Lindens Please Help The Aussies

Interesting, and quite possibly accurate. In the case of the rape stat, I suspect that some of the divergence relates to different definitions of what constitutes "rape," but I am not familiar enough with all the legal complexities to say that for sure. I do know that in the US, definitions of things like spousal rape can vary quite widely from state to state.

Canada has a murder with firearms rate that is 20% of the US, but the number of firearms per capita (not the same as per capita firearms ownership, BTW) is about 33% that of the US.

That's a fairly loose correlation, isn't it?

Your data is old, but even using that, when you look at total crimes per capita, the US is below the UK and close to Canada. When you figure in the drop in crime the US has experienced over the past few years (yes crime rates have dropped, the news doesn't sell that point) I could see where we would be below Canada now.

I guess that depends on how you define "close" and "loose." I was referring, I guess, more to the fact that the relative rankings of the three countries correlate in each of the two categories: the US has the highest rate of firearms homicides with the highest rate of gun ownership, and the UK the lowest of each.

I wouldn't deny for a moment that there are other factors that come into play. One of those, I think I would argue, is a generally very different attitude towards firearms between the three countries.

You are more likely to be a victim of violent crime than I am. I can carry a gun almost every place I go. You are barred from owning most firearms even in your own home. Something doesn't work out between those.

In the US, places with the most gun control laws are more dangerous than places that require you to own a gun (yes we have some towns in the US that require gun ownership).

Vermont has no laws concerning law abiding citizens carrying weapons. They also have very little crime.

Nudge, nudge........http://www.amazon.com/Samurai-Mountie-Cowboy-Controls-Democracies/dp/0879757566/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261071111&sr=8-1

You're sidetracking again, Chris. I came into a discussion about guns, and that's all I am going to talk about. Crimes are not gun crimes. Gun crimes are gun crimes. Guns kill. Violent crimes don't usually kill. Therefore, an enviroment that doesn't allow general gun ownership is a safer environment than one that does.

Hmmm, is there a correlation between gun ownership and a reduction in other forms of crime? Maybe. Arguably you might think twice about a break-and-enter if you thought it likely the owner had a shotgun under his bed. Arguably, however, this might also contribute to disproportionately high rates of homicide by firearms in the US: just speculation, but it seems to me likely that someone who WAS committing break-and-enters in the US is more likely to be armed than would be the case in Canada, and more like to shoot first and ask questions later.

Again, I wonder if this doesn't reflect a cultural difference. Property rights, which are a real legacy of the same 18th-century tradition of liberalism that produced your Constitution, are absolutely central to American culture in a way that I don't think they are here. God knows, we love our property too, but it's not enshrined as a fundamental right in the way it is in the US. Speaking personally, but also, I would bet, for the majority of Canadians, I'll happily trade in more break-and-enters for fewer corpses -- even criminal ones.

ETA:



QED.

I don't call any type of violent crime safe. Doesn't matter if it is gun related or not. It is very simple, guns prevent crime. I know that by carrying a weapon, I am able to defend my family against predators of any stripe. Under your laws I would be defenseless against someone with a knife or a gang. But I value my body and the contents of my wallet more than I value the life of a criminal.

So using the Wikipedia numbers above, 30% of Canadians own guns, whereas 90% of Americans do.

Per this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada 1/3 of Canada murders involve firearms. I could not find similar stats in Wikipedia for the US, but the CrimeMaster.com site shows 3.6/100,000 firearm homicides in the US and 5.5/100,000 non-firearm homicides. That comes out to 40% of the US homicides involving firearms

So our gun ownership is 3 times as high, but our homicides using those guns is only 7% more.

See my Canada vs US stats posted just above.

I can only repeat, for the umpteenth time, that an environment where guns are not generally allowed is a safer environment than one where they are. I'd much rather be the victim of a violent crime than shot to death by someone commiting a crime on me. It's safer

Jeez, Chris, I'm a literature student for god's sake! I have my OWN books I have to read!!





(Those damned bleeding-heart publishers and librarians!!! )

I don't need to, Lil. What I'm saying is common knowledge, and stats can say all sorts of things - as we've seen in this discussion.

Gun ownership does show a correlation with lower crime rates. Home invasion burglaries (ones that take place while the home owner is at home) are less than 10% of the count in the US. In the UK, they happen over 50% of the time.

You would very seldom see a burglar carrying a weapon beyond a pocket knife here. Having the gun on him makes it more likely for the cops to shoot him or for his sentence to be longer because of the firearm.
What if those break and enters turn into rapes? Do you think those are worth a few safer criminals? Is the woman who is raped more virtuous than the one who shoots her attacker?

Pretty much.

You're trying to sidetrack again, Chris. Crime rates are crime rates. They are not an indicator of personal safely, or an indication of gun crimes and murders. If you stick to talking about gun crimes and gun murders, then you won't be sidetracking - unless you really do want to move away from the RTC laws discussion, of course.

It is my position that the lower the crime rate, the safer you are. Unless you consider strong arm mugging safe for the victim? Do you consider someone climbing in your back window safe for you and your family?

Maybe, but if so, that actually backs up my argument: guns are the weapon of choice of murderers. Limiting the availability of guns doesn't change that; why would it?

But it has had the effect of lowering the overall murder rates simply because it is more difficult to kill someone with another type of weapon.

Guns don't kill. People kill...with guns, knives, clubs, rocks, automobiles, chainsaws, swords, rope, nylon stockings, rat poison, and bare hands.

"Violent crimes don't usually kill." Granted...but they do often maim, often for life. And since it is so hard to know in advance whether that criminal is only going to break your leg, or kill you, I prefer to be armed, and avoid finding out the hard way.

What is a "gun crime"? Would you please be more precise? What if I use a firearm to defend myself against a criminal? What if he, or I, or both of us have a gun, but no firearms are discharged? Are those "gun crimes"? Or did you mean something like posession of an unlicensed fully automatic weapon, or carrying a firearm where it's not allowed? Are those the "gun crimes" you speak of?

Your concluding statement is demonstrably false to fact.

By "a safer environment", I mean one in which I am less likely to be killed. Yes, I consider what you mentioned to be safe; i.e. I'll walk away from it in one piece.

No it isn't. It's a fact - and it's common knowledge. You only have to read some of the stats about murder that have been posted in this thread to realise that. But you shouldn't even need those stats because it's common knowledge. Remove all guns from an evnironment and there will be less killing. End of story.

Unless they have a knife or a club or are physically stronger than you. Then you are at the mercy of their whims.

This may well be so. But how do the per capita instances of home invasion compare? (That's a real question: I don't know the answer.)


Why would you imagine it is any different in Canada? The same logic applies.


Oh, ok, now you are playing dirty . . .

Of course not. But overall a woman is, I believe, far far safer, with respect to all sorts of violent crime, in a society with fewer guns. And most rapes occur in a context that would preclude a defence using a firearm anyway: they are perpetrated by family members, or through the use of date rape drugs, etc., etc. And, in Canada anyway, gun ownership is one of the top five "risk factors" in predicting the likelihood of spousal homicide. Having a gun in the house is actually far more of a threat, statistically, for the women who live there, than it is for any putative burglar.

http://www.prevention-violence.ca/English/PDFsEnglish/DomesticViolenceandFirearms.pdf