Skip to comments.What Difference Would Banning Guns Make?
Posted on 12/21/2012 9:50:27 AM PST by Kaslin
In the wake of the Newtown school massacre, we've noted a strong uptick in our site traffic by people wanting to find out how different the U.S. might be if the nation adopted Canada's much more restrictive firearms laws. This post gathers all our analysis on that topic from 2011 in one place.
We examine the FBI's data on the race of victims and their killers. We find that the vast majority of offenders prefer to kill their own kind (that evidence is borne out elsewhere, where criminals also seem to prefer killing other criminals!)
We want to compare the U.S. and Canada's murder statistics, but find we can't do a direct comparison because Canada is significantly lacking in two things the U.S. has in much greater quantities: blacks and Hispanics!
We work out how to get around Canada's demographic deficiencies in reporting its homicides to be able to directly compare the populations of both nations.
We determine the real difference in the number of homicides per 100,000 people between Canada and the most demographically-similar-to-Canada portion of the U.S. population.
This is the one post that has drawn the most attention since the shootings in Connecticut. We break down the number of homicides per 100,000 by method for Canada and the most demographically-similar-to-Canada portion of the U.S. population, finding that Canada's much more strict laws regulating firearms "saves" about one life for every 100,000 people, although Canadian homicide offenders have adapted to the lack of firearms available to them by making murder more brutal.
We find that there's an additional price to be paid for saving that one life for every 100,000 people with strict gun control laws. It turns out that after adjusting for the major demographic differences between the two nations, Canada is a much more violent place than is the U.S. (Ed. At least Canadians are polite, eh? Just don't cross them....)
Do Canada's stricter gun-control laws reduce the number of suicides per 100,000 people compared to the U.S.? We find the answer is not at all....
Update: Doc Palmer picks up on a report that indicates the U.S. is also much less violent than the U.K., Sweden, Belgium and Holland - all places that also feature much more restrictive gun laws than does the U.S....
It would make it much easier to move the people into the concentration camps and keep them there even when ya don't feed 'em.
It would cause more Sandy Hook style massacres.
It would create a lot more incidents where disparity of force is greatly in favor of the attacker/criminal thug/big brother thug.
Unarmed peasants are easier to control
With torches in hand and pitchforks as spears, even the boldest of armies would be hard-put to totally control a crowd like that.
And a small, determined band of a few hundred can hold off an army of 100,000, if they hold the choke points.
Ha! that's like saying 300 Spartans could hold back the Persian army. Wait...
Here is an argument I am fond of.. (hat tip to former conservative star ann coulter)
Will you compromise and also support “common sense laws for unborn children” something like finding the youngest preemie to survive and make that the last date for an abortion, as it is now proved that babies that young are viable. I some what doubt you will support that due to the slippery slope you would now be standing on. We the people that believe the founders meant for us to have effective arms feel the same way .. first “assault weapons” then it will be “easily hidden” then well you get the idea I think.
Canadians do not have a cultural history that is intimately, intricately and deliberately tied to personal ownership of firearms, as we do.
We, on the otherhand, have a cultural history of severe distrust and dislike of government authority at all levels, from the very beginning of our nation.
Our first civil war was a result of these two basic differences.
Our second will finally decide both issues.........
I have often wondered, if push came to shove, like the Soviet Army, would our armed forces refuse to fire upon their own citizens?.......
Interesting philosophical question, but mostly meaningless, given the disparity of forces. Rule of thumb since forever is 3:1 advantage to the defending forces. Not always the case, and force multipliers come into play, but the US military, much as I was one, and much as I love them, just isn't very large.
We would find out that they lied to us about information not being collected in background checks.
That is just perfect.
WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?, A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence by Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser, Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694)
The answer would be out of wedlock births which is now 60% in the Hispanic community and 80% in black community. Total out of wedlock is 30% for Canada and 40% for the US. Furthermore, Canada single parent home is 16% vs 27% for the US.
A better analysis would be to factor out murders committed by people of absent Dad households. Black and Hispanics disproportionately make up this group, but the analysis is less race based and more moral based. With this analysis, I would bet that the murder rates in Canada and the US are the same. This is an easy bet since an analysis of US prison population concluded it is the same among ethic groups when factoring for absent Dads.
“An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.”
To all- please ping me to Canadian topics.
Nothing productive...but it will help some people feel like they’ve got a pair.