Gun Laws Cut Armed Robberies in Canada

[MrBenchley]

"Canadian robbers are giving up their guns, a trend that has prompted some crime experts to suggest that the country's controversial firearms legislation may be having a positive effect.

While the robbery rate dipped only slightly in the decade between 1992 and 2002, the number of robberies involving guns per 100,000 people declined by 62 per cent, according to Statistics Canada data released yesterday.

In 1992, 8,736 robberies were committed across Canada with firearms. By 2002, while the population of the country had grown, the number of robberies with firearms had dropped to 3,472."


http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030725/UCRIMXI/National/Idx

Gun contrrol laws DO make a difference...despite the lies and propaganda put out by the corrupt multi-million dollar gun lobby.

[leanings]

1. Hardly earth-shattering

First, the actual title of the article: Fewer guns being used in robberies Statscan figures show firearms law may be working, crime experts say



There is no way of knowing what is truly causing robbers to abandon their guns, Prof. Gabor said, but the national Firearms Act that was passed in December of 1995 may have had an effect.

First, the law increased the mandatory minimum sentences for 10 different crimes committed with firearms, including robbery, to four years from one.

"Word of a mandatory minimum often gets out on the street," Prof. Gabor said, "and these mandatory penalties can potentially be a deterrent."

Second, he said, a survey conducted in 2000 by GPC Research for the federal government showed a decline in gun ownership. It found 17 per cent of Canadian households owned at least one firearm while surveys done between 1989 and 1998 put the number closer to 24 per cent.

"We know that, as a result of the registry, it's been claimed that thousands of Canadians -- we don't have the exact number -- are saying that the registry is too onerous and they're giving up their firearms," he said.

Prof. Gabor pointed out that there has been no systematic evaluation of the effects of the gun legislation. And the decline in gun use during robberies began before it was introduced, so the law is not the only reason.

But the drop is clear.

Last year alone, the rate of gun robberies per 100,000 Canadians fell to 11.05 from 12.27. In 1992, the rate was 30.79.

The figure confounds even criminologists such as Rosemary Gartner of the University of Toronto, who expressed shock when she read the Statscan report.

"If I were that 7-Eleven clerk, I would breathe a bit of a sigh of relief," Prof. Gartner said, referring to the large number of holdups that occur at convenience stores.

In fact, some convenience store owners hadn't noticed their employees were safer from guns over the past decade.

"The industry has made major strides in putting in robbery-prevention programs," said Arnold Kimmel, the president of Ottawa-based Quickie Convenience Stores. "However, robberies do occur and the mass majority of the robberies that do occur within our stores are with firearms."

One article quoting one professor with a qualifier in every statement, from a paper which I'm given to understand is very much for the gun registry. Not much to show for 8 years and a pantload of $.

[iverglas]

25. ah, those qualifiers

If only you didn't pretend they meant something they don't.

Try this one (your emphasis on the "qualifier"):

"We know that, as a result of the registry, it's been claimed that thousands of Canadians -- we don't have the exact number -- are saying that the registry is too onerous and they're giving up their firearms," he said.

Uh ... that "claim" is the one made by opponents of the gun registry, the ones whining about all those law-abiding firearms owners who just can't cope with all that damned red tape they now have to wade through in order to legally possess a firearm.

The speaker was NOT offering his own theory, or "qualifier", about the drop in the rates. He was speaking as impartially and completely as possible (I know, a skill that may not be recognized around here when it's seen in action). He was offering all reasonably conceivable explanations for a phenomenon -- even those that he himself might regard as ridiculous but that he cannot disprove. That's exactly what he was saying: this is one explanation offered by someone for the phenomenon, and "I" cannot prove or disprove it.

Montrealers suffered for years and years from a scourge of firearms violence -- bank robberies, gang wars involving the killing of bystanders, including a child, and so on. Ninety-seven percent of Montrealers surveyed support the National Firearms Registry.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Temp/Gallup2001.PDF
Google html cached version

Quebecers Most In Favour Of Registry

Ninety percent (90%) of Quebecers favour a national firearms registry, the highest level of support across the country, followed by Ontario where 80% support the registry. Elsewhere, 71% of British Columbians, 67% of Atlantic Canadians, and only 53% of Prairie residents support a national firearms registry.

Residents of three of Canada's largest metropolitan centres are more likely than the national average of 76% to favour a national firearms registry. Ninety-seven percent (97%) of Montrealers, 88% of Torontonians, and 80% of Vancouverites support a national firearms registration system.

"Only" 53% is still a majority. Are all these people stupid? Is the opinion of all these people that the firearms registry is worthwhile and likely to be effective in an effort to reduce firearms violence somehow just the result of a mass delusion? Are they all closet fascists? Do they all just form opinions without a thought for things like constitutional rights? If you knew the first thing about Canada and Canadians, you'd know how ludicrous a notion that last one would be.

"One article quoting one professor with a qualifier in every statement, from a paper which I'm given to understand is very much for the gun registry."

Your understanding is somewhat incomplete, I'd have to say. The Globe and Mail is what's called a "conservative" newspaper in this country. Funny, ain't it? Even funnier is how it manages to provide quite unbiased news content most of the time; I -- being neither "liberal" nor "conservative", but left -- look to both it and the Toronto Star (the "liberal" daily), as well as CBC Newsworld and of course some international sources, for my news. The Globe's reputation for interference in the reporting of the news is virtually unsullied in Canada, unlike, say, the National Post (which, ever so coincidentally, opposes the registry) and its co-owned publications. In editorial content, the Globe publishes a rather complete range of opinion.

Methinks that if you are alleging bias you ought to make at least some tiny effort at both proving it and proving that it affects the factual content of this article, or whatever factual content of the article it might be that you find dubious; I can't really tell.

So now. Where is your burden of proof in this matter, and how well are you doing at discharging it?

Can you PROVE that Canadian firearms legislation is NOT *a* reason for this decline? Why would you think that there might be no onus on YOU to prove THAT?

Perhaps we should just hearken back once more to what the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control said about this issue:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/ConstitutionalChallenge.html

While the Alberta Government claims that there is no "proof" that gun control works, the standard of "proof" it is demanding goes far beyond what is required for justice reforms. Dr. Neil Boyd, Criminology professor at Simon Fraser University argued that the detailed evaluation of the 1977 legislation provides stronger evidence of the effectiveness of gun control than is available to support on most other reforms. Dr. Martin Killias, criminologist, University of Lausanne, has suggested that demands for conclusive "proof" are often a strategy for delay.

I think I will. Frequently.

.

[leanings]

27. Morning

Uh ... that "claim" is the one made by opponents of the gun registry, the ones whining about all those law-abiding firearms owners who just can't cope with all that damned red tape they now have to wade through in order to legally possess a firearm.

The speaker was NOT offering his own theory, or "qualifier", about the drop in the rates. He was speaking as impartially and completely as possible (I know, a skill that may not be recognized around here when it's seen in action). He was offering all reasonably conceivable explanations for a phenomenon -- even those that he himself might regard as ridiculous but that he cannot disprove. That's exactly what he was saying: this is one explanation offered by someone for the phenomenon, and "I" cannot prove or disprove it.

OK, great, good. Lends no credence to the story.

Your next four paras are utterly irrelevant.

Your point about the Globe and Mail is well taken. I was mistaken there, and as one unfamiliar with the Cannuck press I shouldn't have taken so bold a stand on a half remembered bias of mine. I stand corrected.

...and proving that it affects the factual content of this article, or whatever factual content of the article it might be that you find dubious; I can't really tell...

I see very little factual content in this article. I see many opinions, lots of "mays", and those mays may be born out. They certainly aren't in this article.

As for this notion that proof of effectiveness should not be considered when passing laws and discussing issues, I believe that to be about the most asinine thing I've ever heard. Can you provide any other examples of this logic at work? For example, if I were to say, "I think education would be greatly improved in this country if we provided every student with a pet howler monkey.", and people asked me what evidence I had that howler monkeys would improve education, I could just say, "demands for conclusive 'proof' are often a strategy for delay of needed reforms."?

[iverglas]

32. oh well, eh?

"I see very little factual content in this article. I see many opinions, lots of "mays", and those mays may be born out. They certainly aren't in this article."

Damn. I thought the factual content was pretty obvious. How did you manage to miss it? Let me help you; cutting and pasting from the lead post:

While the robbery rate dipped only slightly in the decade between 1992 and 2002, the number of robberies involving guns per 100,000 people declined by 62 per cent, according to Statistics Canada data released yesterday.

In 1992, 8,736 robberies were committed across Canada with firearms. By 2002, while the population of the country had grown, the number of robberies with firearms had dropped to 3,472."

Those surely do look like FACTS to me. And you?

Then, you see, the Globe and Mail knowing that its readers are kind of intellectually-inclined, approached some people who might be able to offer some theories that could, in some part, explain WHY these facts exist.

One of them, being at least as given to intellectual rigour as the Globe's readership, said:

There is no way of knowing what is truly causing robbers to abandon their guns ... but the national Firearms Act that was passed in December of 1995 <and the various other things he referred to> may have had an effect.

... and basically said a number of the kinds of things that academics typically say to newspapers when asked for their expert opinions. It all pretty much boiled down to "speaking as an expert, I can't tell you what the cause is, but I can tell you what some causes, as suggested by some people, might be".

"As for this notion that proof of effectiveness should not be considered when passing laws and discussing issues, I believe that to be about the most asinine thing I've ever heard."

Ah. And if you tell me where you heard it, I'll join you in beating the speaker about the ears for saying such a silly thing.

Tell me (maybe you've answered the question where I asked it elsewhere, but forgive me for doubting).
What "proof of effectiveness" is there for the death penalty? What "proof of effectiveness" is there for laws prohibiting murder? theft? robbery? shoplifting? speeding? ... and the penalties provided therefor?

"Can you provide any other examples of this logic at work?"

I think, if you take my questions as rhetorical, I just did -- that is, provide examples of the real logic, not your misrepresented distortion of it.

You say:

"... if I were to say, "I think education would be greatly improved in this country if we provided every student with a pet howler monkey.", ... I could just say, 'demands for conclusive "proof" are often a strategy for delay of needed reforms.'?"

... but the thing is that NOBODY "just said" anything remotely like that in respect of gun control. Your quoting one thing said by my source and disregarding the other things said really doesn't entitle you to suggest that they "just said" what you quoted, does it now?

.

(typo fixed)

[leanings]

33. For the first part

of your post, I would refer you to the title of the thread: Gun Laws Cut Armed Robberies in Canada. What was sought in the article was factual information supporting this contention.

What "proof of effectiveness" is there for the death penalty? What "proof of effectiveness" is there for laws prohibiting murder? theft? robbery? shoplifting? speeding? ... and the penalties provided therefor?

The death penalty is unproven as a deterrent. I believe it's generally regarded as an effective method of killing people, although not a very efficient one. As for the proof of effectiveness provided for laws prohibiting murder, robbery, speeding, proof abounds. Drop the speed limit to 55 and people go more slowly and highway fatalities drop. As for murder and robbery, go to a place without laws against murder and robbery. These laws were codified with Hammurabi, and things have presumably been better since. Gun laws do not meet this standard of proof.

As for your quote on the lack of need for further proof re gun legislation, the speaker cites studies of a 1977 bill. Do you know where to get ahold of those studies? I'd be curious to see them.

[iverglas]

37. such double standards

"As for the proof of effectiveness provided for laws prohibiting murder, robbery, speeding, proof abounds. Drop the speed limit to 55 and people go more slowly and highway fatalities drop."

Yeah ... and essentially prohibit the possession of handguns, and armed robbery rates drop.

You were saying ...

"Gun laws do not meet this standard of proof."

?

They sure seem to meet the standard *you* are applying.

.

[iverglas]

39. studies

Well, I asked google for evaluation 1977 canadian firearms legislation.

Here's one of Gary Mauser's (he's your buddy, not mine):

http://www.tamerlane.ca/library/research/mauser_1977_robbery.pdf
cached html version

Knocking Mauser out of the search (he's very popular in some quarters), I get other things.

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/general_public/news_releases/farep.asp
- where to order the fed. govt.'s report; the article dates from 1996, so the contact info might be out of date, but the Canadian Firearms Centre would be the place to ask.

More: http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/other_docs/other_depts/evaluation/default.asp
(reproduction permission granted for that)

more results from the CFC

And more, but I'll let you look.

And heck, I'll bet you'd find something at www.guncontrol.ca

;)

[Romulus]

41. I sure did find something there

A blueprint for how firearms prohibition will play out in the U.S.

Take a look at this: http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/GunControlLaws.html

The evolution of "prohibited" weapons first tracks the U.S. 1934 GCA (re:machine guns), goes on to then prohibit "semi-automatic military weapons" and "fireams not commonly used for hunting," before ending with a ban on handguns with barrels under 4" and any handgun owned by someone NOT currently a member of a "gun club." Not to mention the whole licensing scheme that goes along with this. Poeple who currently own "prohibited" handguns get to keep them as long as they are breathing. Their grown offspring can't inherit them, nor can the same offspring purchase one for themselves.

Handguns, particularly, went from mere registration, to a shall-issue-type permit system that included "conveyance and carry permits" (whatever that means) and allowed self-protection as a valid reason for ownership, to the above described ban.

The same website says that most homicide guns are rifles and shotguns, but then goes on to lambast handguns in too many pages to link, while also reporting that handguns have been registed in Canada since the 1930's.

If the handgun registration scheme was so effective in reducing "death and injury," what is the purpose of the total firearms ban that came later? Anyone?!

Added: to answer someone's question here, the website does claim that gun control reduces "death and injury."

Edited again to add this doozy:
"As the US example has shown all too well, arming for self protection does not work, it only serves to escalate violence . . .(insert alleged US firearm-related statistics here) . . . Our law and values do not support arming civilians for self protection."

Final edit: the Canada gun control laws also require DC-style "safe storage", i.e. unloaded and ammo separate up at all times; in the case of handguns it's unloaded, trigger locked and put up in a "locked container."

There you have the end game: DC-style gun laws. You saw it here first.

[iverglas]

42. what the fuck you talkin about?

"If the handgun registration scheme was so effective in reducing "death and injury," what is the purpose of the total firearms ban that came later? Anyone?!"

Oh, alright. I'll assume that you meant to type "total HANDGUNS ban" (even though that isn't quite accurate).

I get tired of typing the same thing, over and over ... and so tired of citing my sources that I'm just not going to bother again today.

Firearms, particularly handguns, used in the commission of crimes in Canada are very often illegally in the possession of the people who use them. It seems that restricting who is allowed to have them legally just doesn't work to eliminate the harm caused by people using them.

"a shall-issue-type permit system that included "conveyance and carry permits" (whatever that means)"

Got a dictionary? A permit to convey is a permit to take the weapon from one place to another. A permit to convey does not imply a permit to "carry".

Added: to answer someone's question here, the website does claim that gun control reduces "death and injury."

Now ... you prove that it DOESN'T, if that's what YOU are CLAIMING.

"(insert alleged US firearm-related statistics here)"

Really. Do you expect someone to take you seriously?

Your quotation from the site, a discussion of Canada: "Our law and values do not support arming civilians for self protection."

Were you wanting to explain your reason for quoting this, and what your problem might be with it?

.

[demsrule4life]

2. Seems to me the gist of the article

Is that mandatory minimum sentences for using a gun in a crime, economics and the aging population has more to due with lower crime rates. "There is no way of knowing what is truly causing robbers to abandon their guns."

[malkia]

3. So

the criminals keep robbing people? Even when they don’t use guns? But... gun control is supposed to reduce crime... isn't it?
Or is it just supposed to reduce use of guns in crime?
So are you basically showing without doubt that criminals will always find a way to commit crime?
Does it make you happy that now people are robbed in the same rates as before but with other weapons?
I already feel safer, you know.

[MrBenchley]

4. What I'm showing is that

gun nuts are shamelessly desperate in their spin.

[leanings]

6. You changed the title of the article

and selectively quoted the only paragraphs which lend any support to your argument. And the gun nuts are the shameless spinners?

[CO Liberal]

7. There are No Title Restrictions On This Board

Unlike Latest Breaking News, where you have to use the exact title of the referenced article. And per the DU rules, you can only post portions of the article to avoid violating the copyright laws.

[leanings]

8. I'm not accusing him of lying or breaking rules

just imparting a title to the thread that doesn't really reflect the contents of the cited article. Not dirty pool, but certainly "spinning" a piece of information to represent a viewpoint.

[MrBenchley]

10. Let them spin

It only shows how desperate and "honest" they are.

[leanings]

12. Are you just going to dump this piece of crap on us

and then make snide remarks? Or are you going to attempt to answer some of the criticism put forth?

[MrBenchley]

17. Gee, I'm not the one dumping crap here

And if I see any "criticism" worth answerinng, you'll all know.

[malkia]

9. Hey, you started this thread!

And it shows exactly this – criminals will commit crimes with or without guns.

[MrBenchley]

11. Yup I did

And look at all the sniveling frrom the "bullets for brains" crowd it generated.

[malkia]

13. Yes,

we are happy to have you on our side for a change! I knew it’s a mater of time!

[leanings]

5. Was this drop in gun usage reflected in murders?

Nope:

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
homicides
All methods 586 558 538 546 554
Shooting 193 151 165 184 171
Stabbing 168 186 143 149 171
Beating 115 125 125 128 123
Strangulation 53 61 55 39 47
Fire (burns/suffocation) 30 12 11 4 8
Other methods 22 17 31 35 26
Not known 5 6 8 7 8

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal01.htm

Can't find a type breakdown for suicides, but the numbers haven't dropped precipitously.

[MrBenchley]

14. Looks like shootings dropped...

There's 31 million Canadians, and gun homicides dropped from 193 to 171...

Alabama has more than twice that number of gun homicides in any given year with only about 4 and a half million people...and it has next to nno gun control..

[leanings]

15. Are you attempting to be intellectually dishonest

or do you just not get it? OK, lemme try some of your logic:

The number of murders in Canada in the given period dropped 12%, while in Alabama the number of murders dropped by a over a quarter. Gee, I guess not having gun control is TWICE as effective as having it!

[MrBenchley]

16. Gee, I'm not the one peddling crap

There's nothing in the least intellectually dishonest about pointing out that Alabama has less than a sixth the population of Canada but twice as many gun murders.

[leanings]

18. Yes, but you see, it's not relevant.

The article you linked to was discussing gun use in robberies as a PERCENTAGE of robberies. The actual number of robberies declined in a general trend which happened in the United States as well as Canada. The decline in the percentage of robberies which included guns MAY be chalked up to Canada's gun law, a big part of which is a mandatory minimum for using a weapon in the commission of a crime and part of which is an overly burdensome gun registration system which MAY have caused some Canadians to get rid of their firearms which MAY be a contributing factor in the decline. It's not a very strong case, but I'll grant you it's a possibility. I'd be happy to peruse any more evidence you can provide on the matter.

BUT if their was a general decline in gun use in crime in Canada due to the lessened availability of firearms, it would seem that it would also be reflected in the PERCENTAGE of murders committed with them. The PERCENTAGE of murders committed with firearms did not change appreciably. That's the issue at hand. It has nothing to do with Canada's murder rate vs. Alabama's. Do you see what I'm getting at here?

[MrBenchley]

19. Peddle it elsewhere

"The article you linked to was discussing gun use in robberies as a PERCENTAGE of robberies. "
So what? Are you unable to think for yourself? Is it impossible for any person to think beyond the statements presented to them immediately in print?

"I'd be happy to peruse any more evidence you can provide on the matter."
Yeah...we can tell from the screaming and wailing.

[leanings]

20. Were we not having a discussion

based on the article which you posted to begin this thread? Or do you not want to talk about that article anymore? What was it that you wish to discuss, Mr. B? Are you engaging in some kind of wierd Zen stream-of-conciousness internet discussion technique that the rest of us are not aware of? Tell me the topic of the discussion we're having. Canadian robberies? Murder rates in Alabama? What our faces looked like a thousand years before our ancestors were born?

[MrBenchley]

22. We WERE having a discussion of robbery

Amd YOU felt like dragging in 174 gun homicides in a country with 31 million citizens....which is pretty misleading, unless put in context. Which I did.

"Tell me the topic of the discussion we're having."
How desperately and "honestly" gun nuts spin when faced with actual fact.

[leanings]

24. You really don't understand, do you?

The article was about a PERCENTAGE of...aw, hell with it.

OK, one more try: Mr. Benchley, don't you think that if the percentage of guns used in robberies had dropped due to a lower availability of guns, the percentage of homicides involving guns.. REGARDLESS OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOMICIDES, OR HOW IT COMPARES WITH ANY SOUTHERN US STATES...(ahem)...don't you think that percentage should have dropped, too?

[MrBenchley]

26. I understand all too well

If you spun any more furiously, you'd get airborne...

"on't you think that if the percentage of guns used in robberies had dropped due to a lower availability of guns, the percentage of homicides involving guns.. REGARDLESS OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOMICIDES, OR HOW IT COMPARES WITH ANY SOUTHERN US STATES...(ahem)...don't you think that percentage should have dropped, too?"
Now why would any sane person think that? The motives for the two crimes are wildly different....and the actual NATURE of homicide makes it more likely that a gun WOULD be used...or that quarrels where a gun was present COULD escalate to homicide.

But the second YOU want to shift the spotlight from robbery to homicide, it becomes more than fair to ask "is the reported number of homicides high or low"? And the answer is that it's damn low....for the same reason that the number of armed robberies involving guns is declining.

[leanings]

29. Bravo!

The motives for the two crimes are wildly different....and the actual NATURE of homicide makes it more likely that a gun WOULD be used...or that quarrels where a gun was present COULD escalate to homicide.

That's the first argument of yours I've seen that makes sense! And I don't really have an answer for you. The motives behind the crimes might very well have an effect. We'll have to see when more research comes out. Well done, Mr. B. Do that more often and your presence will be much more thoroughly enjoyed.

I would disagree that it was appropriate to switch from a discussion involving percentages of gun use in crime to one of overall homicide rates, or that the homicide rates are low for the same reason armed robberies involving guns are declining, or that anyone has established that the decline is due to the gun law.

[MrBenchley]

34. Well excuse the fuck out of me

"That's the first argument of yours I've seen that makes sense!"
But I haven't seen anything but sniveling issue forth from you.

"And I don't really have an answer for you."
Wow...you could have knocked me over with a ton of lead (as my friend Bob Boudelang says).

[iverglas]

28. hmm; try again?

The numbers are obviously very small, and the significance (that's a technical term) of any change in them may be difficult to determine, of course. Mind you, the fact that the homicide RATE fell *more* than the numbers (i.e. the population was rising as the number of homicides was falling) is interesting, and is of course more interesting than the raw numbers:

http://www.statcan.ca:80/english/Pgdb/legal12b.htm
(another table at your own link)

rate per 100,000 population
Canada
1997 1.95
1998 1.84
1999 1.76
2000 1.77
2001 1.78

Nonetheless, let's look at 1997 raw figures vs. 2001 raw figures, as provided by you, and specifically at whether the latter were higher or lower than the former.

homicides
All methods - lower in 2001
Shooting - lower in 2001
Stabbing - higher in 2001
Beating - higher in 2001
Strangulation - lower in 2001
Fire (burns/suffocation) - lower in 2001
Other methods - higher in 2001
Not known - higher in 2001

The interesting bit from that comparison is obviously that the number of shooting deaths fell, while stabbing, beating and "other method" deaths rose, but total numbers and rates fell. (Strangulation deaths also fell, but the significance of the change in that small number might be even more questionable than the others.)

The total number of homicides DID fall -- from 586 to 554 -- according to the numbers you yourself produced and relied on.

(Things like homicide by fire can vary wildly, depending on how many people were in a building when it was set on fire (I'd think this might explain the wild variation between 30 and 4 deaths), and so that figure, and its influence on the totals, should perhaps be disregarded as being a case of apples and oranges: a comparison of "number of killings" rather than "instances of killing". The other cases would be almost entirely one-killing instances and therefore more properly comparable. That leaves us with 556 homicides in 1997 vs. 548 homicides in 2001: still a drop in both raw numbers and rate.)

The numbers you relied on ... to say "Was this drop in gun usage reflected in murders? Nope"

I don't get it. Did you want to explain what you said, and what your point was?

.

[leanings]

30. These numbers

are too small to draw any real conclusions-the variation in percentage of homicides by gun is about 2%. But the gun control related bit of the article cited argued that gun use might be falling due to decreased availability, yes? And the decline in the percentage of gun use in armed robberies was 62%. Any fall that dramatic, or approaching that level, presumably due to the lessened availability of firearms, would be evident. Eh?

[iverglas]

36. no

You had read and answered my previous post regarding the nature of the comments by the professor of criminology quoted in the article, and yet here you are, still saying:

"But the gun control related bit of the article cited argued that gun use might be falling due to decreased availability, yes?"

NO.

Now, you might want to clarify. When you say "bit of the article argued", are you saying that the newspaper/reporter argued this? That the expert quoted argued this?

In either case (and I can't think of another interpretation of what you wrote), I submit that you are WRONG.

NO ONE directly argued that in the article. The article, and the expert quoted, cited arguments that might be, or are, made by someone to connect the drop in armed robbery rates to restrictions on access to firearms. You are MISREPRESENTING the article and/or the expert if you are saying that either of them "argued that gun use might be falling due to decreased availability".

I can appreciate that objectivity in reporting might be hard for a USAmerican to recognize when s/he sees it. (Or hell, for a regular reader of the National Post here in Canada.)

Prof. Gabor himself cited suggestions that firearms legislation in Canada are a cause of the drop, and expressly stated that it is not the only reason (i.e. if it IS a reason, which he DID NOT say it was). He said it "MAY HAVE HAD AN EFFECT". That bit was HIS opinion, and indeed, it is a very "qualified" one.

"And the decline in the percentage of gun use in armed robberies was %62. Any fall that dramatic, or approaching that level, presumably due to the lessened availability of firearms, would be evident <in the homicide numbers/rate>. Eh?"

The Firearms Registry is NOT designed to reduce the numbers of firearms in private possession in Canada. NOT.

It MAY HAVE -- and according to the whiners who oppose it, WILL HAVE AND HAS HAD -- that EFFECT.

However, because existing legislation ALREADY made it virtually impossible to possess things like handguns, the firearms that would be being relinquished by people because of the registry would be long arms. Long arms are NOT typically used in armed robberies, but they are MORE typically used in homicides in Canada, to the extent that firearms are used in homicides in Canada at all -- which (see below) is that firearms use in homicides is ATYPICAL.

There are many factors that could operate to reduce the availability of firearms used in armed robberies. Gabor cited some possibilities offered by some people.

Let's have a look at some relevant facts.

http://www.research.ryerson.ca/SAFER-Net/Content/Americas/Canada/CAN(sept7).htm
(the site isn't responding, so here is google's cached version

Types of Firearms:

- Approximately half of homicides are committed with handguns although there are distinct regional variations.
<This is a ridiculously incorrect statement that I have a hard time explaining -- I can only assume that it means half of firearms homicides, which is still not accurate; see below.>

- Most domestic violence homicides involve long guns (rifles and shotguns).
<ditto: most domestic violence firearms homicides ...>

- Most suicides are committed with long guns (rifles and shotguns).
<ditto>

...

The Firearms Smuggling Work Group conducted the largest empirical study ever undertaken of the source of 8879 guns recovered by 10 police forces. The study confirmed that the smuggling of handguns was a problem, particularly in larger cities. But the majority of the firearms recovered in crime were rifles and shotguns. Overall, of the firearms recovered in crime:

- 47%, almost half, were rifles and shotguns

- 1% <this is a typo and should obviously read "21%">were handguns and, of these, 40% had been previously registered, an estimated 60% were illegally imported.

- 4% were prohibited weapons, many of them rifles and shotguns which had been sawed off

- 28% were airguns, replica firearms etc.

-In most communities the proportion of rifles and shotguns used in crime exceeded the proportion of handguns.

- In larger cities - Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver - the proportion of traceable handguns which had previously been registered was much smaller.

Now, I'm going to offer you my own theory about firearms homides.

First, those are old figures (see the citations at the site) but the best I could come up with just now. They date from before the tightened restrictions on handgun possession -- and keep in mind that those restrictions would certainly not have had immediate effect on the criminal use of handguns.

Oh, here's something; in 1989-1995:

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/other_docs/notes/canus/default.asp

Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.

Second, more of the homicides committed in Canada using handguns, than of the homicides committed using long arms, might be theorized to have been committed in the course of the commission of another crime ... like robbery.

It seems (to me, that is) that restricting access to handguns could be expected to contribute to a drop in crimes committed using handguns -- which is what armed robbery often is.

The fact that so few homicides in Canada are committed using handguns means that I would not expect to see a huge drop in homicide rates when access to handguns is restricted -- since so few homicides are committed using handguns already.

There's also this fact, from the same souce:

For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada.

And because Canada's laws do not restrict access to long arms in anything like the way that they restrict access to handguns, I would not expect to see a major drop in the number of firearms homicides when access to handguns is restricted -- since firearms homicides are most often committed using long arms, and there are so few firearms homicides already.

So, again, I would not expect to see an enormous drop in Canadian homicide rates if access to firearms were restricted, since so few homicides are committed using firearms. This does not mean that I would not expect to see *some* drop in the homicide rate, because I by no means believe that all or even most or even very many homicides that would have been committed using firearms would simply be committed some other way, absent access to firearms.

But can I prove that our low firearms homicide rate is CAUSED, even in part, BY restrictions on access to firearms? OF COURSE NOT. And you can't prove that the speed at which people who drive under the speed limit drive is CAUSED BY speed limits.

So, let's look at your question again, knowing these FACTS (and disregarding all or any of my opinions as you wish) as we now do:

"And the decline in the percentage of gun use in armed robberies was %62. Any fall that dramatic, or approaching that level, presumably due to the lessened availability of firearms, would be evident <in the homicide numbers/rate>.

And the answer is: no.

So few homicides are committed by firearm in Canada, and so few of them are committed by handgun -- the main target of the tighter restrictions introduced a few years ago -- that I would not expect any such thing to be evident.

On the other hand, because handguns are far more often used in armed robberies, I would not be surprised to see a drop in armed robberies after the introduction of such restrictions. And amazingly, that is indeed what happened. I'm not claiming cause and effect, but I'm sure not surprised.

.

[slackmaster]

21. I'm sure this comes as a great relief

To the people who were robbed at knifepoint instead of gunpoint.

:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

23. Yeah, if only the robbers had guns

like they do here...

[malkia]

31. They would STILL rob people.

Or do you think banning robberies is a better idea? Oh, wait they are already illegal!
So my question for you is: “How decreasing of the use of guns in crimes while the crime rates stay the same is a good thing? Does it decrease the number of crimes or does it decrease the tools used in crimes?
Yea, I know, I know – peddle it to somebody else…

[MrBenchley]

35. Wow...what a desperately silly post

"do you think banning robberies is a better idea? Oh, wait they are already illegal!"
I swear, you guys sound like parodies.....

[malkia]

38. Cry me a river!

[MrBenchley]

40. I'm laughing, son

[malkia]

43. Sorry daddy!

I couldn’t resist! I’ve seen this answer from you so many times!
Anyway, my friends find it funny. I guess you like it too.
So, let me get it straight. You state that gun control in Canada reduces crime. I go to your link and find that actually crime rates are the same; just guns are used less often.
And then I ask what is your point and what the advantage of the gun control is.
Your answer? ”And look at all the sniveling frrom the "bullets for brains" crowd it generated”!
I repeat my question: Benchley, do you think that a robbery with a knife is better than robbery with a gun? Is your goal limiting use of guns in crime or is it reducing the crime itself. If it’s the latest-your candian example doesn’t prove anything.
Let’s start talking about goals, Benchley. Do you want drop in crime or do you want drop in using guns in crime?

[Terran]

44. I think you're being a little disingenuous by asking that question.

Obviously, everyone wants less crime, period. Why even ask that?

In addition, in the US there is a well-established public policy advocating the reduction of gun crime, in the form of dozens of state and federal mandatory sentencing laws that add penalties for committing crimes with guns. So I would hardly agree that the Canadian example is irrelevant (that it "doesn't prove anything"--it proves that gun crime *can be* reduced).

The Canadians appear to have achieved the same end that US public policy advocates. Exactly how they did it might not be provable by any means, but that does not lessen the achievement. Crime reduction is good; gun crime reduction is good too. I don't see any way to spin that.

Dirk

[malkia]

46. That’s right!

I want less crime. I want less robberies, burglaries, rapes and homicides.
But I don’t want less robberies, burglaries, rapes and homicides committed with knifes instead of guns! It doesn’t matter for the victim if the perpetrator is armed with a club, knife or 250 pound of muscles. He is a victim of a crime. And if the only result of the gun control is the use of other weapons by the criminals, I still don’t see any benefits.
Now, if the statistic were showing that the ACTUAL number of robberies was cut by 60% I would have been converted.

[Terran]

69. Let me get this straight...

because I think you mispoke here:

But I don’t want less robberies, burglaries, rapes and homicides committed with knifes instead of guns!

I assume meant simply that guns and knives are interchangeably bad for a victim of a crime. The "less crime" part kind of got mixed in there by accident.

So...you don't see any benefit to potential victims if, let's say theoretically, there were no guns around at all, and all armed criminals only had knives or clubs? You don't see a benefit to the fact that the criminal couldn't pull a trigger and kill the victim from 20 yards away instead of having to walk up next to the victim and engage in some sort of hand to hand combat? You really don't think victim survival rates (not to mention bystander survival rates) would improve quite a bit when a knife is used instead of a gun? How would you go about robbing abank without a gun?

Come on malkia, let's be realistic. Crimes committed without guns have simply got to be less lethal than crimes committed with guns. I'll leave it to someone else to find the numbers since many of you are familiar with the sources. I mean, it seems to me that you are trying to deny a basic truth that most pro-gun folks probably accept, merely for the sake of trying to win an argument.

Dirk

[malkia]

47. That’s right!

I want less crime. I want less robberies, burglaries, rapes and homicides.
But I don’t want less robberies, burglaries, rapes and homicides committed with knifes instead of guns! It doesn’t matter for the victim if the perpetrator is armed with a club, knife or 250 pound of muscles. He is a victim of a crime. And if the only result of the gun control is the use of other weapons by the criminals, I still don’t see any benefits.
Now, if the statistic were showing that the ACTUAL number of robberies was cut by 60% I would have been converted.

[iverglas]

57. and now for a dose of REALITY

"But I don’t want less robberies, burglaries, rapes and homicides
committed with knifes instead of guns! It doesn’t matter for the
victim if the perpetrator is armed with a club, knife or 250 pound
of muscles. He is a victim of a crime. And if the only result of the
gun control is the use of other weapons by the criminals, I still
don’t see any benefits."

Perhaps ... because you're determined to look skyward, or at your navel, or somewhere else that just isn't going to help you see what's in front of your face?

Here's what the quote from the article said:

While the robbery rate dipped only slightly in the decade between 1992 and 2002, the number of robberies involving guns per 100,000 people declined by 62 per cent, according to Statistics Canada data released yesterday.

In 1992, 8,736 robberies were committed across Canada with firearms. By 2002, while the population of the country had grown, the number of robberies with firearms had dropped to 3,472.

You are absolute correct when you say that the only thing that a robber may have been "armed" with is muscle. "Robbery" and "armed robbery" are two different (although of course related) things. Robbery is defined as follows in Canadian law (it's a pretty universal definition):

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec343.html

343. Every one commits robbery who

(a) steals, and for the purpose of extorting whatever is stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to the stealing, uses violence or threats of violence to a person or property;

(b) steals from any person and, at the time he steals or immediately before or immediately thereafter, wounds, beats, strikes or uses any personal violence to that person;

(c) assaults any person with intent to steal from him; or

(d) steals from any person while armed with an offensive weapon or imitation thereof.

A charge of "armed robbery" would be laid under 343(d), whether the "arm" were a baseball bat or a handgun (although of course using a firearm in the commission of an offence is itself an offence); a charge of "robbery" would be laid under 343(a) for a purse-snatching in which the victim's person was not actually touched.

The offences included in the offence of "robbery" are theft and assault (and "assault" includes threats). Theft from an individual's person is robbery.

Now, to the Canadian statistics.

The figures for "robberies", in both 1992 and 2002, include everything from purse-snatchings to bank robberies. They include everyone from totally unarmed punk kids to highly sophisticated organized criminals with machine guns.

The Correctional Service of Canada published a profile of robbery offenders in federal penitentiaries in 1995 - back when the use of firearms in robberies was far more prevalent than it is today. Penitentiaries house anyone sentenced to two years or more; under two years and offenders go to provincial prisons. The profile addresses only those in federal penitentiaries, who are not going to be purse-snatchers, in the Canadian sentencing context. However, the article's comments about robbery in Canada are not limited to the CSC's inmates:

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/briefs/b10/b10e_e.shtml

Although robberies account for only about 10% of all violent crimes, it is among the crimes most feared by Canadians because of its potential physical harm to victims. Robbery involves a high probability of physical harm from a stranger, and it can happen to anyone, almost anywhere, at anytime.

<I would keep in mind that this probably refers to 10% of reported crimes, and that there may well be a higher reporting rate for robbery than for, say, asault or sexual assault.>

Robbery offenders are also more likely to use weapons than other offenders. In fact, about one-quarter of robberies involve the use of a firearm, another one-quarter involve the use of offensive weapons (such as clubs or knives), and about one-half involve the use or threat of physical force. More important, however, one-quarter of robbery victim received at least a minor physical injury, with 4% requiring medical attention at the scene or transportation to a medical facility.

Further evidence of the seriousness of robbery is that more than 80% of those convicted or robbery in Canada are sentenced to incarceration, while just 23% of all offenders convicted in provincial courts are sent to prison. Further, between 1986 and 1991, 20% of admissions to federal custody (persons serving sentences of two years or longer) were for robbery offenses. Finally, a December 31, 1994 snapshot of the federal offender population identified almost one-third as robbery offenders.

... If robbery does originate from a violent subculture, the backgrounds of robbery offenders should support this. We would expect to find their criminal records and social history to be filled with violent acts. However, several studies have found no excessive period criminal violence in the backgrounds of robbery offenders (compared with the general criminal population). Further, the majority of robbery victims do not sustain physical injuries. ...
<citations omitted>

What a complex question.

Perhaps the use of firearms in robberies actually reduces the risk of injury to victims, since victims are less likely to resist, and offenders less likely to actually use violence rather than just threaten it.

Perhaps the availability of firearms makes it more likely that offenders will attempt to commit robberies, since they are able to predict that their success is more assured if armed with a firearm than if armed with a baseball bat or nothing at all.

More likely, the offenders -- robbers with and without firearms -- and the offences they commit -- robberies with and without firearms -- are simply quite different people and things.

Here is the typology of armed robbers cited in that article (edited for brevity):

The average age of the <chronic armed robber> at first offense is 12, first arrest is 14 and first armed robbery is 17.5. The duration of an armed robbery career averages seven to eight years. During this time, these offenders average 20 to 25 armed robberies and commit many other offenses (such as burglary, drugs and auto theft). ... Chronic armed robbers regularly carry firearms (which are always loaded) and use them in one out of five robberies. ...

The average age of <the professional armed robber> at first offense is 13, first arrest is 16 and first armed robbery is 17. The duration of their armed robbery career averages 11 to 12 years. During this time, these offenders average 20 to 50 armed robberies and commit many other offenses (such as burglary, drugs, auto theft and safe-cracking). ... While professional armed robbers tend to be well armed (sometimes with automatic weapons), they fire their weapons less often than chronic armed robbers (one out of ten robberies) and sometimes take hostages. ...

The average age of <the intensive armed robber> at first offense is 18, first arrest is 18 and first armed robbery is 25. Their armed robbery career tends to be short, lasting just several weeks or months. During this time, intensive armed robbers average from 5 to 10 armed robberies and commit very few, if any, other offenses. ... Intensive armed robbers sometimes carry firearms (which are always loaded) and rarely use them. ...

The average age of <the occasional armed robber> at first offense is 13, first arrest is 15.5 and first armed robbery is 20.5. Their armed robbery career tends to last from several months to two years. During this time, these offenders average from 1 to 6 armed robberies and commit many other offenses (often specializing in an area such as burglary, fraud, drugs, or auto theft. While they are consistently active in crime, occasional armed robbers generally prepare poorly for their armed robberies and are often not disguised and insufficiently armed.

So.

"Chronic" and "professional" armed robbers usually carry firearms, "intensive" armed robbers sometimes carry firearms, and "occasional" armed robbers generally don't carry firearms, to put it succintly.

So if the prevalence of firearms use in robbery has dropped by well over 50%, I might surmise that the prevalence of robberies committed by people who tend to use firearms has dropped by a similar proportion.

Unless, of course, those same people are committing the robberies but are being deterred, say by tougher laws about the use of firearms in the commission of offences or by lack of access to firearms, from using firearms when they commit robberies.

On the first point, I might take a look at the ages when armed robbers commit their first armed robberies, and the usual length of their armed robbery careers, and note that they come from a segment of the population -- young males -- that has declined relative to total population since 1992. Not enough to account for the huge decline in robbery-with-firearms figures, of course, but probably for a wee bit of it. The Globe article referred to this, and also other likely influences on the crime rate in general:

The phenomenon is undoubtedly tied to a drop of 27 per cent in the total crime rate during the same period -- a decline attributed to changing demographics such as the aging population and the relative economic prosperity Canada enjoyed in the latter part of the 1990s.

But overall, what we have is a huge decline in robbery-with-firearm as a proportion of total robberies, and also a huge absolute decline in robberies-with-firearms:

Last year alone, the rate of gun robberies per 100,000 Canadians fell to 11.05 from 12.27. In 1992, the rate was 30.79.

(The population of Canada rose substantially in that decade, at the same time as the absolute number of robberies-with-firearm declined sharply.)

Now, the violent crime rate itself dropped in 2002:

Nationally, the rate of violent crime dropped 2 per cent in 2002, driven by a 3-per-cent decline in the rate of robberies and a 2-per-cent drop in assaults.

(Canada's numbers are so small in some respects that they are easily skewed. Homicides have never reached 600 a year nationally; in that situation, something like Vancouver's 2002 downtown east side murders -- the many bodies buried on the pig farm, women all apparently killed by one man -- will distort what might otherwise be a more downward real trend in the "violent crime" rate.)

So the robbery rate did not actually remain stable; it dropped by 3% (more than the drop in violent crime overall).

Meanwhile, in the US, the robbery rate rose 2.4% in 2001 over 2000:
http://www.athenaresearch.com/research/uniform_crime_report_2001.pdf

Similar to 2000, of all robberies, 42% involved the use of a firearms (41% in 2000), whereas of murders, 69.5% resulted from firearms (66% in 2000). Of all murders, 8% were related to robberies, the same as the previous year's rate.

There are differences -- rather significant differences. The rates that have fallen in Canada -- robberies, and proportion of robberies involving firearms -- rose in the US.

In order to assess whether the change in Canada is a "good" one -- whether it is a "good thing" that fewer robberies with firearms are being committed, while apparently more robberies without firearms are being committed (although the total is still down), we'd really need to know a few more things.

Like: how many homicides in Canada were the result of robberies (in the different years), and what was the means of death in those cases? And how many robbery victims were badly injured in the course of robberies (in the different years), and what was the means of injury in those cases?

Those things would be nice to know, indeed, and I haven't had any luck finding them out, unfortunately, despite some efforts.

But in other words, maybe it DOES "matter for the victim if the perpetrator is armed with a club, knife or 250 pound of muscles". Maybe it matters quite a bit.

"He is a victim of a crime"? Yes indeed. So is someone whose skateboard is stolen from garage while s/he is asleep. Would you rather have your skateboard stolen from your garage while you are asleep, or be shot in the course of a robbery?

Let's not be so bloody disingenuous. It DOES matter to victims what kind of crimes they are the victims of.

"And if the only result of the gun control is the use of other weapons by the criminals, I still don’t see any benefits."

Allow me to emphasize that "if". The big problem with it is that there is simply no evidence to suggest that what you suggest is true -- that OTHER WEAPONS have been substituted for FIREARMS by robbers. *Robbery* may not have declined as significantly as *robbery-with-firearm*, meaning that *robbery-by-other-means* has obviously increased. But THAT DOES NOT MEAN that the robberies-by-other-means were ARMED robberies. It may well mean that purse-snatchings have increased.

Purse-snatching and robbery at gunpoint really are very different things, committed by very different kinds of people. I just don't think that the kinds of people who were committing robbery-with-firearms a decade ago are now out holding up banks and convenience stores with penknives. (Some actually tried that at my local 7-11 a few years ago, just a couple of minutes before I went in for milk. The clerk told me he'd laughed at the "robber", and he left. But the police were called, and I know that this showed up as "attempted armed robbery" in those violent-crime stats.)

I happen to feel a good deal more secure, less at risk of injury and death, knowing that the probability of me or anyone else being robbed at gunpoint has dropped by over half in a decade, even if the probability of having my purse snatched on the sidewalk, or of someone pulling a penknife on the cashier while I'm buying milk, may have risen somewhat.

That is, I see a benefit, at least I do if my conclusions from the data aren't wildly offside, which I don't think they are. And I just can't imagine why you don't.

.

[MrBenchley]

50. More than a little disingenuous

Notice that he hasn't proved that robbery levels in the US and Canada are anywhere near equivalent (and anyone who has glanced at the crime statistics knows perfectly well why).

[malkia]

53. Ha-ha-ha-ha! Good laugh!

I HAVE TO PROVE THAT ROBBERY LEVELS IN USA AND CANADA ARE EQUAL???????
How did you come with this idea? We are talking about the results of the gun control in Canada and you want me to compare the crime levels between two countries?!?!?!
You are really funny, man!
Little lesson in statistics: you don’t compare things that are NOT connected. For example: You cannot compare the rates of vaccinations in Botswana and the mortality rates in Zimbabwe. What you can do Is to compare the vaccinations rates in Botswana AND the mortality rate in Botswana. Then you can say if this particular vaccine is working or not.
To make it simple for you: country A have a robbery rate X per 100 000 inhabitants. After enacting a gun-control low the robbery rates is Z per 100 000 inhabitants.
Compare X with Z. If X>Z, you have a working gun control low. If X= or<Z you have a lot of wasted tax money.
End of lesson.
Now you tell me what the robbery rate in country B has to do with all this?

[MrBenchley]

54. It was YOUR claim

that there were as many robberies in Canada as here, remember?

[malkia]

56. I do forget sometime but its not that bad!

Were did I say “there were as many robberies in Canada as here”?

[iverglas]

58. well no bloody wonder

No one this ... confused ... can be expected to make any sense at all.

"You cannot compare the rates of vaccinations in Botswana and the mortality rates in Zimbabwe."

No ... and you cannot say that someone comparing the robbery rate in Botswana and the robbery rate in Zimbabwe is doing what you suggest. I can't even imagine what you might have been trying to say here.

"What you can do Is to compare the vaccinations rates in Botswana AND the mortality rate in Botswana. Then you can say if this particular vaccine is working or not."

My my, talk about your apples and oranges. Comparing vaccination rates and mortality rates. Weird.

But I won't pretend that I don't know what you *might* have been *trying* to say. You might have been trying to say that we should compare the mortality rate in Botswana when the vaccination rate was low to the mortality rate in Botswana when the vaccination rate was high.

You think that if the mortality rates are different, we might be able to conclude that the difference in the mortality rate was *caused by* the difference in the vaccination rate.

So you're suggesting that the difference in the robbery-with-firearm rate in Canada from 1992 to 2002 was *caused by* ... what?

But to get back to Botswana and Zimbabwe, let's try something else.

Let's compare the mortality rate in Botswana and the mortality rate in Zimbabwe. No oranges in that apple barrel.

And if we find they are different, let's look for possible causes of that difference. Just as we did when we found that there were different mortality rates in Botswana itself at different times.

Let's compare the vaccination rate in Botswana and the vaccination rate in Zimbabwe -- again, all apples in this barrel. (Of course, we'll also want to compare the rate of lightning strikes, the rate of car crashes, the rate of train derailments, and all sorts of other things, including level and distribution of income, level of education, and on and on, in our search for explanations of the observed difference.)

Seeing the point at all?

If we compare the robbery rate in the US and the robbery rate in Canada, we'll find differences. If we compare the robbery with firearm rate in the US and the robbery with firearm rate in Canada, we'll find differences. (Both MrBenchley and I have now offered such info.)

Then we -- well, some of us, anyhow -- will want to look for possible explanations -- causes -- of those differences.

There are undoubtedly many and various such causes. I just can't understand why anyone would categorically assert that difficulty of access to the weapons used to commit robbery-with-firearms is NOT one such cause ...

Would you actually assert that if we found that there was a higher mortality rate in Botswana than in Zimbabwe, and a higher vaccination rate in Zimbabwe than in Botswana, we could not at least hypothesize that vaccination is a factor in reducing mortality??

Wouldn't you really need to be offering some better hypothesis of your own to rebut the viable explanation for at least *part* of the lower mortality rate that is staring you in the face?

And don't you really need to have a better reason than "my eyes are shut" for failing to see the viable explanation for at least *part* of the lower robbery-with-firearm rate -- lower both than in the past in Canada and than at present in the US -- that is staring you in the face here?

.

[iverglas]

60. ignore this message ^^^, read the one below with same title

It was added to after the false failed-post message was replied to, and even though it was posted well under an hour ago I am not being permitted to edit it. Aaargh ...

[iverglas]

59. well no bloody wonder

No one this ... confused ... can be expected to make any sense at all.

"You cannot compare the rates of vaccinations in Botswana and the mortality rates in Zimbabwe."

No ... and you cannot say that someone comparing the robbery rate in Botswana and the robbery rate in Zimbabwe is doing what you suggest.

But perhaps we can figure out what you were trying to say here.

"What you can do Is to compare the vaccinations rates in Botswana AND the mortality rate in Botswana. Then you can say if this particular vaccine is working or not."

My my, talk about your apples and oranges. Comparing vaccination rates and mortality rates. Weird.

But I won't pretend that I don't know what you *might* have been *trying* to say. You might have been trying to say that we should compare the mortality rate in Botswana when the vaccination rate was low to the mortality rate in Botswana when the vaccination rate was high.

You think that if the mortality rates are different, we might be able to conclude that the difference in the mortality rate was *caused by* the difference in the vaccination rate.

So you're suggesting that the difference in the robbery-with-firearm rate in Canada from 1992 to 2002 was *caused by* ... what?

But to get back to Botswana and Zimbabwe, let's try something else.

Let's compare the mortality rate in Botswana and the mortality rate in Zimbabwe. No oranges in that apple barrel.

And if we find they are different, let's look for possible causes of that difference. Just as we did when we found that there were different mortality rates in Botswana itself at different times.

Let's compare the vaccination rate in Botswana and the vaccination rate in Zimbabwe -- again, all apples in this barrel. (Of course, we'll also want to compare the rate of lightning strikes, the rate of car crashes, the rate of train derailments, and all sorts of other things, including level and distribution of income, level of education, and on and on, in our search for explanations of the observed difference.)

Seeing the point at all?

If we compare the robbery rate in the US and the robbery rate in Canada, we'll find differences. If we compare the robbery with firearm rate in the US and the robbery with firearm rate in Canada, we'll find differences. (Both MrBenchley and I have now offered such info.)

Then we -- well, some of us, anyhow -- will want to look for possible explanations -- causes -- of those differences.

There are undoubtedly many and various such causes. I just can't understand why anyone would categorically assert that difficulty of access to the weapons used to commit robbery-with-firearms is NOT one such cause ...

Would you actually assert that if we found that there was a higher mortality rate in Botswana than in Zimbabwe, and a higher vaccination rate in Zimbabwe than in Botswana, we could not at least hypothesize that vaccination is a factor in reducing mortality??

Wouldn't you really need to be offering some better hypothesis of your own to rebut the viable explanation for at least *part* of the lower mortality rate that is staring you in the face?

And don't you really need to have a better reason than "my eyes are shut" for failing to see the viable explanation for at least *part* of the lower robbery-with-firearm rate -- lower both than in the past in Canada and than at present in the US -- that is staring you in the face here?

When a consistent and close correlation between phenonenon A and phenomenon B is observed, and there are at least common-sense, if not demonstrated, reasons to believe that one may have influenced the other, it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that one did in fact influence the other, to some extent.

This is simply not a case of:

My dog barked.
It rained.
My dog made it rain by barking.

The possible causal connection between the availability of firearms and the use of firearms in the commission of crimes -- like the possible causal connection between vacination and mortality -- is just a tiny bit more plausible than the connection between my dog barking and it raining, doncha think?

"To make it simple for you: country A have a robbery rate X per 100 000 inhabitants.
After enacting a gun-control low the robbery rates is Z per 100 000 inhabitants.
Compare X with Z. If X>Z, you have a working gun control low.
If X= or<Z you have a lot of wasted tax money.
End of lesson."

I assume that you do not actually teach school. We might be looking to "low level of education" as a factor in high crime rates in the US, assuming that this is where you are, in that case. (And if that is where you are, then judging by your spelling and grammar, "low level of education" might well be a factor even if you don't teach school. Perhaps English is not your first language.)

More apples and bloody oranges. Yes, we really can compare mortality rates in Botswana and mortality rates in Zimbabwe, and then compare vaccination rates in Botswana and vaccination rates in Zimbabwe, and derive meaningful hypotheses about the effects of vaccination on mortality rates from that comparison. We of course need to investigate and then consider any other possible explanations of the different mortality rates we find.

Now substitute "robbery-with-firearm rates" for "mortality rates", and "firearms availability rates" for "vaccination rates", and "the United States" for "Botswana", and "Canada" for "Zimbabwe", and see what you get. Here -- "to make it simple for you":

Yes, we really can compare robbery-with-firearm rates in the United States and robbery-with-firearm rates in Canada, and then compare firearms availability in the United States and firearms availability in Canada, and derive meaningful hypotheses about the effects of firearms availability on robbery-with-firearms rates from that comparison. We of course need to investigate and then consider any other possible explanations of the different robbery-with-firearms rates we find.

Here's the other little problem with your scenario, of course; if we substitute, again:

Country A has a tuberculosis rate of X per 100,000 inhabitants.
After enacting a gun-control low the tuberculosis rate is Z per 100 000 inhabitants.
Compare X with Z. If X>Z, you have a working gun control low.
If X= or<Z you have a lot of wasted tax money.
End of lesson.

Indeed, it might be a lot of wasted tax money. Because enacting a gun control law in order to reduce the incidence of tuberculosis would be just damned stupid in the first place, wouldn't it then?

Of course, s/he who concluded that a gun control law was a waste of money because it didn't reduce the incidence of tuberculosis would be even stupider.

What of s/he who suggests that a gun control law is a waste of money if it doesn't reduce the incidence of robbery?

Well ... "disingenuous" does just keep coming to mind, doesn't it? Not to mention "inventing straw people to knock down". "To make it simple for you" -- was the gun control law intended to reduce the incidence of robbery? Rhetorical question, to which the answer is: NO.

And what of s/he who suggests that a gun control law is money well spent if the incidence of robbery with firearms declines sharply after the enactment of the gun control law(s)? Well, that's perhaps a slightly reckless thing to assert as a proven fact, but I didn't see anyone doing that.

And given the evidence, it would simply be no more reckless than most other statements about the effect of any law, or much of any other action, on behaviour. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" of the efficacy of laws for altering behaviour is neither needed in order for the law to be "good law" nor remotely possible to establish.

"Now you tell me what the robbery rate in country B has to do with all this?"

Why don't you take a stab at answering your question? A genuine, sincere, honest, bona fide stab.

.

[JayS]

61. "My dog made it rain by barking"

Can I borrow your dog? :)

[MrBenchley]

65. Sounds like John Lott's dog

Be careful you don't shoot it.

[JayS]

66. Que?

.

[iverglas]

68. heh heh heh

Of course, you know that incidents of sexual assault rise during the summer months.

So do sales of ice cream.

Is it eating ice cream that causes sexual assault ... or maybe being sexually assaulted / sexually assaulting someone that causes eating ice cream?

And yup, it certainly is entirely possible that both Canada's firearms laws and Canada's low rate of firearms violence have a mutual cause. (The way hot weather both causes people to eat more ice cream and causes more people to be out in public and vulnerable to sexual assault.) They're both *symtomatic* of something rather than *causally connected* to each other, for instance.

I'd say that's undoubtedly true as a partial explanation of the observed correlation: both the laws and the low violence rate are symptoms of the values of the society and how strong the commitment of its members to those values is.

But I would not rule out the rather obvious possibility that the laws are partially causal of the low rate of firearms violence, without fear of appearing foolish or disingenuous.

I would rule out the possibility that my dogs makes it rain, or that ice cream causes sexual assault, without any such fear at all.

.

.

[MrBenchley]

70. Thanks

Another huge factor is, of course Canada's "safety net," which Americans are always solemnly assured "does not work" by the sort of evil turds who support the gun industry, the NRA, John Lott's rubbish and the Republican party.

[malkia]

71. Wow!

You are right. English is my third language. Sorry about that. Obviously it’ll take me more than 2 years to learn it.
Here we argue about the benefits of gun control. The problem is that everybody has different view about said benefits. For me the only important one is reducing the crime.
Every country is different. That’s the problem with comparing them. We are talking pineapples and oranges here. There are too many variables between USA and Canada than just gun ownership.
That’s why I prefer to compare the results in one country, were only one variable has changed. And the result at least from my point of view does not support gun control.
In the Washington D.C. post you tried to explain the reasons for the higher crime rates there. OK, there are poor and rich, educated and illiterate, stupid and clever people everywhere else in the USA. The only different thing is the weapon ban there. So don’t be surprised when I still prefer tougher penalties for the perpetrators instead of more gun control.
Your last question is very important. I’ve been trying to answer it for the last 2 years.
What do we have? From the Interpol site, for year 2001:
USA with 5.6 homicides, 3800 thefts and 148 robberies per 100 000;
UK with respectively 1.6, 5900 and 182;
Switzerland with respectively 2.4, 3300 and 31;
Can you say that Switzerland is safer place to live? http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/downloadList.asp

[MrBenchley]

45. Peddle it somewhere else

"If it’s the latest-your candian example doesn’t prove anything. "
Yeah, we can tell from all the screaming..

[malkia]

48. You were doing fine for a while, Benchley!

But old habits die hard, right?
Keep working on it, man! You can do it!

[MrBenchley]

49. Still doing fine

That was all the response your post required...

[MrBenchley]

62. And I'll be doing even better now

that I've decided to ignore you and your gun nut "honesty"

[MrBenchley]

63. And I'll be doing even better now

that I've decided to ignore you and your gun nut "honesty"

[MrBenchley]

64. And I'll be doing even better now

that I've decided to ignore you and your gun nut "honesty"

[MrBenchley]

51. For the record

Canada…85 armed robberies per 100,000

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal04a.htm

US….165 armed robberies per 100,000

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel99/ucr98.htm

[MrBenchley]

52. For the record

Canada…85 armed robberies per 100,000

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal04a.htm

US….165 armed robberies per 100,000

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel99/ucr98.htm

[malkia]

55. So what is your point?

So how the robbery rate in Canada really changed?http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/downloadList.asp

[iverglas]

67. I give up; what's yours?

Your Interpol site provides the following information:

Canada, 1995
- population 29,606,100
- number of "robberies and violent thefts" 27,414
We get a rate of 92.6 / 100,000

Canada, 2001
- population 31,081,887
- number of "robberies and violent thefts" 30,273
We get a rate of 97.3 / 100,000

In 2000, the rate obtained from Interpol's figures was 87.8.
In 1999, the rate was 94.3.

A little upping and downing, maybe?

Or ... apples being compared to oranges, maybe? Unless you want to give us a bit more information about the reporting and compilation methods for Interpol's figures, we don't know what we're comparing to what. Specifically, while comparisons may presumably be made across countries for a single year, can these figures be used to make comparisons across years for a single country?

Myself, I'm a little confused about just what those numbers might be. All the years I looked at showed figures of over 1,000 for murder in Canada. However, we know, for instance, that in 2001 there were only 558 reported homicides in Canada.
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/020925/d020925b.htm
(It seems that some of the figures given by Interpol were for attempted murder, and this may explain part, but I don't think all, of the huge discrepancies.)

Interpol states that there were 30,273 "robberies and violent thefts" in 2001. StatsCan tells us that the number of robberies in 2002 (see below) was "almost 27,000". Even if the population had only remained constant, that's a decline of over 10% from 2001, when StatsCan says it was 3%. So I'm seeing figures that are composed of something other than what StatsCan uses to compile its reports, and that are not comparable to StatsCan's figures, and that I don't know the meaning or reliability of.

The Statistics Canada report was quoted in the Globe & Mail article:

Nationally, the rate of violent crime dropped 2 per cent in 2002, driven by a 3-per-cent decline in the rate of robberies and a 2-per-cent drop in assaults.

I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve Statistics Canada's finding that the robbery rate fell by 2% in 2002 from 2001, or that the overall crime rate "is 27 per cent below its peak in 1991". I know that Statistics Canada applies consistent criteria year-by-year, and that those criteria are based on the Criminal Code of Canada, not on some other classification of crimes that might vary over time.

Here is a summary of the actual StatsCan report cited by the Globe:
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/030724/d030724a.htm

That summary includes the following "note to readers":

This report is based on an annual Juristat released today by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (CCJS). Data on incidents that come to the attention of the police are captured and forwarded to the CCJS via the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) survey according to a nationally-approved set of common scoring rules, categories and definitions.

UCR data are available back to 1962 for both the nation and provinces and territories, and from 1991 at the census metropolitan area level.

Data for 2001 for Ontario have been revised after the detection of a discrepancy in methodology applied by the Ontario Provincial Police and about 40 small and mid-sized municipal forces. The net effect of this problem was an over-count of about 4% in the total number of criminal incidents in Ontario for 2001. At the national level, this produced an over-count of criminal incidents of about 1%. The data revision disproportionately affects incident counts for less serious offences that most frequently occur in combination with other more serious offence types.

<2001 is when the apparent robbery "bulge" occurred, according to the Interpol figures, if they can be read comparatively. I won't guess whether this factor might have played a role.>

Comparisons of the revised Ontario data for 2001 and the 2002 data to earlier years should be made with caution as further analysis of the impact on the Ontario time series prior to 2001 has not yet been completed. This analysis may result in a revision to the historical time series to improve the comparability of the historical information.

It also says:

Violent crime down as robberies, assaults decline

Police reported about 300,000 violent crimes in 2002, encompassing everything from homicide to attempted murder, assault, sexual assault, robbery and abduction. Nearly two-thirds of these violent crimes were minor assaults.

Nationally, the rate of violent crime dropped 2% in 2002, driven by a 3% decline in the rate of robberies and a 2% decline in assaults. The violent crime rate has generally been dropping since the early 1990s.

... The robbery rate declined 3% in 2002, continuing a downward trend. About half of the almost 27,000 robberies were committed with a weapon. The rate of robberies involving a firearm has dropped by two-thirds since 1992. Robberies committed with a firearm now account for one in every eight robberies.

We will recall that in the US, robberies committed with a firearm in 2001 accounted for 42% of robberies -- more than three out of eight -- and that 8% of all homicides were related to robberies:
http://www.athenaresearch.com/research/uniform_crime_report_2001.pdf
I'd think that homicides committed during robberies are considerably more likely to involve firearms than baseball bats, or fists ... wouldn't we all?

I recall a homicide committed in Toronto a few years ago during the course of a robbery-with-firearm. The case -- the shooting of a young woman customer in a trendy restaurant -- became quite famous. Of course there are others, but my point is that they are rare.

Ah, here we are, something: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/001018/d001018b.htm

Of the 60 victims killed by a stranger in 1999, 32 were the result of a precipitating crime, most commonly robbery.

32 people out of 536 homicide victims -- fewer than 6% -- were killed in the course of another crime (the most common one being robbery) in 1999.

Statistics Canada does not seem to have released its analysis of 2002 homicide statistics yet. In view of the interest taken in robbery/armed robbery, one might hope that it will include the "precipitating crime" figures in its summary.

In any event, here we have yet another interesting difference between Canada and the US: homicides that are precipitated by robberies account for a greater proportion of homicides in the US than in Canada, by a factor of between 2:1 (at a guess) and 4:3.

Now ... who is going to gaze skyward and assert that those homicides were, or would have been if they weren't, committed by people wielding baseball bats, knives or fists? Who isn't going to acknowledge what's staring them in the face: that robberies committed using firearms are far more likely to result in death than robberies committed using penknives?

For those who find comparisons worthwhile, here's some more interesting stuff: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm

This release is based on analysis in a new report, Juristat: Crime comparisons between Canada and the United States, which is available today from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. The data came from the Canadian and American Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) programs and the Canadian and American Homicide Surveys.

The different number of offences collected in the two UCR programs- 106 in Canada and 8 in the United States - prevents direct comparison of the American and Canadian total crime rates. However, it is possible to group comparable offences to indicate overall crime patterns.

Thus overall crime rates reported in this way do not seem to be at all comparable, since, for instance, the Canadian figures include a whole lot of things that the US figures do not include. But robbery rates are pretty directly comparable.

And, in the interests of informed discussion:

In 2000, Americans were far more likely than Canadians to be victims of aggravated assault. The U.S. rate of 324 aggravated assaults for every 100,000 population was more than double the Canadian rate of 143. However, the U.S. rate has been falling since 1994, culminating with a 3% decline in 2000. In contrast, the Canadian rate has remained relatively stable since 1994, but was up 7% in 2000.

The American rate of reported robbery was 65% higher than in Canada in 2000, and the difference was much more pronounced with respect to robberies committed with a firearm. In 2000, firearms were involved in 41% of robberies south of the border, compared with only 16% in Canada. Since 1991, police-reported robbery rates have been declining in both countries. During this period, rates fell 47% in the United States - almost twice the 26% decline in Canada.

Of course, when you start out so much fatter, you have more weight to lose. ;)


.