Feel free. I’ll show up. Is this actually supposed to be intimidating or something?
Well, since I don’t want you to get the vapours and all, I’ll read your cites and comment anon, but I would like it noted that you haven’t commented on the diversity of Canadian cities and how it might be relevant if those cities are similarly diverse as American cities but far less violent.
That’s because"diversity" in and of itself is an almost meaningless term without further clarification. You cite “minority population” a similarly meaningless term without further details. What kind of minorities? Afro-Canadians? Where from Africa? Their culture or sub-culture? Economic status? Age? Education? Are they recent immigrants or long-term residents? Religion? Where do they live? What other groups do they live in proximity to? And so on.
Asian-Canadians? Same questions.
See a real sociological or criminological study would gather all that relevant data and break it down accordingly. If the study was about the effects of “diversity” on crime or gun violence it would try to control for other factors. If it was a study about the effects of gun ownership and gun control it would attempt to control for factors like “diversity.” And so on. So if you have a link to a peer-reviewed academic study that attempts to explain differences between crime and gun violence rates when comparing American and Canadian cities by all means present it. If you have a link to such a study that finds evidence that gun ownership and gun control laws are a primary cause of increased crime and gun violence in American versus Canadian cities, while controlling for other factors, by all means present that as well
You keep on making simplistic observations and citing data of little probative value about an astoundingly complex topic and then wonder why I don’t ascribe much significance to it. And then somehow take my indifference to your meaningless points as some sort of victory on your part.
Well, I’ll just reiterate post 258 and move on, then. You’ve made an assertion but consistently followed It up by saying it was too complicated to analyze, which I take to mean you can’t or won’t defend it beyond citing people you claim are authorities. I’ll read your links for my own edification by and by, but I gather there’s no real discussion of the topic to be had, here with you.
Toronto and Chicago are in the same region, are of similar populations, are both diverse demographically, and are both economic powerhouses, but Chicago’s gun death rate and murder rate are many times higher than that of Toronto’s. Why? We have gun control in Canada. Dirk, you are ignoring the obvious.
The assertion I made was that a more heterogeneous population tends to correlate with an increased incidence of conflict and crime victimization. That’s it. And I backed it up with academic peer-reviewed cites. All that says about gun violence in the US vs Canada debate is that any relative differences in the heterogenity of the populations being compared likely plays some role. How much? Don’t know. The role of other factors such as gun ownership and gun control laws? Don’t know. Which factor has the strongest effect? Don’t know. Without an academic peer-reviewed study that tackles that exact question and provides us real sociological data to discuss here that answer is beyond us in terms of our qualifications and I’m sure the time, effort, and money we’d be willing to spend to find it ourselves. But hey, if you’ve got a line on some grant money I can find a few criminologists or sociologists about 10 miles down the road from my house.
I did do a very cursory search and nothing specific to comparing US vs Canada gun violence or the causes of the relative disparities came up. Not saying there’s not something out there but I didn’t find it with my small amount of effort. I did find this article on the effects of urban gun availability and individual assault and robbery victimization. It’s author, Dr. Irshad Altheimer, is a criminologist specializing in urban violence. For what it’s worth he’s also African-American and I believe Muslim.
It is a PDF download:
Then why can no one produce an academic peer-reviewed sociological study that states this “obvious” fact as its conclusion? Download and read the study I just linked to in my response to Bryan Ekers. That’s what actual academic research on such topics looks like. And it is anything but simple or obvious.
You are trying to over-simplify a complex issue and the overwhelming weight of professional research and opinion is firmly on my side.
And by the way, less gun control than you would like does not equal no gun control.
Dirk, you don’t seem to realize that Canada is a lot more heterogeneous than the USA, but has a far, far lower gun death rate, so your hypothesis simply does not hold water. The big difference between Canada and the USA when it comes to gun deaths is not relative heterogeneity, but rather that the USA is awash in guns whereas Canada has gun control. Harvard Injury Control Research Center:
I have given no hypothesis. Once again, I simply refuted the claim that a more heterogeneous population does not correlate with increased incidences of crime victimization. Read any one of the cites I gave. It is accepted fact in Criminology and other social sciences and not my hypothesis but the hypothesis of numerous professionals in those fields and supported by mountains of evidence.
Your cites do indeed indicate a correlation between higher rates of gun ownership and higher rates of gun homicide. I’m not disputing that at all. What is missing in your cites is support for your claim that higher rates of gun ownership causes a higher rate of gun homicide. That’s the crucial difference. Perhaps at some point in your life you’ve heard some sort of axiom regarding the relationship between correlation and causation. Unsurprisingly, it holds true in sociological research too.
So show me a quote from that cite or any other reputable academic one that uses some form of “causation” in its conclusion about the relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates. Not “correlates with”, not “associated with”, not some sort of effect on risk factors, but some form of “causes.” That is the only conclusion that would support your own hypothesis that differences in homicide rates when comparing the US and Canada are caused, either solely or primarily, by relevant differences in gun ownership or gun control laws.
I’m curious, did you read the Altheimer article I posted?
If it isn’t illegal then by definition the state is OK with it
Some of the most violent inner cities are located in states with the strictest gun laws in the country
Maybe, but legality and accessibility are not synonyms.
Gun control relates to guns, not violence. If someone wants to kill you kill Canada it will be done using something other than a gun.
And death by gun is the same as death by knife or car or poison or an infinite number of other objects.
No, it will be attempted by something other than a gun. It is less likely to be successful as a result, because those other means are not as efficient or effective as a firearm. Means restriction is an effective tool in reducing both homicide and suicide, in large part because it decreases the lethality of impulsive actions.
Yes, but we’re talking quantity, not quality.
I disagree. Take a car and convert miles per gallon to people per gallon. Then factor in how many hours before refueling.
It’s not matches, cars, knives or guns. It’s the person.
Urban areas usually have fewer guns per person yet have far more violence than rural areas where there are more guns per person
We don’t have a gun problem we have an inner city poverty and crime problem to such an extent that a relatively small number of urban areas with very high murder rates skew the rate of the entire country.
More people are killed annually with knives than rifles of any kind, including those scary AR 15 rifles.
More people are killed with fists and feet annually than with rifles
Nothing is going to stop a person hell bent on murder from killing.
The question is are you going to be able to defend yourself from someone hell bent on murder if the single most effective tool for self defense < a firearm> is “controlled” to the point of being almost impossible to get