Why do some countries have much higher rates of gun violence?

[scottish]

Follow on to the firearms in the home thread...

Wikipedia has some statistics on this here:    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate.   If I extract some of the key developed countries:

Country	Firearm related homicides per 100,000
Australia	0.16
Canada	0.38
Denmark	0.22
Finland	0.32
France	0.21
Germany	0.07
Hong Kong	0.00
Japan	0.00
Norway	0.10
South Korea	0.02
United Kingdom	0.06
United States	3.43

Some countries (Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong) have virtually no firearms homicides.   While the US has almost a 3rd world rate of homicides.

I have always speculated that this was related to gun control laws.   Countries with strict gun control have low incidence of gun violence.

But... Larry Correia has an interesting analysis of this here:  http://monsterhunternation.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/,
and his arguments are convincing.   Essentially, given that you have a high level of violence in your society, arming law abiding citizens can
actually reduce the violence.    Of course he doesn't have anything resembling rigorous statistics, but it's still a convincing argument.

Many of the posts in the 'firearms in the home' thread were enlightening.   But I noticed that Americans seem to be much more concerned for
your personal safety than we are up here in Canada.    Or in many of the European countries I've visited, for that matter.

So why is there so much violence in the US?    Is it the vast disparity in wealth between kids living in the ghetto and the middle and upper class?   Is it something about
living in poverty?    Is it the American philosophy of being the world's policeman and needing a strong military to be a super power?   What's really behind this?

[mxt0133]

I too used to think that if more people were armed that gun violence would actually go down.  In situations like mass shootings the theory would be someone in the crowd would be able to fire back.  However, mass shooting account for a very low percentage of gun related deaths.*  Since most of them are gang related involving young adults and juveniles, more guns would essentially bring us back to the days of the wild west in my opinion. 

Imagine if more citizens decided to obtain concealed carry permits for protection, the minor incidences of violence that frequently occur can suddenly escalate is to a fatal shooting.  All those road rage incidents can all of a sudden balloon into shootouts in the heat of the moment.

The arguments of why Chicago that has some of the most strict gun law have the highest incidence of gun violence doesn't hold because the guns are brought into the state illegally from other states where you can literally go into a gun show and walk out with a gun in under 30 minutes.**


One of the reason why the US has such a high incidence of firearm related deaths is correlated to where the top gun manufactures are based.  It would be in their best interest to arm the public so that law enforcement agents will have to be able to respond to those situations with high caliber and capacity arms.  Win win scenario for the gun manufactures.  That's my theory anyway.


*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
**http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2016/1/11/lax-gun-laws-in-indiana-fuel-violence-in-chicago.html

[PAstash]

The problem is violence. not guns. If someone wants to hurt someone else they will. you making a subsection of violence "Gun violence" is not a relevant way to discuss the topic. if you were to ask the question. Would removing all guns lower actual violent acts? Of course not people have been killing each other since humans have been around. Rocks not good enough? use a club? no clubs? how about a sword? no swords how about a catapult poison bomb gas knife gun ... your fist?

We need to address the root causes of violence not the means by which violence is being committed. The only thing taking away firearms will do is 1. remove the elderly infirm or diminutive from being able to defend themselves against the younger more physically opposing/aggressive people(the ones more prone to violence). 2. Cause people who would be able to defend themselves legally go to illegal methods. 3. cause people to use a different means to hurt each other.

So why is there higher cause Is because it is more accessible. Would getting rid of them stop "gun violence" well not completely because you can't uninvent something. It may reduce it. However I bet you would see more bombings gas attacks and stab wounds ;)

[RetiredAt63]

From what PAstash wrote, we need to look at all causes of violent mortality. Since Canada has such strict controls on handguns (private citizens do not own handguns, that is for police, military and security) (and I am still appalled at the numbers above for Canada versus the European countries), are we killing each other as much as our neighbours do, but with other weapons?  Or are there societies that are more likely to kill?  And I read somewhere, long ago, that societies either turn their violence outward (more murders) or inward (more suicides).  And what about history - the American frontier was much more violent than the Canadian frontier, but we had the North-West Mounted police (now the RCMP).  Of course, what difference in the two societies meant that one had a frontier police force and the other did not.

At this point I am going to go do violence in my yard (those weeds are coming out today) so someone else can do the research.  But it is an interesting thought.

[Metric Mouse]

Many of the posts in the 'firearms in the home' thread were enlightening.   But I noticed that Americans seem to be much more concerned for
your personal safety than we are up here in Canada.    Or in many of the European countries I've visited, for that matter.

So why is there so much violence in the US?    Is it the vast disparity in wealth between kids living in the ghetto and the middle and upper class?   Is it something about
living in poverty?    Is it the American philosophy of being the world's policeman and needing a strong military to be a super power?   What's really behind this?

Socioeconomics, in my opinion. The vast majority of firearm violence is confined to small geographic areas in the USA. A very small demographic of citizens commit the vast majority of firearm violence (and most types of violence, actually).  Data and long-term trends show that gun availability and gun control laws have negligible impact on firearm violence rates - addressing socioeconomic issues would do far more than arming or disarming the populace.

[Malum Prohibitum]

There are huge differences in these numbers in the US based on race, as well, which most people do not factor.  This really reflects culture, or subculture, rather than race, but it is definitely worth discussing.

Critiques of A Tale of Two Cities (a study by Kellerman, a gun control advocate at the CDC) is definitely worth reading.  He compared Vancouver and Seattle crime rates back in the 80s and came to the conclusion that Vancouver's stricter gun control as compared to Seattle explained Vancouver's lower murder rates.  The researcher's conclusion was that the risk of murder in Seattle was "explained by a 4.8-fold higher risk of being murdered with a handgun in Seattle.  We conclude that restricting access to handguns may reduce the rate of homicide in a community."  In other words, guns were the culprit.

In order to come to that conclusion, the researchers ignored race. They glossed over the disparate ethnic compositions of Seattle (12.1% Black and Hispanic; 7.4% Asian) and Vancouver (0.8% Black and Hispanic; 22.1% Asian). The importance? Despite typically higher prevalence of legal gun ownership amongst non-Hispanic-Caucasians in the US, the homicide rate was lower for non-Hispanic-Caucasian Seattle residents (6.2 per 100,000) than for those in adjacent Vancouver, Canada (6.4). Only because the Seattle Black (36.6) and Hispanic (26.9) homicide rates were astronomic could the authors make their claim.

In other words, the homicide rate for whites during the study period was actually higher in Vancouver, the city in Canada with stricter gun control.

Here is an interesting chart for you.
http://www.guncite.com/CDCStats/us9794_fhomi.htm
The data is a little old now (90s), but it illustrates the point. 

The murder rate among white males, aged 20 to 24 (the highest murder age range), is 11.82 per 100,000.

This is almost twice the national average for all ages and races.

According to the same chart:

The murder rate among black males, aged 20 to 24, is 133.34 per 100,000.

Thankfully, both of these rates are lower now, almost 20 years later, in spite of the presence of tens of millions more guns in private hands in the United States during that period of time, but they go to show that you cannot ignore cultural factors. 

The US is a violent culture in general, and certain subcultures are extremely violent, equivalent to or more so than third world countries.

[alsoknownasDean]

Comparing the rate in the US with that of Switzerland (0.23) is an interesting comparison because the latter also has a high level of firearm ownership.

But yeah it'd be interesting to see the US statistics broken down by area (and socio-economic status if possible).

[Metric Mouse]

Comparing the rate in the US with that of Switzerland (0.23) is an interesting comparison because the latter also has a high level of firearm ownership.

But yeah it'd be interesting to see the US statistics broken down by area (and socio-economic status if possible).

The FBI ucr does this. (Basically)

[Grog]

Comparing the rate in the US with that of Switzerland (0.23) is an interesting comparison because the latter also has a high level of firearm ownership.

But yeah it'd be interesting to see the US statistics broken down by area (and socio-economic status if possible).

Remember that we have a lot of firearms (every citizen is part of army militia and has an assault rifle at home), but not a lot of ammunition. It's actually really tricky to get ammunition. Once you had a box of 20 bullet sealed and never to be open but in case of mobilisation, but now it is more strict. So for many people the firearms are little more than paperweights, unusable without bullets.

Sent from my YD201 using Tapatalk

[cerat0n1a]

I have always speculated that this was related to gun control laws.   Countries with strict gun control have low incidence of gun violence.

I have absolutely no doubt that this is true. But for the US it's one of those "I wouldn't start from here" situations. In Britain, very few criminals have access to guns and the police are rarely armed. Strict gun control means that only farmers, people shooting pheasants etc. for sport have them and those guns are almost never used against people.

Strict gun control laws in the US, would take guns out of the hands of law abiding majority but not do anything to stop criminals possessing guns. No law is going to completely remove the 300+ million guns in circulation in the US. The US homicide rate has halved since the early 90s, still around 15 times higher than western Europe.

[deborah]

You may be interested in this http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/fact-check-gun-homicides-and-suicides-john-howard-port-arthur/7254880 - a review that our Australian national broadcaster did this year of our gun control laws, 20 years on. It has some interesting graphs. You may not be aware that the last multi-person (more than 5 people dead) massacre we had was at Port Arthur, a tourist attraction, and 35 people died, and after that the gun control laws were put in place. Before that (20 years ago), we had one multi-person massacre every two years on average. In the 20 years since there hasn't been one.

Our gun control laws appear to have helped reduce gun related deaths - particularly accidental deaths (such as toddlers killing their parents - which I guess would not be included in "gun violence") which really dropped enormously after the laws came into effect - but our gun death rate was already falling, so it is difficult to argue either way. However in the 20 years since, we now have 67% fewer firearm suicides, death by assault by firearm have gone from .6 per 100,000 to .1, and homicide has more than halved.

Sure criminals have guns - by definition they don't obey the law, but in Australia, that doesn't mean that ordinary citizens want to carry guns around with them. When I was in the US, I saw a big advertising sign on the road, saying "Sell your guns, and buy a machine gun". I cannot understand how anyone can justify owning a machine gun! It isn't useful on a farm, or for anything other than a war or a massacre.
We are a multicultural society, with a lot of migrants from lands where guns are normally carried, but somehow people don't do it. I like to think it is a matter of trust. People trust that the people around them are normal people, are not carrying guns and are not out to get them.

[Malum Prohibitum]

Comparing the rate in the US with that of Switzerland (0.23) is an interesting comparison because the latter also has a high level of firearm ownership.

But yeah it'd be interesting to see the US statistics broken down by area (and socio-economic status if possible).

Remember that we have a lot of firearms (every citizen is part of army militia and has an assault rifle at home), but not a lot of ammunition. It's actually really tricky to get ammunition. Once you had a box of 20 bullet sealed and never to be open but in case of mobilisation, but now it is more strict. So for many people the firearms are little more than paperweights, unusable without bullets.

Sent from my YD201 using Tapatalk

  Grog,
How do people in Switzerland shoot at the range or in competitions if ammunition is so hard to come by?  http://www.swissrifles.com/shooting/
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/swiss_teen_rifle_festival.html
https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/switzerland/knabenschiessen
http://www.wnyc.org/story/276901-whats-worked-and-what-hasnt-in-gun-loving-switzerland/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-eu-guns-idUSKCN1161KT

[Metric Mouse]

Comparing the rate in the US with that of Switzerland (0.23) is an interesting comparison because the latter also has a high level of firearm ownership.

But yeah it'd be interesting to see the US statistics broken down by area (and socio-economic status if possible).

Remember that we have a lot of firearms (every citizen is part of army militia and has an assault rifle at home), but not a lot of ammunition. It's actually really tricky to get ammunition. Once you had a box of 20 bullet sealed and never to be open but in case of mobilisation, but now it is more strict. So for many people the firearms are little more than paperweights, unusable without bullets.

Sent from my YD201 using Tapatalk

  Grog,
How do people in Switzerland shoot at the range or in competitions if ammunition is so hard to come by?  http://www.swissrifles.com/shooting/
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/swiss_teen_rifle_festival.html
https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/switzerland/knabenschiessen
http://www.wnyc.org/story/276901-whats-worked-and-what-hasnt-in-gun-loving-switzerland/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-eu-guns-idUSKCN1161KT

The first link says that ammunition is available at the range. I would imagine one buys it there, shoots it there, and takes the empty rifle home.

Selling beer and wine at the range is what gets me. So many different perspectives in the world. I love it.

[Grog]

Most of us is not an hobby shooter. We have to shoot 20 bullets per year to "remain trained". They give you the 20 bullets at the range and then check, more or less, that you don't bring them home.
If you are a member, hobby shooter, you buy them at the range but most of the time won't bring them back at home, you buy then to shoot them...


Sent from my YD201 using Tapatalk

[human]

Canadians can own handguns. They are considered "restricted" and can only be fired at a gund range. They can not be stored loaded qnd must have at least a trigger  lock. Can't carry them, in fact if you stop for groceries on the way back from the range you could be charged.

Just mentioning this because someone upthread stated canadians can't own handguns.

Interesting commentary about the swiss. What's the use of each citizen having a rifle with no ammo? Why not just hand out the rifles with the ammo when needed?

[Metric Mouse]

Interesting commentary about the swiss. What's the use of each citizen having a rifle with no ammo? Why not just hand out the rifles with the ammo when needed?

To be fair, in America it's generally illegal to fire one's handgun in areas not private property/properly designated as a range. People still do though, sadly.

As for the Swiss model; Having a rifle in the home allows citizens to easily remain proficient. If citizens are required to shoot each year, it is orders of magnitude more efficient for them to have the weapon readily available than to have to go to a central area to get it, and then return it to the central depot when finished.

Also, as a practical matter, it's much, much easier, logistically speaking, to store stockpiles of ammunition in each community than it would be to store and maintain rifles for each citizen. 

Those are just off the top of my head.

[human]

Seems to make sense. Lock up the bullets because they are smaller essentially. Reminds me of the Chirs Rock standup routine, make bullets 10,000 a piece and people couldn't shoot their guns so much.

Wiki mentions the Swiss started this in 2007, so I'm not crazy at one point I had heard that Swiss stored their own ammo as well. It looks like they changed this for some reason, it would be interesting to see the effect on murders, accidents and suicides pre ammo control and post ammo control.

[hdatontodo]

Baltimore City has had a revolving door criminal justice system for gun criminals.

Also, both the assailants and victims have ties to the criminal justice system
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-01-02/news/bs-md-ci-homicide-analysis-20120102_1_baltimore-murder-victims-stanley-brunson-violent-crime
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-cops-killers-victims-20160107-story.html

Baltimore had a lot of murders in 2016
http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/police/homicides/index.php?show_results=UPDATE+MAP&range=2016&district=all&zipcode=All&cause=all&age=all&gender=all&race=all&article=all

[RetiredAt63]

Canadians can own handguns. They are considered "restricted" and can only be fired at a gund range. They can not be stored loaded qnd must have at least a trigger  lock. Can't carry them, in fact if you stop for groceries on the way back from the range you could be charged.

Just mentioning this because someone upthread stated canadians can't own handguns.

Interesting commentary about the swiss. What's the use of each citizen having a rifle with no ammo? Why not just hand out the rifles with the ammo when needed?

That was me, I didn't know this.  I knew they were restricted, but had read somewhere that the restrictions were much tighter than that.  As in, people with violent ex-spouses and restraining orders and death threats still can't get a handgun license.  I gather from what you wrote that a person in that situation could have the gun, but it would not really be of any use except at home (or even then?).

If you (generic you) can't carry them, then how do the guns get from the firing range to the home?  Or do they have to be stored at the firing range?

[Metric Mouse]

Canadians can own handguns. They are considered "restricted" and can only be fired at a gund range. They can not be stored loaded qnd must have at least a trigger  lock. Can't carry them, in fact if you stop for groceries on the way back from the range you could be charged.

Just mentioning this because someone upthread stated canadians can't own handguns.

Interesting commentary about the swiss. What's the use of each citizen having a rifle with no ammo? Why not just hand out the rifles with the ammo when needed?

That was me, I didn't know this.  I knew they were restricted, but had read somewhere that the restrictions were much tighter than that.  As in, people with violent ex-spouses and restraining orders and death threats still can't get a handgun license.  I gather from what you wrote that a person in that situation could have the gun, but it would not really be of any use except at home (or even then?).

If you (generic you) can't carry them, then how do the guns get from the firing range to the home?  Or do they have to be stored at the firing range?

Per Wikipedia: (Mostly to answer the 'transport' question)

Transportation: Restricted and prohibited firearms must be: unloaded, made inoperable with a secure locking device, and locked in a sturdy container. Prohibited firearms must also have their bolts or bolt-carriers removed, if removable.

To purchase a handgun or other restricted firearm, a person must have a restricted possession and acquisition licence (RPAL) for restricted firearms.

Canada's federal laws severely restrict the ability of civilians to transport restricted or prohibited (grandfathered) firearms in public. Section 17 of the Firearms Act makes it an offence to possess prohibited or restricted firearms other than at a dwelling-house or authorized location, but there are two exceptions to this prohibition found in sections 19 and 20 of the act. Section 19 allows for persons to be issued an authorization to transport, or ATT, authorizing the transport of a firearm outside the home for certain purposes, such as for its transfer to a new owner, going to and from a range, a training course, repair shop or gun show, or when the owner wishes to change the address where the firearm is stored. Such firearms must be transported unloaded, equipped with a trigger lock and stored in secure, locked containers. In rarer cases, section 20 of the act allows individuals to receive an authorization to carry, or ATC, granting permission to carry loaded restricted firearms or (section 12(6)) prohibited handguns on their persons for certain reasons specified in the act. These reasons are as follows: if the person is a licensed trapper and carries the firearm while trapping, if the person is in a remote wilderness area and needs the firearm for protection against wildlife, if the person's work involves guarding or handling money or other items of substantial value, or if the person's life is in danger and police protection is inadequate to protect him or her. It should be noted that the authorities almost never issue an ATC for the last reason, that is to say, because a person's life is threatened and police protection is inadequate. The vast majority of ATC's issued are to employees of armoured car companies to allow carry of a company owned firearm only while working.

As far as the actual restrictions on getting an RPAL, I'm sure there are many restrictions of various orders of effectiveness.

[human]

Canadians can own handguns. They are considered "restricted" and can only be fired at a gund range. They can not be stored loaded qnd must have at least a trigger  lock. Can't carry them, in fact if you stop for groceries on the way back from the range you could be charged.

Just mentioning this because someone upthread stated canadians can't own handguns.

Interesting commentary about the swiss. What's the use of each citizen having a rifle with no ammo? Why not just hand out the rifles with the ammo when needed?

That was me, I didn't know this.  I knew they were restricted, but had read somewhere that the restrictions were much tighter than that.  As in, people with violent ex-spouses and restraining orders and death threats still can't get a handgun license.  I gather from what you wrote that a person in that situation could have the gun, but it would not really be of any use except at home (or even then?).

If you (generic you) can't carry them, then how do the guns get from the firing range to the home?  Or do they have to be stored at the firing range?

Hi retired@63 your first post seemed to suggest only law enforcement can have them. Violent offenders definitely cannot get a license. Not sure about summary convictions (misdemeanors in the US.). Metric Mouse has posted some info. You can transport the weapons to the range from your home but that's it, can't bring it anywhere else and it must be stored appropriately. Theoretically if police were to stop you and you were obviously no where near your home and the range you could be charged.

Getting a license isn't that easy, criminal check, references needed and if you live with a spouse they must also sign the application.

EDIT: carry for actual defense purposes you are right law enforcement, security services only can carry them. Heck the soldiers that take part in the changing of the guard on Parliament hill don't have loaded rifles.

[GuitarStv]

The higher rates in Canada are in a large part due to proximity to the US.  Lax gun control laws mean that it's easy for people to buy weapons in the states, this means that criminals tend to smuggle illegal weapons over the border and then use them in crimes an awful lot in Canada.

[human]

It could be lower but when I compare the homicide rate for the entire country of Canada with a population of 35 million to one city in the US like Chicago I feel a little bit safer.

[little_brown_dog]

From a public health perspective, there could be a number of contributing factors including:
1.   Poverty cycle – the US not only has a huge wealth disparity, but our government invests less in public assistance and public insitutions like healthcare and education than many other developed nations. This means working class and poor people are more or less on their own even if they do receive some assistance. The assistance they receive is usually only enough to keep them from abject poverty, but rarely enough to really give them a leg up into a higher quality of living. Poor areas often have poor school environments and resources, further reducing the odds that these individuals will ever have a legitimate path to a high paying job or an escape out of their dysfunctional environments. And as you know, poverty and violence in general go hand in hand. Many of the other nations you cited have really strong social welfare programs including affordable healthcare, education, generous public assistance programs, etc. The US doesn't come close. It can be extremely dog-eat-dog for many Americans. I suspect that the severity of US poverty, and the sheer magnitude of it, probably dwarfs that found in many of those other nations you listed.
2.   Unplanned pregnancies, subpar childhood development -  To make matters worse, almost half of US pregnancies are unplanned…meaning there are an awful lot of babies being born to parents who do not feel ready to be parents for whatever reason. This has massive impacts that most people can’t really fathom. A mother who doesn’t know she is pregnant may take medications, drugs, or alcohol until she realizes she is pregnant. These substances are associated with increased behavioral and emotional disorders in the children later in life, and lack of impulse control and aggression can be symptoms of these disorders. In a ddition, when a family is not ready but tries to raise a child, it can lead to more family dysfunction, financial difficulties, etc, negatively impacting the quality of care a child receives through their critical emotional developmental years. A history of being abused, or witnessing abuse in your family, is also associated with severely dysfunctional behaviors and emotions later in life. To make matters worse, many people cannot afford high quality child care, and must rely on questionable child care arrangements where children may be subject to dangerous or neglectful situations. In other nations where more children are carefully planned by parents who feel ready to have them, the odds of new generations being born into more emotionally and financially stable homes is greatly increased.
3.   High rates of substance abuse – The US has high rates of alcohol and substance abuse and many gun related crimes are directly or indirectly related to drug use or the drug trade.
4.   Poor access to mental health services – Due to our lack of a universal healthcare system and often subpar private insurance plans, many people cannot afford mental health treatment if they are suffering from psychological problems. This may prevent someone from seeking timely treatment, or in depth on going treatment, for their problems. In addition, if people cannot afford a maintenance regimen of psychiatric drugs, they may go on and off or ration their medications, leading to increased emotional instability.

As others have mentioned, our easy access and huge supply of guns definitely contributes, but it is probably not the underlying cause of our violence problem in the US. I suspect that a bunch of different socioeconomic factors are fundamentally the problem causing high rates of violence in the first place. With guns being easily accessible and frighteningly easy to operate, they are simply the most effective form of violence in many instances. More stringent gun laws would probably decrease the rates of gun violence, but they most certainly wouldn't address the root cause of why so many people behave violently.

[Metric Mouse]

The higher rates in Canada are in a large part due to proximity to the US.  Lax gun control laws mean that it's easy for people to buy weapons in the states, this means that criminals tend to smuggle illegal weapons over the border and then use them in crimes an awful lot in Canada.

Those dang criminals just never seem to follow the law. If only they were required to lock the unloaded weapons in their cars when they smuggled them in, Canada would be much safer.

From a public health perspective, there could be a number of contributing factors including:
...
3.   High rates of substance abuse – The US has high rates of alcohol and substance abuse and many gun related crimes are directly or indirectly related to drug use or the drug trade.
...

This is an interesting point. America has massively larger substance abuse problems than almost any other country, despite relatively strict drug laws.  This could be a huge part of violence in general, leading to gun violence specifically. Perhaps we should blame our neighboring countries for having such lax drug laws.

[RetiredAt63]

This is an interesting point. America has massively larger substance abuse problems than almost any other country, despite relatively strict drug laws.  This could be a huge part of violence in general, leading to gun violence specifically. Perhaps we should blame our neighboring countries for having such lax drug laws.

I'd feel guilty about our maple syrup helping your obesity rates (and ours), but Maine and Vermont residents might get mad at me.

[Metric Mouse]

This is an interesting point. America has massively larger substance abuse problems than almost any other country, despite relatively strict drug laws.  This could be a huge part of violence in general, leading to gun violence specifically. Perhaps we should blame our neighboring countries for having such lax drug laws.

I'd feel guilty about our maple syrup helping your obesity rates (and ours), but Maine and Vermont residents might get mad at me.

Ha! Yes, that is one thing America does not need help with. We can get fat all by ourselves, thank you very much!

[GuitarStv]

The higher rates in Canada are in a large part due to proximity to the US.  Lax gun control laws mean that it's easy for people to buy weapons in the states, this means that criminals tend to smuggle illegal weapons over the border and then use them in crimes an awful lot in Canada.

Those dang criminals just never seem to follow the law. If only they were required to lock the unloaded weapons in their cars when they smuggled them in, Canada would be much safer.

Yep, criminals will do illegal things.

That's why the issue of availability and ease of obtaining a gun is so important on the US side of the border.  It's harder to get a gun in Canada.  It's easy to get a gun in the US.  If it were harder to get a gun in the US, Canadian gun violence and crimes would drop simply due to availability.

[Metric Mouse]

The higher rates in Canada are in a large part due to proximity to the US.  Lax gun control laws mean that it's easy for people to buy weapons in the states, this means that criminals tend to smuggle illegal weapons over the border and then use them in crimes an awful lot in Canada.

Those dang criminals just never seem to follow the law. If only they were required to lock the unloaded weapons in their cars when they smuggled them in, Canada would be much safer.

Yep, criminals will do illegal things.

That's why the issue of availability and ease of obtaining a gun is so important on the US side of the border.  It's harder to get a gun in Canada.  It's easy to get a gun in the US.  If it were harder to get a gun in the US, Canadian gun violence and crimes would drop simply due to availability.

It might. There is little evidence that gun availability is strongly correlated with gun violence, so the effects are largely unknown. Shouldn't Canadian gun crime be increasing, as there has been a massive increase in gun availability in the USA for the last two decades, and a general reduction and relaxing of gun control laws? (And Canada, as well, considering the gun registry has been deleted) As it hasn't, then it seems likely that there are other, more powerful indicators of gun crime.

I think the far more effective way to do this is to focus on why criminals commit these crimes, and fix those issues. This has been shown to reduce violence.

[GuitarStv]

The higher rates in Canada are in a large part due to proximity to the US.  Lax gun control laws mean that it's easy for people to buy weapons in the states, this means that criminals tend to smuggle illegal weapons over the border and then use them in crimes an awful lot in Canada.

Those dang criminals just never seem to follow the law. If only they were required to lock the unloaded weapons in their cars when they smuggled them in, Canada would be much safer.

Yep, criminals will do illegal things.

That's why the issue of availability and ease of obtaining a gun is so important on the US side of the border.  It's harder to get a gun in Canada.  It's easy to get a gun in the US.  If it were harder to get a gun in the US, Canadian gun violence and crimes would drop simply due to availability.

It might. There is little evidence that gun availability is strongly correlated with gun violence, so the effects are largely unknown. Shouldn't Canadian gun crime be increasing, as there has been a massive increase in gun availability in the USA for the last two decades, and a general reduction and relaxing of gun control laws? (And Canada, as well, considering the gun registry has been deleted) As it hasn't, then it seems likely that there are other, more powerful indicators of gun crime.

There has been an increase in gun homicides over the past 20 years for the easiest firearm to smuggle from the US (handguns - coincidentally, also the most commonly used firearm in a homicide in Canada).



Our firearms control policies and policing strategies have been effective in reducing all other firearm related crime in Canada, but hand gun crime has increased over the past 20 years.

I think the far more effective way to do this is to focus on why criminals commit these crimes, and fix those issues. This has been shown to reduce violence.

Yep.  I agree that focusing on why criminals commit crimes and fixing those issues is a good way to reduce violence.  That said, it's difficult to ever imagine a perfect world where all problems leading to crime are fixed.  Increasing gun control on the US side of the border will likely always have a beneficial effect for Canada.

[deborah]

The higher rates in Canada are in a large part due to proximity to the US.  Lax gun control laws mean that it's easy for people to buy weapons in the states, this means that criminals tend to smuggle illegal weapons over the border and then use them in crimes an awful lot in Canada.

Those dang criminals just never seem to follow the law. If only they were required to lock the unloaded weapons in their cars when they smuggled them in, Canada would be much safer.

Yep, criminals will do illegal things.

That's why the issue of availability and ease of obtaining a gun is so important on the US side of the border.  It's harder to get a gun in Canada.  It's easy to get a gun in the US.  If it were harder to get a gun in the US, Canadian gun violence and crimes would drop simply due to availability.

Are you saying that the higher Canadian figure (in comparison to the others given in the initial post - apart from the USA) is because of your neighbour's slack gun laws? But everyone at the start was saying that gun control had nothing to do with it. Have we come the full circle?

[GuitarStv]

The higher rates in Canada are in a large part due to proximity to the US.  Lax gun control laws mean that it's easy for people to buy weapons in the states, this means that criminals tend to smuggle illegal weapons over the border and then use them in crimes an awful lot in Canada.

Those dang criminals just never seem to follow the law. If only they were required to lock the unloaded weapons in their cars when they smuggled them in, Canada would be much safer.

Yep, criminals will do illegal things.

That's why the issue of availability and ease of obtaining a gun is so important on the US side of the border.  It's harder to get a gun in Canada.  It's easy to get a gun in the US.  If it were harder to get a gun in the US, Canadian gun violence and crimes would drop simply due to availability.

Are you saying that the higher Canadian figure (in comparison to the others given in the initial post - apart from the USA) is because of your neighbour's slack gun laws? But everyone at the start was saying that gun control had nothing to do with it. Have we come the full circle?

There is conflicting evidence regarding the effectiveness of gun control on gun violence and crime.

I think that we can all agree that gun crime requires guns to be committed.  Without illegally purchased US guns, there would be fewer firearms available to Canadian criminals.

There is evidence that fewer illegal firearms tends to correlate with lower gun crime.  http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/78/4/1461.short

[deborah]

Because English speaking countries tend to have the same philosophies, I went back to the table originally quoted by OP and got the stats:

Country	Firearm related homicides per 100,000
Australia	0.16
Canada	0.38
New Zealand	0.18
United Kingdom	0.06
United States	3.43

It does look like Canada is contaminated by the USA gun control laws from the casual glance.

[Metric Mouse]

Because English speaking countries tend to have the same philosophies, I went back to the table originally quoted by OP and got the stats:

Country	Firearm related homicides per 100,000
Australia	0.16
Canada	0.38
New Zealand	0.18
United Kingdom	0.06
United States	3.43

It does look like Canada is contaminated by the USA gun control laws from the casual glance.

Yes... and probably Mexico too. Seems to be, at a casual glance.  :) 

Stv: i expected better from you than cherry-picked data points.  The obvious trend has been downward since the early  90s.

Perhaps if Canada put up some sort of border wall to prevent all those illegal guns from entering the country. (Sorry, it is Trump season.)

[Malum Prohibitum]

To be fair, in America it's generally illegal to fire one's handgun in areas not private property/properly designated as a range. People still do though, sadly.

  Isn't almost everywhere private property?   LOL!  Anyway, this is wrong.  Most any area of National Forest is open to shooting so long as it is not hunting season and you are a certain distance from the road.

[deborah]

To be fair, in America it's generally illegal to fire one's handgun in areas not private property/properly designated as a range. People still do though, sadly.

  Isn't almost everywhere private property?   LOL!  Anyway, this is wrong.  Most any area of National Forest is open to shooting so long as it is not hunting season and you are a certain distance from the road.

So if I go to the US and walk in the National Forest, I could get shot, eaten by bears, kicked to death by moose... And you guys think that Australia is dangerous!

[Malum Prohibitum]

To be fair, in America it's generally illegal to fire one's handgun in areas not private property/properly designated as a range. People still do though, sadly.

  Isn't almost everywhere private property?   LOL!  Anyway, this is wrong.  Most any area of National Forest is open to shooting so long as it is not hunting season and you are a certain distance from the road.

So if I go to the US and walk in the National Forest, I could get shot, eaten by bears, kicked to death by moose... And you guys think that Australia is dangerous!

  LOL!  deborah, I have spent a lot of time in the National Forest, going places most people never see, and I would encourage you to get out there and see it.  There are some absolutely stunningly beautiful areas when you get off the beaten path and disappear into the woods a few miles.

[ooeei]

If you look at intentional homicide rate, the US is still at the top of the list shown in the OP, but not by nearly as much.  Gun violence rate doesn't matter if other means are used.  Maybe the US has a lower samurai sword suicide rate than Japan, but who gives a shit if people are still committing suicide with other tools?  Especially of note is that the "0" values from the gun violence statistic disappear.  The US is still higher, and there could be many reasons for that.  Availability of guns is likely part of the problem, but I find it hard to believe that if guns were made available in the UK their homicide rate would quadruple, or if they were made available in Japan it would increase 10x. 

I think there are likely other issues besides gun availability that play a role here, and I'd prefer to address those before deciding to disarm the populace.  There are plenty things besides gun laws that are different between these countries.  Healthcare is an obvious one, maternity leave, social safety nets, drug abuse, and education systems to name a few.  These aren't inconsequential things, approximately 500,000 people each year file for bankruptcy due to medical expenses in the United States.  That doesn't include the people who just pay the debt forever.

Another question to ponder, is why does France have 4x the violent crime rate of Japan?  If we can't explain it by gun violence, what could it possibly be explained by?  And why do Japan and South Korea have approximately double the suicide rate the United States does? 

It's also interesting that so many people are assuming Canada's problems are caused by the United States, but few have mentioned that Mexico has 4x the intentional homicide rate as the US, compared to the <3x multiple of the US to Canada.  Do you all think that the US's high rate is caused by bleed over from Mexico?  If Canada's problem is affected by the US, it stands to reason the US's problem is affected by Mexico. 

How many of the other countries in this list share a border with a country that has a rate similar to Mexico's?  Not to mention, it's a border that is very well acknowledged by pretty much everyone not to be very secure (the argument is not whether people make it across, but what to do about them).  I feel obligated to say now that I don't think everyone from Mexico is a rapist or criminal, the majority of them aren't, but the intentional homicide statistics aren't very encouraging that they're all model citizens. 

Intentional homicide rate:

Mexico: 15.7/100,000
US: 3.9/100,000
Australia: 1/100,000
UK: .9/100,000
France: 1.2/100,000
Canada: 1.4/100,000
Japan: .3/100,000
Finland: 1.6/100,000
Denmark: 1/100,000
South Korea: .7/100,000

[Chris22]

It's easy to get a gun in the US.  If it were harder to get a gun in the US, Canadian gun violence and crimes would drop simply due to availability.

In theory.  In practice, there are already an estimated 300M+ guns in the US, so unless you try and confiscate them (good luck!) the cat's already out of the bag.  That's what gun control advocates don't seem to get.  Yes, if you could confiscate all guns and THEN institute very strict controls on acquiring them, you could maybe 'solve' the problem, but in the real world where we all live, there are already so many guns out there that trying to solve anything by restricting new gun sales is just absurd. 


Also, FWIW, I just came back from a weekend in a time and place where every single person was carrying one gun and most were carrying 2*, and not a single problem with anyone anywhere.  It ain't the guns, folks.


*opening weekend for gun season in Northern WI, everyone has a hunting rifle and most were also carrying a sidearm.  I walked into a grocery store open carrying a Sig .40 pistol and no one blinked an eye (I was on my way into the woods). 

[Kris]

It's easy to get a gun in the US.  If it were harder to get a gun in the US, Canadian gun violence and crimes would drop simply due to availability.

In theory.  In practice, there are already an estimated 300M+ guns in the US, so unless you try and confiscate them (good luck!) the cat's already out of the bag.  That's what gun control advocates don't seem to get.  Yes, if you could confiscate all guns and THEN institute very strict controls on acquiring them, you could maybe 'solve' the problem, but in the real world where we all live, there are already so many guns out there that trying to solve anything by restricting new gun sales is just absurd. 


Also, FWIW, I just came back from a weekend in a time and place where every single person was carrying one gun and most were carrying 2*, and not a single problem with anyone anywhere.  It ain't the guns, folks.


*opening weekend for gun season in Northern WI, everyone has a hunting rifle and most were also carrying a sidearm.  I walked into a grocery store open carrying a Sig .40 pistol and no one blinked an eye (I was on my way into the woods).

This is one of the few things I will agree with Chris22 on. Gun control is already not a real option. It's far, far too late for that.

[GuitarStv]

It's easy to get a gun in the US.  If it were harder to get a gun in the US, Canadian gun violence and crimes would drop simply due to availability.

In theory.  In practice, there are already an estimated 300M+ guns in the US, so unless you try and confiscate them (good luck!) the cat's already out of the bag.  That's what gun control advocates don't seem to get.  Yes, if you could confiscate all guns and THEN institute very strict controls on acquiring them, you could maybe 'solve' the problem, but in the real world where we all live, there are already so many guns out there that trying to solve anything by restricting new gun sales is just absurd. 


Also, FWIW, I just came back from a weekend in a time and place where every single person was carrying one gun and most were carrying 2*, and not a single problem with anyone anywhere.  It ain't the guns, folks.


*opening weekend for gun season in Northern WI, everyone has a hunting rifle and most were also carrying a sidearm.  I walked into a grocery store open carrying a Sig .40 pistol and no one blinked an eye (I was on my way into the woods).

This is one of the few things I will agree with Chris22 on. Gun control is already not a real option. It's far, far too late for that.

Agreed.  Canada just has to deal with the clusterfuck that the US has created regarding gun sales.

[RetiredAt63]

And a lot of shootings are gang-related - in many cities murders and general shootings go way up when gang wars start.  And of course the handguns they are using are illegal, but they are gangs, so illegal gun use is expected.  Easiest is from across the border.  Maybe we should be building that wall.  Complete with moat.  Just no alligators, or piranhas, they won't survive the winter.

[Metric Mouse]

It's easy to get a gun in the US.  If it were harder to get a gun in the US, Canadian gun violence and crimes would drop simply due to availability.

In theory.  In practice, there are already an estimated 300M+ guns in the US, so unless you try and confiscate them (good luck!) the cat's already out of the bag.  That's what gun control advocates don't seem to get.  Yes, if you could confiscate all guns and THEN institute very strict controls on acquiring them, you could maybe 'solve' the problem, but in the real world where we all live, there are already so many guns out there that trying to solve anything by restricting new gun sales is just absurd. 


Also, FWIW, I just came back from a weekend in a time and place where every single person was carrying one gun and most were carrying 2*, and not a single problem with anyone anywhere.  It ain't the guns, folks.


*opening weekend for gun season in Northern WI, everyone has a hunting rifle and most were also carrying a sidearm.  I walked into a grocery store open carrying a Sig .40 pistol and no one blinked an eye (I was on my way into the woods).

This is one of the few things I will agree with Chris22 on. Gun control is already not a real option. It's far, far too late for that.

Agreed.  Canada just has to deal with the clusterfuck that the US has created regarding gun sales.

Much like America has to deal with the drug sale problems created by Mexico. Sometimes it's beyond our control.

[deborah]

It's easy to get a gun in the US.  If it were harder to get a gun in the US, Canadian gun violence and crimes would drop simply due to availability.

In theory.  In practice, there are already an estimated 300M+ guns in the US, so unless you try and confiscate them (good luck!) the cat's already out of the bag.  That's what gun control advocates don't seem to get.  Yes, if you could confiscate all guns and THEN institute very strict controls on acquiring them, you could maybe 'solve' the problem, but in the real world where we all live, there are already so many guns out there that trying to solve anything by restricting new gun sales is just absurd. 


Also, FWIW, I just came back from a weekend in a time and place where every single person was carrying one gun and most were carrying 2*, and not a single problem with anyone anywhere.  It ain't the guns, folks.


*opening weekend for gun season in Northern WI, everyone has a hunting rifle and most were also carrying a sidearm.  I walked into a grocery store open carrying a Sig .40 pistol and no one blinked an eye (I was on my way into the woods).

This is one of the few things I will agree with Chris22 on. Gun control is already not a real option. It's far, far too late for that.

RUBBISH! When the somewhat draconian gun control laws were instituted in Australia (with 1/10th the population and therefore probably 1/10th the policemen), there was a buy back system. 660,959 guns were taken out of the system - that means, with your population, you should easily be able to take 6 million out of the system. And, given that you have more firearms per person, you should be able to get a much larger number. You are a rich nation, and can afford this, if we can.

[Heywood57]

Limiting the stats to a single type of weapon is a short sighted view of violence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minutes-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html


Removing access to <insert name of weapon> does not magically make violent people non-violent.

[deborah]

To be fair, in America it's generally illegal to fire one's handgun in areas not private property/properly designated as a range. People still do though, sadly.

  Isn't almost everywhere private property?   LOL!  Anyway, this is wrong.  Most any area of National Forest is open to shooting so long as it is not hunting season and you are a certain distance from the road.

So if I go to the US and walk in the National Forest, I could get shot, eaten by bears, kicked to death by moose... And you guys think that Australia is dangerous!

  LOL!  deborah, I have spent a lot of time in the National Forest, going places most people never see, and I would encourage you to get out there and see it.  There are some absolutely stunningly beautiful areas when you get off the beaten path and disappear into the woods a few miles.

I have also spent time in your National Forests. I just didn't think that the pleasure of being shot at was part of the experience. They do occasionally warn you about the bears and moose.

[Metric Mouse]

It's easy to get a gun in the US.  If it were harder to get a gun in the US, Canadian gun violence and crimes would drop simply due to availability.

In theory.  In practice, there are already an estimated 300M+ guns in the US, so unless you try and confiscate them (good luck!) the cat's already out of the bag.  That's what gun control advocates don't seem to get.  Yes, if you could confiscate all guns and THEN institute very strict controls on acquiring them, you could maybe 'solve' the problem, but in the real world where we all live, there are already so many guns out there that trying to solve anything by restricting new gun sales is just absurd. 


Also, FWIW, I just came back from a weekend in a time and place where every single person was carrying one gun and most were carrying 2*, and not a single problem with anyone anywhere.  It ain't the guns, folks.


*opening weekend for gun season in Northern WI, everyone has a hunting rifle and most were also carrying a sidearm.  I walked into a grocery store open carrying a Sig .40 pistol and no one blinked an eye (I was on my way into the woods).

This is one of the few things I will agree with Chris22 on. Gun control is already not a real option. It's far, far too late for that.

RUBBISH! When the somewhat draconian gun control laws were instituted in Australia (with 1/10th the population and therefore probably 1/10th the policemen), there was a buy back system. 660,959 guns were taken out of the system - that means, with your population, you should easily be able to take 6 million out of the system. And, given that you have more firearms per person, you should be able to get a much larger number. You are a rich nation, and can afford this, if we can.

The question would be: what good does it do to remove 6 million guns from the most law abiding citizens? That would still leave a gun for almost every man woman and child; what would be different, exactly?

[deborah]

It's easy to get a gun in the US.  If it were harder to get a gun in the US, Canadian gun violence and crimes would drop simply due to availability.

In theory.  In practice, there are already an estimated 300M+ guns in the US, so unless you try and confiscate them (good luck!) the cat's already out of the bag.  That's what gun control advocates don't seem to get.  Yes, if you could confiscate all guns and THEN institute very strict controls on acquiring them, you could maybe 'solve' the problem, but in the real world where we all live, there are already so many guns out there that trying to solve anything by restricting new gun sales is just absurd. 


Also, FWIW, I just came back from a weekend in a time and place where every single person was carrying one gun and most were carrying 2*, and not a single problem with anyone anywhere.  It ain't the guns, folks.


*opening weekend for gun season in Northern WI, everyone has a hunting rifle and most were also carrying a sidearm.  I walked into a grocery store open carrying a Sig .40 pistol and no one blinked an eye (I was on my way into the woods).

This is one of the few things I will agree with Chris22 on. Gun control is already not a real option. It's far, far too late for that.

RUBBISH! When the somewhat draconian gun control laws were instituted in Australia (with 1/10th the population and therefore probably 1/10th the policemen), there was a buy back system. 660,959 guns were taken out of the system - that means, with your population, you should easily be able to take 6 million out of the system. And, given that you have more firearms per person, you should be able to get a much larger number. You are a rich nation, and can afford this, if we can.

The question would be: what good does it do to remove 6 million guns from the most law abiding citizens? That would still leave a gun for almost every man woman and child; what would be different, exactly?

Since most gun deaths are from accidental use - such as toddlers shooting their parents in the supermarket - it would definitely reduce those deaths (1/6 now in Australia). It would also reduce the deaths from a person accessing someone else's guns and going and killing a room full of school children (no mass murders in Australia for 20 years since the buy back)...

[jamesvt]

Incorrect. Most gun deaths are from suicide (20k) followed by homicide (10k). Of the approximately 30k deaths involving firearms in the US only about 500 of them are accidents.

[deborah]

Incorrect. Most gun deaths are from suicide (20k) followed by homicide (10k). Of the approximately 30k deaths involving firearms in the US only about 500 of them are accidents.

Sorry - you are right. I should add that most suicides from guns are also determined by the availability of guns to normal, law abiding people. They went down 67% in Australia.