Skip to comments.Banning Guns
Posted on 12/26/2012 9:57:18 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....
INCONVENIENT FACT: Countries that allow private gun ownership have much lower overall murder, suicide and violent crime rates than countries with pervasive gun control laws.
EVIDENCE: According to no less an authority than the peer-reviewed Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, countries with stringent gun control laws have higher murder and suicide rates than those without.
DOCUMENTATION: “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, pages 649-694. (To download a PDF copy of the journal article, simply Google the title. It is available on the web free of charge.)
QUOTE: “If you are surprised by our findings, so are we. We did not begin this research with any intent to exonerate handguns, but there it is a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.”
INDIRECTION: The trick hoplophobes always use is to say that America has higher gun-murder rates than other countries, but a lot of those “murders” are criminals killed in the act of committing violent crimes. Compare absolute murder rates, and the result is “more guns, less murder.” (Source: GunFacts.info);
SECOND INCONVENIENT FACT: According to DOJ crime statistics, guns are used by US citizens 2.5 million times per year to prevent violent crimes like rape, robbery, home-invasion and carjacking, 99% of the time without a shot being fired. (Source: GunFacts.info)
THIRD INCONVENIENT FACT: “Assault weapons” (AKA semiautomatic rifles) are used in less than 1% of gun crimes. (Source: GunFacts.info)
QUESTION: If gun-free zones make people safe, then why don’t we declare the immediate vicinity of the President and Vice-President to be gun-free zones and send the Secret Service home? Or are gun-free zones good enough for our kids, but not good enough for our overlords?
METAPHOR: America has more private gun ownership than most other countries, so naturally there are more gun murders. America also has more hospitals than most other countries, so naturally we have more people dying in hospitals. Does that mean we should outlaw hospitals?
Here endeth the lesson.
That, mister, is exactly what armed civilians are.
The problem here is different definitions of what acts fit into the "violent crime" category.
I have yet to see an attempt to do an apples/apples comparison. It may not be possible.
I do believe that “The One” is talking about “Brown Shirts” once we the “Sheeple” are disarmed.
But that doesn’t mean we can’t cram his own words back down his throat!
which country would be safest to visit a major sports venue wearing opposing team colors?
AFAIK the only European country with major sports team problems is UK. Their soccer fan hooligans are banned on much of the Continent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.