Gun deaths cut in half, StatsCan says

[Orwell]

The risk of death by gunshot has been cut in half in Canada and is far smaller than in the United States, Statistics Canada says.

Quote:

In a study issued on Monday, the federal agency notes that Canadian gun-control laws have been stiffened in recent decades and gun registration has been made compulsory, but it draws no conclusions about the cause of the falling death toll.

Soooo... Why do you think the risk of death by gunshot has been halved in Canada?

[Sushi]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orwell
The risk of death by gunshot has been cut in half in Canada and is far smaller than in the United States, Statistics Canada says.



Soooo... Why do you think the risk of death by gunshot has been halved in Canada?

Maybe knives have become more popular?

[Tony]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orwell
The risk of death by gunshot has been cut in half in Canada and is far smaller than in the United States, Statistics Canada says.



Soooo... Why do you think the risk of death by gunshot has been halved in Canada?

Does that statistic include people who were shot by the police?

[Orwell]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sushi
Maybe knives have become more popular?

Maybe... Unfortunately, I only have information on stabbing from 1999 up to 2003. For those years, the rate of homicide by stabbing is similar to that for homicide by gunshot.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal01.htm

[Jorghnassen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orwell
The risk of death by gunshot has been cut in half in Canada and is far smaller than in the United States, Statistics Canada says.

Soooo... Why do you think the risk of death by gunshot has been halved in Canada?

I would postulate that part of it is due to the decline of hunting and therefore hunting accidents...

[Orwell]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony
Does that statistic include people who were shot by the police?

I think it does, but I'm not sure. But Canadian cops don't kill a lot of people.

[Manny]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jorghnassen
I would postulate that part of it is due to the decline of hunting and therefore hunting accidents...

It appears that that's a not-small part. From the linked article:

Quote:

Homicides accounted for 38 per cent of deaths involving guns in the United States and 18 per cent in Canada.

But even as Canada's rate of gun homicide shrank (to 0.4 per 100,000 population in 2002 from 0.8 in 1979), handguns moved into a dominant role. Handguns accounted for two-thirds of gun homicides in 2002, up from about half in the 1990s, the agency says.

Consistently through the period, about four-fifths of Canadian firearms deaths were suicides, it says.

Homicides in the US over the same period shrank from 10.2/100,000 to 5.5. (cite) A slightly smaller but comparable decrease.

It looks from the article like the biggest single factor is a decline in firearms-related suicides (it implies that they remained constant at 4/5 of all firearms-related deaths, which in turn indicates that they declined at the same rate overall deaths did). It would be interesting to see what happened to the overall suicide rate by all methods.

Very interesting study, Orwell. Thanks for drawing attention to it.

[Manny]

Aw, crap. "not-small part" above should be "small part." I reformatted my response and forgot to change that wording.

80% from suicides and 18% from homicides leaves not much for accidents.

I apologize for the error. I correct it here instead of editing the post in case someone's already calling me out on it as I type -- I deserve to look like the idiot, not whoever corrects me.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by manny
It appears that that's a not-small part. From the linked article:
Homicides in the US over the same period shrank from 10.2/100,000 to 5.5. (cite) A slightly smaller but comparable decrease.

Soooo...homicides with firearms halved in Canada, with more gun control laws, and it very nearly halved in the US, with many states passing concealed-carry laws and there being more guns per capita in the US than ever.

And, this is supposed to say what, exactly, about gun control?

When, exactly, were Canada's gun control laws "stiffened" and what happened with the rates thereafter as opposed to before? That's what needs to be examined.

[Orwell]

I'm not drawing any conclusions, you know? I put the news article up because I wanted to get your impressions.

[Orwell]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
Soooo...homicides with firearms halved in Canada, with more gun control laws, and it very nearly halved in the US, with many states passing concealed-carry laws and there being more guns per capita in the US than ever.

And, this is supposed to say what, exactly, about gun control?

When, exactly, were Canada's gun control laws "stiffened" and what happened with the rates thereafter as opposed to before? That's what needs to be examined.

It should be noted that, as far as I know, the rate of death by gunshot always has been smaller in Canada. Also, I think that in general, Canadians always have been less tolerant of guns.

New legislation was introduced in 1995.

[shanek]

Thought:

The US has an estimated 295,734,134 people over an area of 9,631,418 sq. km. That's about 30.7 people per square kilometer. Also, the US has 43 cities with a population greater than 1,000,000, 7 of which have a population greater than 10,000,000.

Canada has an estimated 32,805,041 people over an area of 9,984,670 sq. km., or about 3.2 people per square kilometer. In Canada, only 6 cities have a population greater than 1,000,000, none of which have a population greater than 10,000,000.

Could Canada's rates be much lower because they're so sparsely populated compared to the US?

[WildCat]

I'd like to see a link on the demographics of Canada's homicides. I'd bet that they're very similar to the USA's amongst different demographic groups. Only difference being that the USA has more of some demographics than Canada does. Please don't accuse me of being racist, I DO NOT BELIEVE AT ALL that there is a genetic component to this, just cultural (much of it because of past and current racism, IMHO).

For example:
Homicide Victimization Rates per 100,000 Population by Race (2002)
White - 3.3
Black - 20.8
Other - 2.7

Note: "White" in this example includes Hispanics, that's just how the FBI does it. Hispanic Blacks would be in the "Black" category.

I've been unable to find demographic crime data from Canada, but Blacks account for only 2% of the population. But US crime statistics alone would seem to indicate that cultural factors are far more important than gun availability as far as homicide rates go.




(waits to get flamed...)

[Orwell]

History of gun control in Canada

Criminal Code of Canada amendments between the 1890s and 1990s steadily increased the restrictions on firearms. These included the following:

In the 1920s permits became necessary for all firearms newly acquired by foreigners.

In 1947 the offence of “constructive murder� was added to the Criminal Code for offences resulting in death, when the offender carried a firearm. This offence was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 1987 case called R. v. Vaillancourt

Automatic weapons were added to the category of firearms that had to be registered in 1951. The registry system was centralized under the Commissioner of the RCMP.

The categories of “firearm,� “restricted weapon� and “prohibited weapon� were created in 1968-69. Police were given preventive powers of search and seizure by judicial warrant if they had grounds to believe that weapons endangered the safety of an individual.

Legislative provisions between 1977 and 1979 required Firearms Acquisition Certificates for all weapons and provided controls on the selling of ammunition. Fully automatic weapons were prohibited. Applicants for Firearms Acquisition Certificates were required to take a safety course.

Between 1991 and 1994, legislation tightened up restrictions and established controls on military, paramilitary and high-firepower weapons.

In 1995, new, and much stricter, gun control legislation was passed. The current legislation provides harsher penalties for crimes involving firearm use, licenses to possess and acquire firearms, and registration of all firearms, including shotguns and rifles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

[Orwell]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
Thought:

The US has an estimated 295,734,134 people over an area of 9,631,418 sq. km. That's about 30.7 people per square kilometer. Also, the US has 43 cities with a population greater than 1,000,000, 7 of which have a population greater than 10,000,000.

Canada has an estimated 32,805,041 people over an area of 9,984,670 sq. km., or about 3.2 people per square kilometer. In Canada, only 6 cities have a population greater than 1,000,000, none of which have a population greater than 10,000,000.

Could Canada's rates be much lower because they're so sparsely populated compared to the US?

I'll bet that most deaths by gunshot happen in cities, since the overwhelming majority of Canada's population lives in them. I think there is no overall significant difference between city population densities in Canada and in the US. Modern cities north american all tend to look alike.

[Orwell]

Quote:

Originally posted by WildCat
I'd like to see a link on the demographics of Canada's homicides. I'd bet that they're very similar to the USA's amongst different demographic groups. Only difference being that the USA has more of some demographics than Canada does. Please don't accuse me of being racist, I DO NOT BELIEVE AT ALL that there is a genetic component to this, just cultural (much of it because of past and current racism, IMHO).

For example:
Homicide Victimization Rates per 100,000 Population by Race (2002)
White - 3.3
Black - 20.8
Other - 2.7

Note: "White" in this example includes Hispanics, that's just how the FBI does it. Hispanic Blacks would be in the "Black" category.

I've been unable to find demographic crime data from Canada, but Blacks account for only 2% of the population. But US crime statistics alone would seem to indicate that cultural factors are far more important than gun availability as far as homicide rates go.




(waits to get flamed...)

Here's the canadian population by ethnic origin.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo26a.htm

I haven't found stats of homicides by ethnic origin.

[SlippyToad]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orwell
I'll bet that most deaths by gunshot happen in cities, since the overwhelming majority of Canada's population lives in them. I think there is no overall significant difference between city population densities in Canada and in the US. Modern cities north american cities all tend to look alike.

Just a side note: I've been to almost every major U.S. city, including what are I believe the three largest: L.A., New York, and Chicago. I also have visited Toronto, which staggered me with its size. And most particularly, the huge concentrations of high-rise apartment buildings in what I thought were really weird places around the city. New York may be on the whole more densely populated, but I have never seen anything like Toronto. Ever.

[SezMe]

Quote:

Originally posted by WildCat
(waits to get flamed...)

I'd love to, WildCat, but not this time 'cause I think you and Shanek are on to something. I think gun violence is exacerbated in large cities due to drugs, unemployment, lack of education, lack of a strong family structure, etc.

It would be interesting to compare crime statistics from similar population density areas in both countries.

[tedly]

I think you'll find that the large majority of gun deaths in Canada occur in rural areas. Gun Homicide is not a big deal in Canada, suicide is, particularly in our First Nations. Living conditions on Canadian reserves are a disgrace; the prairie provinces outside the 4 major urban areas resemble a third world country.
A young aboriginal male (15-25) is 19 times more likely to die by suicide than is a non-a.

In our rural and Northern areas guns are easily obtained, since they are in daily use as tools, and often shared among families (in spite of the gun control rules - here's where that 900 square kilometer per mountie comes in).

If you want a back of the cigarette pack comparison, about 90% of our people are within 100 miles of the southern border, at 4000 miles the world's longest undefended border.
The difference in area between the US and Canada is (wave-hand) 400,00 square miles. So we have a Northern territory the size of the US with 3M people in it. more than a square mile per person.

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
Thought:

The US has an estimated 295,734,134 people over an area of 9,631,418 sq. km. That's about 30.7 people per square kilometer. Also, the US has 43 cities with a population greater than 1,000,000, 7 of which have a population greater than 10,000,000.

Canada has an estimated 32,805,041 people over an area of 9,984,670 sq. km., or about 3.2 people per square kilometer. In Canada, only 6 cities have a population greater than 1,000,000, none of which have a population greater than 10,000,000.

Could Canada's rates be much lower because they're so sparsely populated compared to the US?

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
I don't think cross-cultural comparisons are valid.
Source

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
Thought:

The US has an estimated 295,734,134 people over an area of 9,631,418 sq. km. That's about 30.7 people per square kilometer. Also, the US has 43 cities with a population greater than 1,000,000, 7 of which have a population greater than 10,000,000.

Canada has an estimated 32,805,041 people over an area of 9,984,670 sq. km., or about 3.2 people per square kilometer. In Canada, only 6 cities have a population greater than 1,000,000, none of which have a population greater than 10,000,000.

Could Canada's rates be much lower because they're so sparsely populated compared to the US?

You could then consider a place like Singapore, also.

[Jas]

I was listening to this on CBC radio this morning.

The gun registry passed in 2003, and although it's been a big fiasco, doesn't affect this study.

The two primary factors given out were an aging population, and the fact that in the 80's, many provinces starting instituting rigorous safety courses.

Granted, they aren't that hard. Pointing the rifle at the instructor is an instant fail, and you probably shouldn't stick the gun in mud.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jas
I was listening to this on CBC radio this morning.

The gun registry passed in 2003, and although it's been a big fiasco, doesn't affect this study.

The two primary factors given out were an aging population, and the fact that in the 80's, many provinces starting instituting rigorous safety courses.

Granted, they aren't that hard. Pointing the rifle at the instructor is an instant fail, and you probably shouldn't stick the gun in mud.

Yes, well, again, the number of gun homicides fell by about the same rate in the US over the same period of time, and again, that's with more guns and more people carrying them. So I don't really see how you can come to the above conclusion.

[Orwell]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
Yes, well, again, the number of gun homicides fell by about the same rate in the US over the same period of time, and again, that's with more guns and more people carrying them. So I don't really see how you can come to the above conclusion.

Define "a lot more guns". What is the rate of gun ownership in the US and how does it compare to Canada? And are you sure that the number of people carrying guns in the US has increased ? Could you provide us with a reliable source backing up this assertion?

[Jas]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
Yes, well, again, the number of gun homicides fell by about the same rate in the US over the same period of time, and again, that's with more guns and more people carrying them. So I don't really see how you can come to the above conclusion.

I believe that their rationale is that an aging population generally doesn't go around shooting people, and old people tend to be a bit more careful.

And the gun safety awareness I would definitely say played a large factor, especially since the study tracked gun deaths from 1979.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orwell
Define "a lot more guns".

I didn't say "a lot more guns." I just said "more guns."

Quote:

And are you sure that the number of people carrying guns in the US has increased ? Could you provide us with a reliable source backing up this assertion?

Well, there's this from guncite.com:



http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsupp.html

[Manny]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jas
And the gun safety awareness I would definitely say played a large factor, especially since the study tracked gun deaths from 1979.

Except that according to the article, ~98% of gun-related deaths in Canada are from suicide and homicide -- intentional uses. So unless either a) the article is in error and/or b) there is evidence that a significant number of accidental deaths are misclassified as homicide or (more likely) suicide, I don't think gun safety would have much bearing on the overall decline.

Can someone find the study itself on Stats Canada? The site was being all wonky for me today and the search function wasn't working.

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orwell
The risk of death by gunshot has been cut in half in Canada and is far smaller than in the United States, Statistics Canada says.



Soooo... Why do you think the risk of death by gunshot has been halved in Canada?

Why is only Canada referenced? Other than places like Afghanistan just about everyone has lower rates than the US.

Soooo...Who the hell knows why?

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jas
I believe that their rationale is that an aging population generally doesn't go around shooting people, and old people tend to be a bit more careful.

Maybe. Are there any statistics broken down by age demographics? Here's some for the US:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

Scroll to the bottom to see the table. The only group with fewer firearms deaths than the 65-74 and the 75+ ranges is the 0-4 group.

[Jas]

Quote:

Originally posted by manny
Except that according to the article, ~98% of gun-related deaths in Canada are from suicide and homicide -- intentional uses. So unless either a) the article is in error and/or b) there is evidence that a significant number of accidental deaths are misclassified as homicide or (more likely) suicide, I don't think gun safety would have much bearing on the overall decline.

Actually, it would.

Gun safety also involves proper storage of firearms. Currently the regulations in Canada require that your gun be locked separately from the ammunition. If it's on display, then it has to have a trigger lock, and must not be near any ammunition. Many of the homicides and suicides quoted are 'heat of the moment' things. If there is no fully loaded gun hanging about, then you don't have a deadly weapon available at your disposal. That is taught at gun safety courses.

From NIMH :

Quote:

The presence of a firearm in the home has been found to be an independent, additional risk factor for suicide. Thus, when a family member or health care provider is faced with an individual at risk for suicide, they should make sure that firearms are removed from the home.

[Jas]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
Maybe. Are there any statistics broken down by age demographics?

Thanks for the link.

I haven't seen where the stats are broken down by age, I'm just repeating some of the conjectures thrown about by the radio. but your link would support that hypothesis.

[Manny]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jas
Gun safety also involves proper storage of firearms. Currently the regulations in Canada require that your gun be locked separately from the ammunition. If it's on display, then it has to have a trigger lock, and must not be near any ammunition. Many of the homicides and suicides quoted are 'heat of the moment' things. If there is no fully loaded gun hanging about, then you don't have a deadly weapon available at your disposal. That is taught at gun safety courses.

Good point, particularly involving homicides. For suicides it looks like a lesser contributing factor (though probably non-zero). From the story about the study, it looks like firearms-related suicides dropped by half, along with all other firearms-related deaths. However, the total suicide rate in Canada dropped by much less, from 14.0/100,000 in 1981 to 12.3/100,000 in 1997. So either there was a spectacular drop from 1997 to 2000 or most suicides came upon a locked gun and decided to use a knife or whatever.

Oh, and I finally found the report itself. Here it is. (8-page .pdf, apx. 163kb)

[Orwell]

Well, it seems that Shanek has been able to back what he claims. I think, however, that this doesn't necessarily show that the decrease is due to more guns available. Canada, with more restrictive gun laws (which I think should lead to less guns circulating) has had a similar decrease.
What do you think caused the decrease? Ageing of the population, like Jas has suggested? Something else?

[Manny]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orwell

What do you think caused the decrease? Ageing of the population, like Jas has suggested? Something else?

Heh. I was going to speculate, half-jokingly, that the Roe effect might have something to do with it. But on searching I find out that abortion was at least nominally illegal in Canada until 1988. Any alleged Roe effect considerations won't even start to move the statistics for a couple of years yet.

So Canada is kicking the US' ass on gay marriage, and full credit to them for that. But remember who legalized abortion first (and states were moving in that direction here even prior to SCOTUS' dictat).

[Luke T.]

I blame global warming.

[tedly]

[quote]Originally posted by manny
Heh. I was going to speculate, half-jokingly, that the Roe effect might have something to do with it. But on searching I find out that abortion was at least nominally illegal in Canada until 1988. Any alleged Roe effect considerations won't even start to move the statistics for a couple of years yet.

So Canada is kicking the US' ass on gay marriage, and full credit to them for that. But remember who legalized abortion first (and states were moving in that direction here even prior to SCOTUS' dictat). [/QUOTE

The move was in that direction here as well, with functioning abortion clinics open, and juries unwilling to convict before the law was dropped. Health statistics were unreliable when abortion was illegal, but the best numbers I saw indicated that there was a slight drop in abortion rates after they became legal.

So no Roe effect.

If anyone cares I'll see if I can dig out those numbers, but it doesn't have much to do with this debate.

If it's true that the securing of guns and compulsory security has saved lives then they were worth it. But my farmer neighbours told me that they were still allowed to keep one weapon assembled with ammunition in rural and farm areas.

It's important to keep in mind that the billion dollar gun registry boondoggle relates to the registration of long arms. The new restrictions on handguns are no tighter than I've been dealing with for the past 40 years. But then I'm a target shooter, and never have owned a .32 Walther. (Not that I don't want one, I can't afford it.)

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Orwell
Well, it seems that Shanek has been able to back what he claims. I think, however, that this doesn't necessarily show that the decrease is due to more guns available.

I don't claim that it does; merely that a comparable drop happened in the US with more guns, that happened in Canada with stricter gun control. I don't think the drop has anything to do with the availability of guns one way or the other.

Quote:

What do you think caused the decrease? Ageing of the population, like Jas has suggested? Something else?

Couldn't tell ya, although the data I've found does seem to support the "aging population" hypothesis.

[Orwell]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
I blame global warming.

Well, generally speaking, warmer countries tend to be more violent... So I don't think that's it.

[Walter Wayne]

A better stat to look at would be assualt with a deadly weapon, or if available, assault with a gun. A drop in gun homicide could be due to less use of guns, faster medical response time or better trauma facilities at hospitals.

Urban center's, which we generally associate with higher crime, also have better access to hospitals.

Walt

[merphie]

Quote:

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
A better stat to look at would be assualt with a deadly weapon, or if available, assault with a gun. A drop in gun homicide could be due to less use of guns, faster medical response time or better trauma facilities at hospitals.

Urban center's, which we generally associate with higher crime, also have better access to hospitals.

Walt

You would have to look at Aggravated Assault in the USA.