The 2nd Amendment??

[d-ray657]

I'm assuming cc means concealed carry. If the crime rates have dropped in the cc states, that is one part of the picture to consider. That does not address that concerns about most firearm deaths being by someone that the victim knows, the accidental injuries, or whether situations escalated because of firearms. Then again, one might say that if people get killed because they behave stupidly with a gun, that's simply natural selection at work.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

Poking around I've found some interesting info. Wiki says it's all inconclusive at this point.

But consider this (from wiki):

(snip) University of Washington public health professor Brandon Centerwall prepared a study comparing homicide rates between Canada and the U.S., as the two countries are very similar, yet have different handgun ownership rates. He reported "Major differences in the prevalence of handguns have not resulted in differing total criminal homicide rates in Canadian provinces and adjoining US states."[45] In his conclusions he published the following admonition:

"If you are surprised by my findings, so are we. We did not begin this research with any intent to "exonerate" handguns, but there it is – a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where NOT to aim public health resources."[45]

Don Kates has observed:

"Scholars engaged in serious criminological research into "gun control" have found themselves forced, often very reluctantly, into four largely negative propositions. First, there is no persuasive evidence that gun ownership causes ordinary, responsible, law abiding adults to murder or engage in any other criminal behavior—though guns can facilitate crime by those who were independently inclined toward it. Second, the value of firearms in defending victims has been greatly underestimated. Third, gun controls are innately very difficult to enforce.

[...]

"Therefore, the fourth conclusion criminological research and analysis forces on scholars is that while controls carefully targeted only at the criminal and irresponsible have a place in crime-reduction strategy, the capacity of any type of gun law to reduce dangerous behavior can never be more than marginal."[46]

(endsnip)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceal..._laws_on_crime


Pete

[merrylander]

Professor Centerwell is full of horse hockey, the murder rates in most Canadian cities are far and away lower than here. I remember a cab driver in Cleveland asking me how many mrurders Montreal had (the year was about 1976) and when I said I dai not have the exact number but it was under 10 he nearly drove into a lamppost. If I recall Cleveland had had well over 175 that year.

[piece-itpete]

I thought it seemed a little off, I see all of Canada had 611 homicides in 08, with a 33,212,696 pop, so .0000184% (1.84 per 100K), where we had a rate of 5.4 per hundred thousand, pop 304,059,724, so 16,419 = .000054% rate.

Boy we live in dangerous societies

Did I get the math right? Although a big difference % wise it still seems to be such small numbers as to be fairly insignificant.

Pete

[d-ray657]

With a quick google search, I found this site.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita

I have not tried to verify any to the numbers, but it does not appear to be a site with any particular agenda. It looks more intrested in selling advertising by attracting readers to an encyclopedia service.

Looking at a couple of the statistical compilations they have available showed that the per capita murder rate in the US is nearly three times greater than in Canada, and the the firearm murder rate is nearly five time higher. Another website that I did not cite, because it appears to have an agenda, cited statistics showing a greater possibility of suffering a handgun death in a home where firearms are owned than otherwise. It also showed that the greatest cause of death by firearm is suicide. I suppose a bullet through the head is going to be the last time a suicide victim changes his mind.

Regards,

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I thought it seemed a little off, I see all of Canada had 611 homicides in 08, with a 33,212,696 pop, so .0000184% (1.84 per 100K), where we had a rate of 5.4 per hundred thousand, pop 304,059,724, so 16,419 = .000054% rate.

Boy we live in dangerous societies

Did I get the math right? Although a big difference % wise it still seems to be such small numbers as to be fairly insignificant.

Pete

I doubt that it was insignificant to the families of those 16,419. Just sayin'

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Makes me think of the old joke;

Why was Goliath surprised when David hit him with the rock?







Such a thing had never entered his head before.

[piece-itpete]

Lmao! Rob, I've gotta say that my travels in Canada have always been extremely pleasant. Very kind folks. Heck even when I ended up in the seedy area of Toronto it took me a while to figure out I was! Kind of a dawning realisation - it wasn't QUITE as clean, etc. And even then I never felt at danger. Like Cleveland's alter ego

d-ray, of course! But cars kill far more (37,261 in 2008). Different? Yes. The Founders considered firearms important enough to protect in the Constitution - carriages didn't make it.

Pete

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Do we really need statistics to prove this????

Thanks for the link though D.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

d-ray, of course! But cars kill far more (37,261 in 2008). Different? Yes. The Founders considered firearms important enough to protect in the Constitution - carriages didn't make it.

Pete

Pullin' a Palin?