doublegunshop.com - home Forums Canada and US Gun Control

Chris Selley in National Post today:

�Are we heading into more of a U.S.-style gun culture?� Wendy Mesley, hosting CBC�s The National, put that most Canadian of questions to her Sunday media panel, which was considering issues surrounding last week�s murder of three RCMP officers in Moncton. Panelist Adam Goldenberg responded in the affirmative.

�I think there is a degree of American-style gun culture already in Canada,� he said, citing the Conservative government�s scuppering of the long-gun registry. �I have actually been surprised about how muted the response has been to this Moncton incident among politicians and people who should be taking a line saying we need more gun control,� he added.

I too have been surprised by the muted reaction � pleasantly.

No question, people talked. With the alleged killer still at large, the National Firearms Association idiotically complained that �none of Canada�s firearms control efforts over the past 50 years have had any effect on preventing violence�; and CBC�s Power and Politics panel debated (among other things) the merits of the long-gun registry. The next day, an op-ed in the Toronto Star blamed the �U.S.-style mass shooting� on �the six-year war on gun control in Canada waged by Stephen Harper and Vic Toews.�

But hey, fish gotta swim. Gun nuts can be nutty, hence the name; there�s all manner of wackadoo stuff in the Star�s op-ed pages; and CBC wouldn�t have the first clue how to analyze a tragedy if it couldn�t suggest a lack of legislation might be to blame. All in all I would say the reaction has been appropriately sober. MPs of all stripes declined to take reporters� bait. I feel like I�ve seen more articles claiming the murders have �reignited the gun control debate� than I�ve seen people actually reigniting the gun control debate.

If I were to wax optimistic, I might argue Canadians are beginning to face reality: Legislation has no magical powers to prevent these atrocities � certainly not legislation imposing a minor procedural requirement like a long-gun registry; and gun violence is not getting worse in Canada, let alone approaching the dreaded �U.S.-style� designation. It�s getting better.

Canada�s homicide rate in recent years has been just slightly higher than it was in the rose-tinted early 1960s, and half of what it was at its peaks in the late 1970s and early 1990s. In recent years Canada�s rate of homicide by gun has been just over half what it was in the mid-1970s, when Statistics Canada�s records begin. The total number of deaths caused by firearms fell from 2.8 per 100,000 population in 2000 to 1.94 in 2011 � thanks in large part to a significant drop in suicides by gun (though the overall suicide rate has unfortunately stayed relatively constant).

And guess what? Not that you�re likely to have heard about it, but the U.S.-style trend is much the same. The peak year for firearm deaths and firearm homicides in the United States � 15.2 and 7 per 100,000 population, respectively � was 1993 (a year that saw no particularly deadly mass murders, incidentally). In the ensuing few years those rates plummeted to 10.3 and 3.8, respectively, and have remained roughly at that level ever since.

Fully 56% thought gun crime had gone up over the previous 20 years; only 10% thought it had gone down
Americans are almost totally oblivious to this, the Pew Research Center reported last month under the apt title �Gun homicide rate down 49% since 1993 peak; public unaware.� Fully 56% thought gun crime had gone up over the previous 20 years; only 10% thought it had gone down.

In the months after the atrocity at Connecticut�s Sandy Hook Elementary School, it was often noted that vastly more Americans had since died, unnoticed, from gunshots. These were valuable and powerful reminders of the scope of the problem. It was less often noted that this was nowhere near a historic body count � and understandably so, to a great extent. Americans still die from gunshots far more than residents of comparable countries. It�s a huge public health issue that desperately needs addressing.

The risks associated with Americans� misperceptions are significant, however. There is the excessive stress and worry, passed from parents to children � pointlessly locked schools (like poor Sandy Hook) and futile lockdown drills, to say nothing of the ghoulish market in bulletproof school supplies. And I suspect it might be worse than that.

The American situation puts the lie to the magic thinking of Canada�s gun control obsessives
The number of American households containing a gun is certainly not at a historic high: Gallup most recently pegged it at 37%, down from 51% in the mid-1990s; the University of Chicago�s General Social Survey most recently had it at 34%, down from 54% in the late 1970s. But we know that many Americans believe in the protective power of firearms. After Sandy Hook, while liberals again deluded themselves that the moment for Canadian-style gun control was finally at hand, polls showed majority support for the National Rifle Association�s call for an armed guard in every school. Over the past 15 years, Pew�s polling shows protection trading places with hunting as the main reason Americans own guns. If only one in 10 Americans has an accurate perception of the actual trend in gun crime, it stands to reason they may be buying more guns than they would otherwise. And where there are guns, there is always the potential for guns to go off � deliberately, accidentally, whatever.

Gun control, in the broad sense, pretty obviously works. Fewer guns are correlated with fewer gun deaths. But the American situation puts the lie to the magic thinking of Canada�s gun control obsessives. It�s not about registering hunting rifles or reclassifying a certain gun as Very Very Dangerous instead of Very Dangerous. Over the past 20 years, the broad trend in gun violence, and indeed all violence, has been a continent-wide phenomenon: a peak in the mid-1990s, a quick plummet, a plateau. You see it in Canada, with its tough gun control, and in the United States, with its lenient gun control. You see it in New York, with its tough gun control, and you see it in Arizona, with its lenient gun control. The only question is how high up the chart the line plummets and plateaus.

Pew�s report summarizes the oft-cited reasons for this: an aging population; the end of the crack wars that drove crime up in the 1990s; maybe even abortion on demand (fewer neglected children) or the banning of lead paint (fewer brain-damaged children). But the overall message is this: Societies reduce gun violence by reducing all violence; and societies reduce violence by making themselves better, in every conceivable sense. Reasonable people will disagree on how to do that. But reasonable people should be able to agree that screaming at each other over whether or not to maintain a list of hunting rifles and their owners is not going to save a great many lives. Maybe we�re finally getting there."

National Post

To which I will add, Canadians generally don't take offence to those who believe one way or the other. They deplore as uncivil the demonization, the insults, characterization of those who think differently as lesser persons, as some do here. Partisanship is an element of citizenship. The other does no good.

King, I respect your right to post and believe your intent is with good heart.

I doubt the real value in going into deep US to Canada comparison as what international travel has taught me over the years to various English Speaking countries is that we share almost a common langauge and many other cultural roots, but that we are different.

The differences in world view are far deeper and complete than most people comprehend. Because of that realization I do not comment on Canadian voters choices and the challenges they deal with.

As for America, I am both concerned by violence, gun related and other types and the causes. I find the final paragraph of your posting (copied from a news service of some sort) irritating to the extreme in not so much what it says, but what it does not.

I unquestionably believe the uptick in violence and the decline in civility has more to do with the failure of society to inculcate actual values and ethics and the decline of the family.

Pew is a hack organization, pushing their world view implicitly and explicitly. I doubt their honesty.

Thank you for the post, however bothersome I may see parts of it.

PS I do favor the "proper" enforcement of current gun laws within my state (Kansas) and do see a need for increased resources for mental health issues. I suspect everything in the media on guns.

Thanks, old colonel. I don't agree with parts of the National Post's columnist's take on the issue either. I posted as from another point of view, and took some comfort from it. The general public thinks everything's going to hell in a handcart. There's no question in my mind that children are bringing up children in a rapid decline of family values. I have no idea how it began.

On an issue so important, how can someone be critical of 'some here'. Not surprisingly, when approached from the left, it seems that feelings and political agenda trump facts.

Craig, you and I feel differently about many things. Left and right has nothing to do with it. We don't insult each other. Others do.

I suppose this would be the question.

What did I read? Well, I noticed, among many other adjectives, that a group is referred to as 'idiots'. When it comes to civility, how much better is that than 'libtard'.

I noticed there was some conclusion that the US and Canada were similar in some vague 'death by gun' stat. But, Americans have a perception problem and Canadians have 'em pegged right, thus gun control works, huh.

I'm not saying it should be, but are you sure the Canadian position is all that civil or tolerant. Are you drawing conclusions based on feelings rather than facts. Is it obligatory to advocate and demonize based on those feelings.

'Rapid decline of family values. I have no idea how it began'. Your old man sounds like a great Canadian patriot, and lived that way, but I believe you mentioned an early introduction to communist ideology. Was there any emphasis on the collective.

Also, I'd think a journalist would have a game plan on how ideology is spread. You know the standards we must fight the misogynists, racists, poor and sick haters, demonize faith, the military, glorify the single mom and the homosexual 'family'. It could be the will of the people, then again it may be the intentional strategy of a relatively few.

I personally don't mind being corrected and living with the correction. What makes the left figure, I don't care what's thrown at me, I'll come up with another justification or excuse.

Great comment Craig. It doesn't just happen. Its been spread by preachers of a different cloth.

There you go King... you spend enough time denigrating our NRA. Now your nation's NFA gets the same treatment from a closet anti-gunner.

You want to know what's uncivil? You want to know what does no good? I'll tell you. Lies. Lies and bullshit like you post here.

Take your last post in the "Do We Need Another Misfires" thread. You told all just how nasty and terrible it is here, yet 99 of your last 100 posts have been in Misfires where you use your internet soapbox to LULL U.S. Gunowners about very real threats to their gun rights, bash the NRA, and advance your Liberal Socialist agenda.
You really spend an enormous amount of time here for being so put off by it all. But you can spin things any way you want when being a liar is second nature to you.

You again told of all the misogyny and racism here, I asked for proof and you ran away because you were lying. The only misogyny here lately has been from nca225 writing filthy things about my daughters, and from you, a father of three daughters supporting him and suggesting that I should forgive him.

How about we lift a line from the BULLSHIT article you post here. The one about gun ownership falling in the U.S. from 51% in the mid-1990"s to 37% today. Do you think that anyone here with an ounce of brains really believes that 14% of gun owning households have divested themselves of their firearms in the last 20 years? Or that an even more absurd 20% of gun owning households dumped their guns since the 1970's?

Clinton and Obama have been two of the greatest gun salesmen of all time. Their threats to the right to keep and bear arms prompted millions of people to buy a gun while they still could.

I could go on for hours pointing out your lies and bullshit. Everyone is on to you King. Do you get off on making an ass of yourself?

Craig, they're the National Post columnist's words, not mine. Columnists are paid to be provocative.

There's always been emphasis on the collective in my life. Where would society be without it? NRA is a good example of one of most influential collectives in America. Our woodlot owners organization is another.

As for journalists or journals spreading ideology, the province of Ontario just returned a scandal-ridden spend-spend Liberal government although the country's newspaper of record, Globe and Mail in Toronto, endorsed the Conservatives.

Should we blame voters who didn't like the hard-right Conservative platform, reporters or newspaper owners? GOP risks alienating a third of voters---ethnics and Hispanics--- with its immigration policy of resentment. Who's to blame for a three-peat---media for reporting it or voters who don't like it?

As for spreading ideology, there's more of it in the global mall of the Internet---as in Misfires---than in "mainstream news media."

On the first point, someone else's words, I thought I wondered out loud if the words were trivial or if 'you took some comfort in them'. Collective? It really is okay to pick out examples where groups work better than individuals. I believe another example that you brought up is the breakdown of the family. Were you sincerely lamenting, or backchanneling, 'it takes a village'.

Hmmm, internet bloggers, fickle voters are the truth. Quick question, who gets to travel on airfrc 1, who gets the whouse press corps passes. TV coverage, late night comedy shows and campaign infomercials are the 'access' to this fellow. Who gets to pick and choose tidbits, blend 'em up, and pour out pc smoothies for consumption.

Didn't we know the GOP would alienate yet someone else. By my calculations, we lost half due to the poor hating Romney, and another third because of race hatred. So, the R's should pull down 17% of the next presidential election vote? Where did the extras come from, that's a good double their base.

Heard a good radio story. Say I have a seven year old kid and drop them off at a Phoenix bus station with nothing, then take off. Unless, I was a single drug addicted 'woman', I'd be hunted down, branded and thrown in the slammer. If I were bo, I'd watch them, literally, walk a few feet across the Tx border. Thousands of minors with no parents stuck on a bus, what would make the bus driver think, hey I'll drive these kids to another state and just drop them off at a bus station, with nothing. How come the school bus driver would get fired for trying to pry five bullies off a terrified bloody student rather than follow union guidelines.

Who's supposed to ask the tough questions about these kids, or rather provocate about white kids and guns. I dunno King, hasn't 'progress' fixed the family.