of violent gun crimes.
Will turning the American public into well-trained and well-maintained … desperados?.. give them the peace and safety that Canadians enjoy? It sure isn’t how the Canadians got where they are.
Actually, if you take a closer look at Canada, a different picture emerges, Canada is not as safe as it appears.
When you compare similar and bordering states and provinces it is the US states that are safer and that have less crime. Canadian people in the border provinces who live within just a few miles of Americans, are much more violent.
Nearly every Canadian province that borders a U.S. state, has a HIGHER murder rate than a U.S. state that borders it. A MUCH HIGHER murder rate than the american state just below it, Canada is THREE to SIX times MORE dangerous than America with states and provinces that are very similar in industry, income, climate, topography, population density, and other similar demographics!
For example, Vermont(only 1.5 homocides per 100,000) has a much LOWER! murder rate, barely HALF the murder rate of Quebec(2.68).
North Dakota(.6 homocies per 100,000) has a much lower murder rate, ONLY ONE SIXTH!! than either Sashatchewan(3.6 homocides per 100,000) or Manitoba(3.58).
Alberta(3.0 homocides per 100,000) has a 60% HIGHER murder rate than Montana(1.8).
British Columbia(3.51) has THREE TIMES!! the murder rate of Idaho(only 1.2), etc.
The Yukon Territory, with 6.5 homocides per 100,000 is 50% more dangerous than its only bordering state, a state almost exactly like the Yukon, Alaska, with only 4.3 homocides per 100,000.
ALL!!! of the american states mentioned above have a LOWER murder rate than ALL!! of Canada which is: 2.47 homocides per 100,000 nationwide.
Comparing “border states” and “border provinces” is the only way to analyze these things. Obviously, one cannot compare American inner cities with those in Canada since Canada doesnt have any, and we cant compare any Canadian province with California or New York(apples and oranges), both of which have more people in it than the entire country of Canada put together and completely different demographics, climate, density, etc., or with Florida which is almost tropical, or Nevada which is a desert.
Provinces and states that border each other have more things in common culture wise than not, other than the international border line, esp since most Canadians in those border provinces live so very close to the American border.
The real question should be: Why it is so much safer just a couple of feet accross the U.S. border? Why do US states that border Canadian provinces have such a lower crime and murder rate?
Someone needs to do a study on why the Canadian border provinces are not as safe as the american border states, when everything else, most all other factors, are the same between these 2 peoples.
Why Canadian border provinces are 3 to 6 times MORE!! dangerous than the American states they share a border with?
The worst places to live in, the most dangerous, is not the United States nor Canada, it is: South Africa, Australia, England and Wales, the Netherlands and Sweden.
The ICVS allows an overall measure of victimisation which is the percentage of people victimised once or more in the previous year by any of the eleven crimes covered by the survey. This prevalence measure is a simple but robust indicator of overall proneness to crime. The worst countries for crime are:
Above 24% (victim of any crime in 1999): Australia, England and Wales, the Netherlands and Sweden
You are committing the very same fault as you accuse others of: comparing apples and oranges.
For example, there is no way that a reasonable person could compare the province of Quebec with the state of Vermont, as being similiar in demographics. Where is the major urban center in Vermont to compare to Montreal? Not to mention suggesting that Vermont has a similar culture and demographics to Quebec!
A flaw like this undermines your point, and makes your analysis quite worthless. Anyone can prove anything by cherry-picking the statistics.
I have never seen a serious post on the SDMB more full of errors, mistakes, and deliberate omissions of fact. Never.
Before I debunk your central claim, you got… well, you got a LOT of facts wrong, but I’ll hit the two most important ones:
You cite the Canadian murder rate as 2.47/100000 when it’s 1.8, for one thing; the 2.47 number in your second cite is 13 years old, and you’re deliberately comparing it with 2000-2001 American figures, an obviously dishonest tactic, as both countries’ crime rates have dropped since 1990. An accurate comparison would be crime rates in the last 2-3 year in both countries. Actually, you do this throughout your post, always choosing the lowest year for a state vs. an earlier, higher year for a province. I have deliberately tried to choose the same years wherever possible, on the other hand.
You also claim New York has “more people in it than the entire country of Canada put together.” Uh, no, it doesn’t, and it’s not even close. New York has about 17 million residents; Canada has 32 million. New York is actually QUITE comparable to Ontario, with 12,000,000 residents and very similar geography and population layout (as anyone who had ever been in both places would know.)
So let us take a real and honest look, rather than your let’s-leave-out-the-facts-that-don’t-support-my-position look.
ONTARIO. Ontario is the most populous province in Canada, the most urbanized, has the most similar economy to the USA, and is quite similar to its border states. It borders three states by land (Michigan, New York, Minnesota) and two by water (Ohio and Pennsylvania.) Ontario is VERY comparable to all those states, with 2/3rds the population of New York and pretty much the same as OH, MI and PA, although Minnesota’s population is only half a big. Very similar economies and geography.
So despite your claim that U.S. border states have a lower murder rate, the five states bordering Canada’s most populous province have murder rates 2, 2,5, 3.5 4 and 5 times higher than Ontario, respectively, even though they’re all very similar in population, economy, and relative levels of urbanization. How curious you never mentioned them.
QUEBEC
New York, by the way, ALSO borders Quebec, as do Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Funny how you left off New York in your comparison to Quebec, isn’t it?
Quebec: 2.0 (2000)
New York: 5.2 (2001)
Vermont: 2.0 (2000)
New Hampshire: 1.8 (2000)
Maine: 1.25 (2000-2001)
Now, anyone who thinks Quebec is comparable to Vermont or New Hampshire is an imbecile. Quebec has 7.5 million residents; New Hampshire and Vermont combined don’t have as many people as live just in Montreal. Quebec is much smaller in population then New York, of course, but at least Quebec is similar in relative levels of urbanization. It’s not a good comparison, but it’s as close to NY as it is to VT or NH. Go ahead and split the difference if you want.
Maine wins out here, but strangely enough Maine has extremely strict gun control laws.
BRITISH COLUMBIA
You conveniently compared British Columbia to Idaho. Curiously, you seem to have magically forgotten that B.C. also borders the states of Washington and Montana:
Montana and Idaho bounce around largely because of their small population; a few murders can change the rate a lot. Now, why you would think B.C. was comparable as a place to live to Idaho, but not to Washington, to which BC is FAR more similar in population and demographics, I cannot imagine, but I suspect it has a lot to do with you not wanting to mention Washington’s homicide rate. I also think it’s hilarious that you conveniently picked out the low year for Idaho. Can I pick 1995, when the murder rate there was 4.1?
God only knows where you got the idea Alberta has a higher homicide rate than MKontana. No, wait, I do know; you picked an early 90’s figure for Alberta and compared it to the lowest possible year for Montana.
MANITOBA AND SASKATCHEWAN
Manitoba and Saskatchewan do indeed have higher murder rates than North Dakota. So in that one regard you’re correct, though as usual you were dishonest about the muder rate in ND: it was .6 in 2000, but higher than that in any other year. Those provinces also border Montana and Minnesota.
Manitoba and Saskatchewan unquestionably have higher murder rates than most of Canada.
THE MARITIMES
The Maritimes have murder rates essentially equivalent to most of New England.
Overall, your claim that U.S. border states have lower murder rates than Canada as a whole is complete and total nonsense, because you left out the border states with high murder rates! You also cherry-picked the years you were comparing to compare high rate years in Canada with low rate years in selected states. It was an astoundingly evasive and dishonest post.
Murder Rate By Country, 2001
United States 5.9
Canada 1.8
Australia 2.1
United Kingdom 1.6
Sweden 1.3
Netherlands 1.1
Admiral work RickJay, what’s interesting is that over a year ago, I remember somebody making a very very similar post to Susanann, also cherry picking the states and murder rates. It also happened to be disected and debunked. Can’t find it though, maybe somebody else recalls it.
I thought I was getting a strange sense of deja-vu here as well. Susanann’s post is towards the bottom of page 1. The debunking is on page 2. Funnily enough, the debunking ends with
Maybe this time, that assumption will have to be reversed?
Oh I remember it. The reason that the post sounds very similar is because it was posted by none other than Susanannhere. She should really attribute herself for that amazing piece of cut-and-paste.
As you move through the thread, note how she says you can not compare Ontario to Michigan because there are more blacks in Michigan.
There is more to crime rates and violence than access to guns. The crime rate in the US dropped through much of the 1990’s, is it coincidence that the 1990’s also saw a growing economy and a shrinking unemployment rate?
As to this comment, which I forgot to address… viking, I’m not sure if you meant to say something else, but taking your comment literally, it is bogus. There isn’t really any evidence that states with permissive CCW laws are less prone to homicide than states without. Some states with permissive CCW laws (Vermont being a good example) have low homicide rates. Some (Texas) have high homicide rates.
On the other hand, consider this list of the ten states with the highest homicide rates (in 2001)
In case you’re wondering why Louisiana is so high, it’s not just a blip - Louisiana has been the most homicidal state in the Union for many years.
Of those ten states, eight had relatively permissive CCW laws in 2001 (well, as near as I can tell from some quick research.) Illinois and Maryland were the exceptions. Evidently, CCW laws are not keeping people from getting killed in these places.
