Binghamton shootings - Page 6

. Doesn't the US have many more guns and higher murder rates than Canada?

The higher murder rate in the USA is not caused by citizens owning
firearms. If a prohibition could somehow eliminate all firearms, and,
therefore, all firearm-related homicides, without _any_ weapon
substitution, the US murder rate would still be roughly _double_ the
Canadian murder rate. If a USA without firearms would have many more
murders per person than a Canada with firearms, there must be many other
factors at work. (If the firearms in the USA cause its higher murder
rate, then the above example must show that firearms make Canada safer.
Obviously the answer cannot really be so simple.)

One must also consider that the number of firearms per person in Canada
and the USA is similar, and that the laws in the USA vary greatly from
state to state, with the states having fewer restrictions on
law-abiding citizens also most often having lower murder rates.

The number of firearms is a symptom, not a cause. If firearms caused
murder, then Switzerland, Israel and Norway would have murder rates
similar to the US, and places like Ireland, Scotland, Mexico, Jamaica,
Bermuda, Bahamas and Sri Lanka would have low rates.

One needs only to look at WHY the firearms are owned. Canada is more
rural and therefore each firearm owning household (roughly 26%) has a
variety of firearms (at least 3) for different uses. In the US, firearm
owning households (about 50%) are more likely to have only one or two
because they own them for self-defence and not hunting, predator
control, etc.

This further indicates that while fewer Canadian households have a
firearm, those that do, have more. This confirms most government
estimates of 15 to 20 million firearms in Canada, while in the US, there
are about 200 million (giving both countries similar per capita rates of
firearm ownership). If the rates of firearm ownership are similar in
countries with drastically different murder rates, then it's probably
not the firearms that are the problem.

Even within the US, there is no correlation between firearm ownership
and murder rates. After the LA riots, there was a huge increase in
sales. The following year, sales slumped because the market was
saturated, yet the murder rates continued to _fall_. The US murder rate
peaked in 1992 and has been decreasing. It dropped 8% from 1994 to
1995. Even as ownership increases in the US, the murder (and accident)
rates decrease. Allowing citizens to possess and acquire firearms
doesn't seem to be the problem.

If one ignores Washington DC and the US cities that are larger than
Canadian cities, the murder rates in the US are not much higher than
Canadian homicide rates. Also, roughly 14 states have murder rates
similar to or below the Canadian average homicide rate. Additionaly, if
one compares the states next to Canada to their neighbouring provinces,
the states more often have lower murder rates. [StatCan, the USDoJ and
the FBI Uniform Crime Reports]

comparison of Canada and the US:
Province / State Homicide rate/100,000
---------------- ---------
B.C / Washington 3.7 / 5.0
Alberta / Montana 3.6 / 2.9
Saskatchewan / North Dakota 3.2 / 1.9
Manitoba / Minnesota 2.6 / 1.9
Ontario / Michigan w/o detroit / w/detroit 2.4 / 4.1 / 9.9
Quebec / NY w/o NYC / NY w/ NYC 2.4 / 3.7 / 13.2
Quebec / New Hampshire 2.4 / 1.6
New Brunswick / Maine 1.5 / 1.7
Territories / Alaska 17.8 / 7.5
[taken from:
Brandon S. Centerwall, "Homicide and the prevalence of handguns: Canada
and the United States, 1976 to 1980," _American Journal of
Epidemiology_, 134 (11), pp 1245-60, Dec 1, 1991.]




Continue to:

* prev: 7. Does gun control work?
* Index
* next: 9. But if anyone could get a gun, like in the US, wouldn't we have higher murder rates, just like the US?

Common Sense Doesn’t Require Statistics
I start out amused, then get frustrated, then angry, and finally absolutely resolute when I see these anti-gunners spout statistics here, there and everywhere about the dangers of guns, crime rates and the effectiveness of gun control. Bullchips!

These arguments are then most times followed from the pro-gun side by another set of endless statistics that completely counter the arguments just made by the anti-gun crowd. Unfortunately, these pro-gun statistics will never convince the anti-gunners no matter how obvious the numbers.

Nobody ever seems to believe the other guys’ statistics and there is a sound reason for that—statistics are a liar’s best friend and liars know that better than anyone.

I studied statistics in college and found that I could easily develop a long list of impressive numbers to support any argument on either side of an issue, creating virtually any impression I fancied. Politicians and the media do it all the time.

“So what good are all these statistics Colonel if we can’t use them to prove gun control just doesn’t work?”

Although statistics are good facts to have in your pocket, you really don’t need numbers to prove this point. The founders didn’t have any statistics so all you need is what they had in abundance—common sense. “What do you mean Colonel?”

Here are just 4 common sense points that illustrate why gun control is a myth, not a pathway to crime control—and not one point uses statistics.


Common Sense Point #1: Thugs ignore gun laws. To think that thugs who ignore laws against murder, robbery, rape and assault will, by some stretch of lunacy, obey gun control laws is the purest form of lunacy. Does anyone think that a gang planning a bank robbery will trash those plans because they would first be required to register their guns before the job went down?

Let’s listen in on Mugsy and Bugsy planning…The Big Heist

“Well, Bugsy, there it is. Our plans for robbing the Last National Bank are absolutely fool-proof and dat cool million is just waitin’ on us. It’s just a cryin’ shame we can’t pull it off though.”

“Why Mugsy? What do you mean?” asks Bugsy incredulously.

“Because da law says we can’t carry unregistered guns or we could get into real trouble” says Mugsy as he resigns himself to the life of a law abiding citizen.

“You’re right.” admits Bugsy with a tear in his eye. We’ll just have to forget about dat million smackers. I certainly wouldn’t want to break any gun laws.”

And who really thinks that requiring a solid citizen to register his gun will prevent crime? He isn’t planning The Big Heist—never has, never will. So the point is?



Common Sense Point #2: Thugs prefer unarmed victims and avoid potentially armed citizens. Amazing bit of deductive reasoning isn’t it? Anti-gunners hope you never discover that truth on your own. Think about it though from the shoes of Mugsy and Bugsy. Who would you rather confront, an armed citizen or an unarmed one? Where would you rather focus your life of crime? In areas where guns are outlawed or where guns are prevalent? Who would you rather prey on, the defenseless or the armed? And where is violent crime more prevalent? Washington D.C. where gun laws are strictest or Florida where gun laws are more relaxed? I’ll give you one guess but let’s listen in on Mugsy and Bugsy again.

“OK Bugsy, the bank job was a flop I admit dat, but we can always pull a stick-up like in da ol’ days.”

“Yeah, dats right Mugsy. We can always get a little fast bread dat way.” says Bugsy, his excitement for the old days of street crime growing. “But where do we target da mark Mugsy?”

Well Bugsy, we sure can’t pull stick ups in Florida, too many guns there. We might could get shot by one of dem ol’ southern boys. You know how they are. A lot of ‘em is packin’ these days since Florida OK’d concealed carry—ya just never know down there anymore—a real shame ain’t it?”

“You’re right Mugsy. That could be way too dangerous for us.” “I got it!” says Bugsy, “We’ll hit every schmuck in Washington D.C. None of dem bums got guns…it’s against the law…we’ll be the only ones there what got heaters!”

“Great idea!” says Mugsy, “Let’s load up and git goin’. Easy pickins, here we come!”



Common Sense Point #3: Crime is deviant behavior. A gun is an inanimate tool not deviant behavior and crime is deviant behavior not an inanimate tool. You can’t prevent deviant behavior by regulating tools because tools are incapable of behavior and the number of tools available to the world’s deviants is endless.

Even if you could legislate guns out of existence, deviants could, would and have used other things that gave them a power advantage over their victims—knives, clubs, rocks or even sharp sticks—all of which are very legal and very accessible.



Commons Sense Point #4: The Trump Card. The strongest point of all consists of a mere 27 words and is absolute in its nature. It trumps all statistics ever concocted by man and all arguments ever made—and not one of the 27 words is a number… “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” #4, my friends, is absolute, unambiguous and supersedes all arguments and all statistics.


Now go forth soldier, well armed with common sense, the absolute truth of the II Amendment and ready to fight the good fight.


One last note: If you ever find any staunchly committed anti-gunner actually and honestly willing to listen to common sense or interpret the II Amendment simply as written by our founders, please let me know. I’m still looking for one.