This time from Canada: Gun control measures do not reduce crime

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence According to New Study

Vancouver, BC - Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce gun violence in Australia, Canada, or Great Britain. The policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure, according to a new paper The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, released today by The Fraser Institute.

You can read the full study here in PDF format: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/FailedExperiment.pdf

This is something that many of us anti-restrictive gun control advocates have been saying for a long time, and now in the countries with the most restrictive gun laws, you see no noticable drop in gun crime.

 

[SpyMoose]

I don’t know, those countries have more restrictive gun laws than the US, and far less gun related violence, are you sure you aren’t leaping to conclusions based on inconclusive data? The fact that the information comes from the Frasier Institute might make this 'study' seem just a little suspect.

For some info on how gun control laws are working in the US you might go to.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issuebriefs/loophole.asp

 

[Tiassa]

You're right, Stokes

That is such a comprehensive analysis of violent crime that I now believe that no other factors affect crime rates other than the presence of guns. Obviously, fear of your neighbor's lethal power is the only logical reason for social cooperation.

Or, to be less sarcastic: The paper makes some good points, but in order for me to agree with it, I feel as if I have to rule out certain considerations; economy and education are given superficial consideration, and I don't see an analysis of where the guns in crimes are coming from in comparison to the gun control laws.

Without better explanations of the economic and educational statistics in relation to the issues, it's a tough sell to put such a superficial paper developed in the wake of a sport shooting symposium. I will, for instance, be pursuing Mauser & Maki's 2003 article from Applied Economics #35 in order to find out just how they "factored out the effects of other variables," which is a dangerous phrase without better clarification. (Remember that the big argument about global warming numbers involved in the late 1990s a study which "factored out the effects" of volcanic eruptions on climate. In other words, if we pretend that volcanoes never erupt, we should be alarmed at the numbers.)

But aside from that concern, it's a very interesting article about statistical correlations. I'll give it a second read-through and see if anything sticks out as persuasive.

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Re: You're right, Stokes

Originally posted by tiassa
That is such a comprehensive analysis of violent crime that I now believe that no other factors affect crime rates other than the presence of guns. Obviously, fear of your neighbor's lethal power is the only logical reason for social cooperation.

Sarcasm aside, you are still debating a strawman.

 

[Tiassa]

Are you sure about that?

you are still debating a strawman

Are you sure about that, Stokes?

Perhaps one of these days you'll get around to filling in the detail.

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

The article said:
Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce gun violence in Australia, Canada, or Great Britain. The policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure, according to a new paper The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, released today by The Fraser Institute.

Originally posted by tiassa
That is such a comprehensive analysis of violent crime that I now believe that no other factors affect crime rates other than the presence of guns. Obviously, fear of your neighbor's lethal power is the only logical reason for social cooperation.

Or, to be less sarcastic: The paper makes some good points, but in order for me to agree with it, I feel as if I have to rule out certain considerations; economy and education are given superficial consideration, and I don't see an analysis of where the guns in crimes are coming from in comparison to the gun control laws.

Description of Straw Man:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

The study was not of what qualitative impacts economic, social, or educational status had on crime, but just one thing: gun control legislation. Education, economics, etc., have no bearing on the correlation (or lack thereof) that the study is analyzing. By presuming that they do, you transmogrify it into an indefensible argument, therby evading the argument entirely and failing to prove anything.

And your chronic belief that all gun control opponents are in favor of an anarchical state is so far out in left field that it scuttles itself.

 

[Tiassa]

Exartly!

The study was not of what qualitative impacts economic, social, or educational status had on crime, but just one thing: gun control legislation. Education, economics, etc., have no bearing on the correlation (or lack thereof) that the study is analyzing

And that's all it is: a correlation. And a correlation isn't much to be basing statements like your own on:

This is something that many of us anti-restrictive gun control advocates have been saying for a long time, and now in the countries with the most restrictive gun laws, you see no noticable drop in gun crime.

Great, a correlation. No discussion of the devices at play to make that correlation. That's ... well that may be something that many of you "anti-restrictive gun control advocates"° may have been saying for a long time, but there is no discussion, is there, of what makes it significant?

Notes:

° anti-restrictive gun control advocates - What does that even mean, anyway? Is the new conservative PC upon us?

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Originally posted by tiassa
And that's all it is: a correlation. And a correlation isn't much to be basing statements like your own on

My statement (and this report) was based on a lack of correlation. Here's how it works:

1. The burden of proof is on the gun control advocates to prove that these laws work, not the rest of us to prove that they do not.
2. Multiple studies have shown that the laws have no quantifiable effect.
3. Ergo, the laws are frivilous, and not worth the effort.

Simple, eh?

anti-restrictive gun control advocates - What does that even mean, anyway? Is the new conservative PC upon us?

It's a double negative. Do the math.

 

[Tiassa]

Express yourself

Multiple studies have shown that the laws have no quantifiable effect.

This is the problem with your argument, Stokes.

You need to learn to distinguish between the general and the particular. The studies showing that the laws have no quantifiable effect are based on simple correlations with no demonstration of their function. Essentially, A=B, so C must necessarily equal D.

Show me how A and B affect C and D.

It's a double negative. Do the math.

That's the problem when you try to be all flash and no substance, Stokes: at the end of the day, you've got nothing.

Learn to express yourself better. I'd love to believe you have some noble or decent purpose in mind, but your attitude and behavior indicate otherwise. In the meantime, your behavior suggests that you need a proctologist in order to help you find your head.

Style tells us nothing but how superficial are the things you find important.

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Originally posted by tiassa
The studies showing that the laws have no quantifiable effect are based on simple correlations with no demonstration of their function. Essentially, A=B, so C must necessarily equal D.

Elaborate.

 

[Tiassa]

You really don't get it?

You really don't get it, Stokes?

Think twice before asking me to think for you.

The relationship between gun control laws and crime, including the alleged apparent failure of gun control laws to solve crime, is not well-established. Are there no other factors affecting crime? Your topic leaves the impression that gun control laws are the only factor at play.

But it's very difficult to tell you specifically what's wrong with your position, since you refuse to be clear about it. You tend to write general statements and hope that people react in a certain way.

I'll try to figure out a way to explain it to you, but the issue is much broader than you have been thus far willing to consider.

Don't expect me to argue the bonehead line for you, Stokes. If boneheaded is the best you're capable of overcoming, well, keep at it, sport. You'll figure it out someday.

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Re: You really don't get it?

Originally posted by tiassa
The relationship between gun control laws and crime, including the alleged apparent failure of gun control laws to solve crime, is not well-established. Are there no other factors affecting crime? Your topic leaves the impression that gun control laws are the only factor at play.

Well that wasn't so hard to do, was it? When you actually stop saturating your tampon about my abrasive manner you are quite coherent. I genuinely appreciate that, and it is good for the overall forum environment to cultivate rational discourse.

Anyway, you are partially correct. There is no relationship between gun laws and crime, and that is what the multitude of studies have found. This much we are seemingly agreeing on.

Other factors affecting crime? Absolutely. Relevant to whether or not gun laws affect crime? Absolutely not. That is my point. The burden of proof has always been on gun control advocates to show that their revocation of freedoms is worthwhile in pursuit of their purportedly nobler goal, and thus far, there has been no proof of this, even after more than ten years of the most severe restrictions our nation's citizenry has ever been subjected to.

Is further action in the same course worthwhile? Some may think so. I do not, and recent research tends to support my position. Many of us firearm aficionados have been advocating against laws like this for a long time; attacking the disease of crime in our society, and not one of its many symptoms. I see gun control (in the US) as a social experiment that has received more than its fair share of attention. Its last remaining vestiges will die a quiet death in the coming years, inevitably being replaced by something else. We have seen this sort of faddish nonsense before and I have been singularly unimpressed this time around.

Also, gun control is generally a dead issue politically now, unlike in the mid-1990s. I really do not envision much pandering to the soccer mom demographic in the future. The 1994 assault weapons ban sunsets next year and I already have a shopping list.

 

[Tiassa]

Sorry to hear about your ... er ... never mind.

Well that wasn't so hard to do, was it?

No, merely extraneous in accord with your needs.

When you actually stop saturating your tampon about my abrasive manner you are quite coherent.

When you actually stop flipping your attitude problem everywhere you go and drop your obsession with me, well, I still can't say you'll make any more sense, but you'll give me less cause to worry about your hideous rudeness.

It gets tiresome trying to simplify it for you. On the one hand, you pretend knowledge and authority on some subjects, while on the other you demonstrate by the content of your posts that you have no idea what you're talking about.

If you had a legitimate point, I might understand the reasons for your passion, but in the meantime it would appear that you're just going out of your way to be belligerent.

If you don't like my comments about your attitude, Stokes, perhaps you should give a few seconds' consideration to your behavior.

There is no relationship between gun laws and crime, and that is what the multitude of studies have found. This much we are seemingly agreeing on.

Only in your distorted perception.

My position is that the conclusion that, "There is no relationship between gun laws and crime," is unsubstantiated.

Read with a little more open mind next time. But I do appreciate the effort.

Relevant to whether or not gun laws affect crime? Absolutely not. That is my point.

This is what you have yet to demonstrate.

The burden of proof has always been on gun control advocates to show that their revocation of freedoms is worthwhile in pursuit of their purportedly nobler goal, and thus far, there has been no proof of this, even after more than ten years of the most severe restrictions our nation's citizenry has ever been subjected to.

Well, when all you want are one- and two-dimensional statistical correlations, I'm not sure what will convince you.

I do not, and recent research tends to support my position

You have not demonstrated the connection between the result and your position aside from the common bias among the gun-owners' lobbies that statistical correlations with no explanation of device are definitive, and this is an erroneous connection.

Many of us firearm aficionados have been advocating against laws like this for a long time; attacking the disease of crime in our society, and not one of its many symptoms

Perhaps you would like to make that just a little more coherent?

I see gun control (in the US) as a social experiment that has received more than its fair share of attention.

So what is the alternative?

Its last remaining vestiges will die a quiet death in the coming years, inevitably being replaced by something else.

If there comes a time that human beings are smart enough to own weapons and not hurt each other extraneously with them, I agree.

I really do not envision much pandering to the soccer mom demographic in the future

You really ought to drop the misogyny.

The 1994 assault weapons ban sunsets next year and I already have a shopping list

We always knew this was about greed. What's new?

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Re: Sorry to hear about your ... er ... never mind.

Originally posted by tiassa
When you actually stop flipping your attitude problem everywhere you go and drop your obsession with me,

don't flatter yourself. Politics is a contentious subject. If you don't want your fragile feelings hurt, don't post. It's really that simple.

My position is that the conclusion that, "There is no relationship between gun laws and crime," is unsubstantiated.

Remember the last thread about this we had? The one where you couldn't prove a thing without resorting to uncorroborated anecdotal evidence and appeals to emotion? Well, I posted this there too:

During 2000–2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.

I suppose you will fabricate some reason to disbelieve and defame the CDC, but anyway, here's a link to the study: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5214.pdf

There's your substance.

This is what you have yet to demonstrate.

Crime precipitated by socioeconomic status and educational level has incidental relevance to crime caused by firearms. In spite of your attempts to interject and extrapolate, this is a two-dimensional issue because only two variables are being tabulated.

But keep on fishing for those red herrings, Captain Fallacy.

You have not demonstrated the connection between the result and your position aside from the common bias among the gun-owners' lobbies that statistical correlations with no explanation of device are definitive, and this is an erroneous connection.

HURRRRRRR, yeah, well, see above.

Perhaps you would like to make that just a little more coherent?

Gun crime is symptomatic of a larger problem in America: crime in general. By attacking inanimate objects instead of their actuators, you simply practice willful ignorance of the causality. It is a textbook example of guilt by association - an elementary logical fallacy.

So what is the alternative?

Criminal control, not gun control. When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. I find it downright hilarious that the same purple faced leftists who bitch about other governmental silliness like the PATRIOT Act and such turn a blind eye to a much more fundamental infringement on Constitutional and congenital human rights. It's a sideshow of inconsistency.

If there comes a time that human beings are smart enough to own weapons and not hurt each other extraneously with them, I agree.

Yeah, good thing they banned most guns in Great Britain. Now thugs kill each other and innocents with clubs and bats! Also, I'm going to revoke your driver's license because the guy two houses down was caught DUI.

You really ought to drop the misogyny.

Keeping the myth alive that limp-wristed leftists have no sense of humor. Sanctimonious feminism is not going to help you get laid on an internet forum, chief.

We always knew this was about greed. What's new?

Drive through ad hom man.

 

[Tiassa]

Get yourself an argument, Stokes

Politics is a contentious subject. If you don't want your fragile feelings hurt, don't post. It's really that simple.

What are you, Sciforums' resident terrorist?

Stokes, what is your justification for walking into any given discussion and trying to create a false argument with your own stupid bigotry?

Well, I posted this there too:

It's not the CDC that will be defamed, but rather such narrowminded interpretations as yours that asserts a correlation with no evident mechanism to show cause and effect equals a definitive conclusion.

Some folks die on the operating table, Stokes. Does that mean the problem is the surgical technique or surgery itself?

There's your substance.

Quit asking me to think for you and put two cents' effort into this subject you are so passionate about as to behave as Sciforums' resident terrorist--if you don't get your way, you're going to drag how many topics down with your phantom argument?

Stop holding other people's discussions hostage.

Crime precipitated by socioeconomic status and educational level has incidental relevance to crime caused by firearms.

Revealing. I think we see a severe limitation of your approach.

But keep on fishing for those red herrings, Captain Fallacy.

This from someone who is concerned whether or not an inanimate object can commit a crime?

You're getting a little ... delusional, Stokes. But such is the mindset of a terrorist.

HURRRRRRR, yeah, well, see above.

You mean the part where you ask me to think for you so you can complain that I'm thinking for you?

Gun crime is symptomatic of a larger problem in America: crime in general. By attacking inanimate objects instead of their actuators, you simply practice willful ignorance of the causality. It is a textbook example of guilt by association - an elementary logical fallacy.

The poor, oppressed gun! Oh, bemoan its unjust persecution!

Um, Stokes, given that you didn't care about the statistics I provided in that other topic about where guns used in crime come from, I think you're way out of line here.

Hell, boy, you just demonstrated that you have no clue what gun control arguments are about.

It's not about the guns, Stokes, but about keeping them from dangerous hands.

That is your elementary logical fallacy, Stokes.

Criminal control, not gun control.

A nice vagary. Keep trying.

When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

You're on, Stokes.

You say, "When you outlaw guns."

Show us. Show us when and how that will happen.

Make your case something more substantial than a paranoid identity-politic based wholly in your compensatory desire to be lethal in lieu of a more legitimate comfort within yourself.

Now thugs kill each other and innocents with clubs and bats!

Well and fine. If people want to pick up sticks and stones to kill one another, that's fine. But I doubt there is a multibillion dollar worldwide industry defending the use of sticks and stones.

Also, I'm going to revoke your driver's license because the guy two houses down was caught DUI.

I'm just going to repeat part of the above here:

• Make your case something more substantial than a paranoid identity-politic based wholly in your compensatory desire to be lethal in lieu of a more legitimate comfort within yourself.

Keeping the myth alive that limp-wristed leftists have no sense of humor. Sanctimonious feminism is not going to help you get laid on an internet forum, chief.

Stokes, I strongly urge you to get a legitimate argument.

Hatemongering may be what we've come to expect of you, but it's not as if you're making any decent argument.

Drive through ad hom man

Actually, no, it's not. Please document your own words that I responded to and explain how, comparatively that's an ad hom.

After all, you celebrate the possibility of being able to buy more powerful guns; it would seem, when we look at what argumentative basis you've provided in this and other recent topics, that your argument really is about your right to own even more lethal technology than you do now. Identity politics are your own choice, but you shouldn't make them the centerpiece of your argument.

Get yourself a real argument, Br ... I mean, Stokes. (Sorry, you're starting to sound like the house monkey when you make misogyny and hatemongering so prominent in your presentation.)

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Re: Get yourself an argument, Stokes

Originally posted by tiassa
The poor, oppressed gun! Oh, bemoan its unjust persecution!

Not every one of us so willingly casts aside our congenital Constitutional freedoms. I submit that most of us do not so willingly suckle from the government's teat.

Um, Stokes, given that you didn't care about the statistics I provided in that other topic about where guns used in crime come from, I think you're way out of line here.

Bullshit. You provided nothing. I will tell you right now that most guns used in crimes are stolen or purchased illegally. If you need a source on that just say so.

Hell, boy, you just demonstrated that you have no clue what gun control arguments are about.

lol

Show us. Show us when and how that will happen.

1. National firearm registration - check
2. Increasing trend of socialist politics - check
3. Tightening of frivilous regulations - check
4. Confiscation of legally owned firearms from responsible owners - check

It is up to the citizens how much farther things are allowed to progress; how much more of our beloved Constitution is allowed to be butchered in the name of "social progress". Gun laws are not for crime control. Gun laws are people control under the guise of "saving the lives of innocent children".

Hatemongering may be what we've come to expect of you, but it's not as if you're making any decent argument.Actually, no, it's not. Please document your own words that I responded to and explain how, comparatively that's an ad hom.

You are basically saying "oh, of course you argue this point, because you're a greed-inspired trigger happy gun nut". Well, I am, but that doesn't make my argument any less valid. In essence you are missing the topic by focusing on me personally.

 

[Tiassa]

Maybe if you're good, you can shoot Santa!

Not every one of us so willingly casts aside our congenital Constitutional freedoms.

Are you talking about the people or the guns here?

I will tell you right now that most guns used in crimes are stolen or purchased illegally.

I must admit you're right--it appears I didn't ever get that stat up. I think the topic may have been closed when I was working on that post.

At any rate, Department of Justice statistics suggest that more guns are obtained through friends (39.6%) and family, as compared to "the street" or other "illegal source" (39.2%). (The PDF version can be downloaded here.)

1. National firearm registration - check
2. Increasing trend of socialist politics - check
3. Tightening of frivilous regulations - check
4. Confiscation of legally owned firearms from responsible owners - check

Rather a subjective assessment, I'd say.

It is up to the citizens how much farther things are allowed to progress; how much more of our beloved Constitution is allowed to be butchered in the name of "social progress".

That Draconian paperwork?

Look, Stokes, there comes a day when even I will stand off my government on the issue of guns, but that's so many miles away that I think you're being paranoid. Oh, yeah, that's right. You want to buy more guns. Got your shoppin' list ready, right?

You are basically saying "oh, of course you argue this point, because you're a greed-inspired trigger happy gun nut". Well, I am, but that doesn't make my argument any less valid.

Actually, I think it's very consistent with the greedy line you've taken. Draconian paperwork, the poor oppressed gun. I mean, it does speak toward a reflection on how much of your identity you invest in guns.

I've told you you're selfish before. All you did was reinforce it. Thank you for writing a nice A-B-C for people who want a reason to tune you out, though. When you take flying leaps like that, well, it's your own choice.

In essence you are missing the topic by focusing on me personally.

Well you ought to try having a real argument instead of making yourself the focus. Geez, Stokes, it's not that hard to figure out.

 

[fireguy_31]

Unfinished...

I quickly read through the Fraser Institute study and found it to be incomplete. Back in my undergrad days I wrote a paper on this very topic - specifically bill C-68 (Canada's Dual Registration System). The focus of my paper called into question the cost estimate (projected to cost 2 million and my guesstimate was a billion, and wouldn't you know it I was right) and that it would do nothing to "reduce" crimes committed with firearms in Canada - again I was right on that one too. With that said, the Fraser Institutes conclusion misses the mark..

IN their report they made mention of Canada's gun laws begining in the early 90's. Not true, they began earlier than that.. Prior to Bill C-68 being introduced to the House of Commons Canada already had in place an effective firearms screening system, which was a complete cost recovery program, called the Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC). This screening system subjected people, who wanted to purchase a new firearm, to a comprehensive background check - which included interviews of your neighbors by police, a criminal check, registration of the firearm and a mandatory safe handling course. All in all this process would take roughly a year to complete before you could purchase a firearm. In the subsequent years that followed this legislation firearms crimes DID decrease. NGO's supported this new legislation as did Canadians. I think it was a study done in 1997 which revealed most crimes in Canada involving firearms, following the FAC legislation, were committed with either smuggled or stolen guns - so they slipped through the system. Furthermore, it was also revealed that these "illegal" guns were smuggled into the country from the US.

Conclusion: Canada did NOT have a firearms problem with their citizens, we had a smuggling problem on our hands...

I'll shift gears here a bit. What precipitated the drafting of bill C-68 was a campaign of fear, a campaign led by then Minister of Justice Allan Rock(pew). He went accross the country (specifically urban centers where, oddly enough, there were almost no gun owners - you see most guns in Canada will be found in RURAL areas for obvious reasons) campaigning that automatic firearms, handguns and the like should not be allowed in Canada and that if it were up to him (and I quote), "Only police and the military would have guns." You gotta understand something here, the firearms Allan Rock (pew) was speaking about were ALREADY either restricted or illegal in this country, but the vast majority, in my estimation, of people in urban centers did not know this. The real problem, to the people in the know, had to do with illegal smuggling - something bill C-68 did not address..

So bill C-68 was passed, it has cost taxpayers billions and did nothing to improve on a system that was ALREADY effective.

Lastly, you know what really pisses me off?? That people will read one article and debate it till the cows come home without verifying the original articles validity. If you want to get the whole story on anything do some research, go to a library talk to people who know the situation then determine your position..

I have followed this topic for some time and what I've noticed is that gun lobbyists have used bill C-68 as a catalyst to propel their assertion that gun laws don't work.. That's BS! Ineffective gun laws don't work, especially when they do not address the problem.. Remember, we here in Canada had gun laws prior to bill C-68 and THEY WORKED!

Nough' said.

 

[BigBlueHead]

Stokes... have you compared the number of accidental firearm deaths in the US and Canada? Maybe there's another benefit to be had from gun control...

 

[nico]

C-68

Indeed here in Canada our gun crime is commited not by legally bought guns, no they are brought into Canada from the US, through Indian reserves, like cigarettes. The US lax laws have made Canadian efforts rather fruitless. Alan Rock fucked up C-68 budget and pissed me off big time, $1 billion from a projected $2 million!

fireguy_31

You addressed the issue laws do work, C-68 seems like a flop. But nevertheless regulation works. And now what Canada needs to do is clamp down on illegal American guns.