Skip to main content

This article is part of a Daily Kos Firearms Law and Policy group series on Gun Laws and Shooting Injuries in Canada and Australia.  The series will examine the experience of Canada and Australia: the gun reforms that were implemented in each country and the research studies done subsequently to observe how the laws affected the incidence and frequency of shooting injuries.  The series has three parts: Part I presents an overview and summary (here).  Part II is presented here, and reviews the gun law reforms established in Canada, and the known results of those reforms on the incidence of gun violence in Canada.  Part III reviews the gun law reforms instituted in Australia, and the subsequent incidence of gun violence in Australia (here).  All three parts of this series are available to interested readers today, but are being published as separate articles over three consecutive days.  Readers can read all three parts today, but can only comment in the articles already published.


Changes to Canadian gun laws evolved naturally over a period of decades, as the nation’s leaders recognized and responded to changes in firearms and the people who use them.  During the 1990’s, there was an increase in the amount and pace of gun legislation, with the passage of two major pieces of legislation.

1934 – legislation requires the registration of handguns, identifying the owner, the owner’s address, and the type of handgun owned.  Owners of handguns were issued a certificate of registration.
1951 – legislation adds automatic firearms to the category of firearms to be registered
1969 – Bill C-150 is passed to categorize weapons as “firearms”, “restricted weapon”, and “prohibited weapon”.  Additionally, the police were given the power to search for weapons with a signed warrant, and to seize an individual’s firearms if the police believed the firearms presented a danger to the owner or the community, even in the absence of the commission of a crime.
1977 – Bill C-51 is passed.  The legislation requires a Firearm Acquisition Certificate (FAC) to purchase any firearm; applicants are required to pass a basic criminal background check before receiving an FAC.  A Firearms and Ammunition Business Permit is required for the selling of firearms and ammunition, instituting the screening of applicants and regulations for record-keeping.  Additionally, fully automatic weapons became classified as “prohibited”, some other weapons were re-classified as “restricted” or “prohibited”, new firearm offenses were defined, and mandatory minimum sentences were implemented for crimes involving firearms
1991 – Bill C-17 is passed.  The legislation required applicants for an FAC to provide a photograph and two personal references, pass a more thorough criminal background check, pass a gun safety course and a state-mandated test of gun safety, and wait a minimum of 28 days before the FAC would be issued.  The law outlined specific regulations for firearm storage and transportation.  A variety of weapons were re-classified as “restricted” or “prohibited”: most assault-style rifles were classified as “restricted” or “prohibited”.  High-capacity magazines for automatic and semi-automatic firearms were prohibited: handguns were limited to 10 rounds, and semi-automatic center-fire firearms were limited to five rounds.  Some types of non-sporting ammunition were prohibited.   The law went into effect between 1992-94.    
1995 – Bill C-68 (the Firearm Act) was passed.  A new central firearm licensing system, replacing the FAC, was implemented.  Henceforth, individuals could apply for a possession-only license (POL) or a possession and acquisition license (PAL).  The law required the registration of all firearms (including shotguns and rifles) and registration of all holders of a firearm license, prohibited short-barreled and small caliber handguns, and required a firearm license to purchase ammunition.  In 2001, the registration portion of Bill C-68 was implemented, with the registration of all long guns going into effect in 2003.  As of 2003, all individuals need a valid license and registration certificate for all firearms in their possession, including non-restricted shotguns and rifles.  Businesses are required a valid business license and registration certificates for all firearms in their inventory.  
(Source: Royal Canadian Mounted Police)
Today, Canada ranks 13th in the world in terms of civilian gun ownership; with an estimated 31 civilian guns per 100 population, for a total of 9.95 million guns in the country as a whole.  In contrast, the USA ranks #1 in the world in civilian firearm ownership, with an estimated 89 civilian firearms per 100 population, and a total of 270 million firearms in the country altogether.
(Source: Small Arms  
In 1993, Lester and Leenars reported on a study of suicide in Canada before and after passage of Bill C-51 in 1977.  They used data from yearly Canadian health surveys.   The data showed that before passage of the law, the total suicide rate, the firearm suicide rate, and the rate of suicides using other methods had all been increasing.  In the eight years after passage of the law, both the firearm suicide rate and the percentages of suicides using a firearm showed a statistically significant decrease.  There was no evidence of any increase in suicides using other methods.  There was a (not statistically significant) decrease in the total suicide rate after passage of the law.  The authors conclude that stricter firearm controls are associated with declines in suicides rates.
(Source: Lester D, Leenaars A.  Psychological Reports 1993; 72:787-790)

The same research team published a follow-on study in 1997 stratifying the suicide data by age groups.  This revised analysis showed that the firearm suicide rate decreased after implementation of Bill C-17 for adults aged 35-64.  For the age groups 15-34 and 64+, the firearm suicide rate continued the increases seen before the bill became law.  
(Source: Leenaars, A., & Lester, D.  Can J Behav Sci, 29, 176; 1997)

FS Bridges used data from Statistics Canada to examine suicide and homicide in the seven years prior to and after passage of Bill C-17 in 1991.  In the 7 years prior to the passage of Bill C-17, the mean total suicide rate was 13.11 (per 100,000 population), the mean firearm suicide rate was 4.09, the mean non-firearm suicide rate was 9.02, and the percentage of suicides using a firearm was 31.2%.  In the 7 years after passage of the bill, the mean total suicide rate was 12.95, the mean firearm suicide rate was 3.17, the mean non-firearm suicide rate was 9.76, and the percentage of suicides using a firearm was 24.5%.  So passage of Bill C-17 was associated with a decline in the firearm suicide rate and the percentage of suicides using a firearm, and with an increase in the non-firearm suicide rate.  There was no real change in the overall suicide rate.

In the 7 years prior to the passage of C-17, the mean total homicide rate was 2.04 (per 100,000 population), the mean firearm homicide rate was 0.69, the mean non-firearm homicide rate was 1.35, and the mean percentage of homicides using a firearm was 33.7%.  In the 7 years after passage of C-17, the mean total homicide rate was 1.71, the mean firearm homicide rate was 0.57, the mean non-firearm homicide rate was 1.15, and the percentage of homicides using a firearm was 32.99%.  Passage of Bill C-17 was associated with decreases in the overall rate of homicides, the firearm homicide rate, and the non-firearm homicide rate.  There was no significant change in the percent of homicides using a firearm.

Using linear regression, the research team demonstrated that rates for firearm suicide and homicide were essentially unchanged in the seven years prior to passage of Bill C-17.  In the seven years after passage of Bill C-17, the rate of firearm suicides and firearm homicides, and the rate of all homicides all decreased significantly.

The authors conclude that passage and enforcement of stricter gun control laws are associated with decreases in suicide and homicide rates.  The authors note there is evidence that some people switched methods of suicide in response to the change in gun laws.

Type of Injury Prior to Bill C-17 After Bill C-17
Total Suicide Rate 13.11 12.95
Firearm Suicide Rate 4.09 3.17*
Non-Firearm Suicide Rate 9.02 9.76*
% of Suicides Using A Firearm 31.20 24.50*
Total Homicide Rate 2.04 1.71*
Firearm Homicide Rate 0.69 0.57*
Non-Firearm Homicide Rate 1.35 1.15*
% of Homicides Using a Firearm 33.70% 32.99%
All rates given as per 100,000 population
* indicates a statistically significant difference

(Source: Bridges FS.  Psychological Reports 2004 94:819-826)

Historically in Canada, the incidence of violent crimes has shown an overall increase until the early 1990s, with large decreases in the years since.  Rates of assault, sexual assault, and robbery have all declined since 1993.  Declines in violent crime have been most notable among young males.  Rates of homicide in Canada have been declining since the mid-1970s. (Source: Statistics Canada)

In 1998, the Canadian Department of Justice released a report titled “Firearms, Accidental Deaths, Suicides and Violent Crime”.  The report stated that there were at that time an estimated seven million firearms in Canada, with a household firearm ownership rate of 26%.  The report found 3.8 fatal firearm injuries per 100,000 population, and the 80% of these were suicides and 12.4% were homicides, and that the rate of fatal firearm injuries had been decreasing steadily since 1978 (which is, as it turns out, the year Bill C-51 was first implemented).  The report stated that the proportion of suicides using a gun had been decreasing for the previous two decades, and that the Canadian experience proves that regulations and restrictions can reduce firearm suicides without reducing the level of firearm ownership.  The report found that both the homicide rate and the firearm homicide rate have been decreasing since 1975, but that no single factor could fully explain these decreases.  While robberies had been increasing in Canada, the percentage of robberies involving a firearm had been decreasing.  The report says that research into the impact of changes to firearm laws in 1977, 1991, and 1995 on crime statistics is so far inconclusive, and more research is needed.
(Source: Department of Justice Canada, 1998)


The 1990s were a period of significant change in Canadian gun laws.  Data on the actual number of guns in Canada before and after the gun reforms is not available.  A variety of empirical studies have documented decreases in shooting deaths in the years since: decreases in gun homicides and gun suicides.  Overall decreases in violent crimes gives evidence that gun regulations do not leave the public vulnerable to criminal attack and do not result in greater crime victimization.

The Daily Kos Firearms Law and Policy group studies actions for reducing firearm deaths and injuries in a manner that is consistent with the current Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment. If you would like to write about firearms law please send us a Kosmail.

To see our list of original and republished diaries, go to the Firearms Law and Policy diary list. Click on the ♥ or the word "Follow" next to our group name to add our posts to your stream, and use the link next to the heart to send a message to the group if you have a question or would like to join.

We have adopted Wee Mama's and akadjian's guidance on communicating.  But most important, be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a battle.

Originally posted to Firearms Law and Policy on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 06:01 AM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (18+ / 0-)

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 06:01:37 AM PDT

  •  Homicide down significantly.. (5+ / 0-)

    This of course, includes homicides which do not use firearms, and yet, it seems the absence to access to firearms has a "depressive effect" on people's willingness to consider violence when a dispute or a moment of passion arises.

    If this is the case, and it can be shown that homicides due to all modes and methods are depressed due to these more restricive firearms laws, then things become very interesting indeed.  It would need to be shown that the decrease in homicide by other means, and homicide by guns, dropped at relatively the same rates after the more restrictive laws were enacted, and over a period of time.

    It has been speculated that "gun culture" or the presence of deadly weapons in quantity and availibility is the cause of much of the US problem with gun violence. In other words, people think of homicide more here, even if they do not end up using a gun, because there are more tools of homicide laying around. I am one of those who believes that the eventual solution to mass fear and massive homicide rates in GENERAL is supported by the erosion of "gun culture," or, in other words, or "thinking of a gun." when problems or conflicts arise. People are not logical at the level of deep psychology, they only think they are.

    In other words, it is very possible that through the principle of "generalized aggression,' or "generalized fear," the issue of gun access has profound impacts on homicide in general, and that one way to encourage people to NOT think of homicide is to decrease the symbol and the tool of homicide. This would also decrease the rate of homicide by knife, bomb, car, hands, rope, blunt object. I suspect that this is true, if unproven here.

    I realize that your statistics do not entirely make this linkage, but there are tantalizing clues that support this most progressive of all gun violence theories.

    Thank you for a great diary,  HJB.

    Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

    by OregonOak on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 07:13:03 AM PDT

    •  Thought-Provoking (2+ / 0-)

      Crime in general, and homicide in particular, were at much greater levels during the 1980s and early 1990s than today.  And this is true not just here in America, but in most western industrialized nations as well.

      Something happened in the early 1990s that resulted in a large drop in homicides and crime in general.  Some people say that was because the crack epidemic was ending; some say it had to do with levels of lead or other toxins in the environment; gun enthusiasts say it was because more guns made for fewer easy crime victims; criminologists cite tougher sentencing laws; etc.  No one really knows for sure.

      Here's another interesting thought: the vast majority of fatal shootings in America are suicides, not homicides.  And (as far as I know - I have to check on this), the suicide rate has been increasing thru the '70s, '80s, '90s, and continues to increase today.

      My own research has demonstrated that where there are more guns, there are more people getting shot.  The linkage between number of guns and amount of violent crime is less clear: I have tried to explore that in this series on gun laws and as you can see, the data is incomplete.

      Given enough time and decent funding, it would be possible to more fully explore the linkage between the number of guns and the "culture of violence".

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 08:14:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And I'm available to do that research... (2+ / 0-)

        And I'm available to do that research if anyone has the funding.  (grin)

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 08:16:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am too. I have a MASTER's Degree.. in SCIENCE. (2+ / 0-)

          But you know, all sciencey and stuff, doesnt cut no cheese with the big cheeses. Science? SCIENCE? We dont kneed no stinkin' SCIENCE.

          Our Republican friends are Mastodons looking for a New Ice Age  Hunter-Gatherer tribe to run away from.

          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

          by OregonOak on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:05:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Guns Laws Based on Ad Copy (2+ / 0-)

            Sadly, here in the USA, the marketing slogans and ad copy of the gun industry form the basis for our gun laws and policy.  The findings from empirical research on shooting injuries, or using a gun to defend against crime are all ignored.

            And that is because our system of government allows corporate and wealthy interests to buy the law-makers and the very laws those corporations and wealthy interests want.

            This will most likely be the subject of a future diary for me - if I can overcome my revulsion to write it.

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:28:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  On Sucide (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk, Midwest is best, Schneewolfe

        There is a good description of what drives suicide at Turley's Blog.  

        My take on this as a professional who has worked in the field for more than forty years, is that Mayfield felt he had no options left. His career as a lawyer was over. He knew he would lose his license to practice and almost certainly was going to be sent to prison. Life as he knew it in the past was ended; that is, after he was released from prison.
        It sounds to me the rise in suicide can't be attributed to the presence of firearms so much as the increasingly prevailing conservative ideology of "you're on your own."  People commit suicide because they are backed into a corner and perceive they have no other options.  With a proper social safety net and less extremes of wealth, we would probably see a declining suicide rate, particularity as the ACA makes mental health care more available to people who otherwise would have trouble accessing it.  

        Its not because of the presence or absence of a magic object.  

        I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

        by DavidMS on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 10:06:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sometimes a gun is just a gun, then? (2+ / 0-)

          To paraphrase Mr Freud on cigars.

          Yes, it may be. I may be all wrong on the compelling and attractive nature of the tool itself. But, given how gun owners talk about their weapons, some of them, and how often they are employed in aggression and suicide, or mere threatening or brandishing, I have my suspicion that it IS the guns which kill, as much as it IS the bulldozer's which promote the fun of scraping earth. Using tools is not just using tools. We are attracted to tools, and they have their own connotations in our mind, which, if they are available, make their use much more likely than if they are not available.

          I say this because I have always hated the idea of scraping the earth of its soil, being taught early by Native Americans the reverence for soil and the wealth of the earth, and yet, I learned to drive a D9 cat for a job I had in Anchorage building ski trails. I soon looked forward to using that tool, and built a rationale for it every day, bolstered by how much fun it was to learn to use it well. The formerly hated tool became something which was at first neutral, and then positive, because of its design, its power, its function, and its intricacies. And yet, there I was, enjoying doing something that I knew was contributing to salmon deaths, disruption of moose habitat, and aesthetically pretty nasty, changing the landscape forever.

          I think tools are more than tools. They are extensions of our own personality and our own attempt at a reach for power, and become us if we habituate ourselves to them.

          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

          by OregonOak on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 03:55:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Or more correctly... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            we give objects meaning with the stories that we tell ourselves and the mental model we have of the world around us.  

            Thank you for this story.  

            Mine is different and is very different from the right's mental model.  And centers around the presence of a nation-state strong enough and motivated to protect basic rights.  Few things are more risky for Jews than the destruction of state institutions and the rule of law.  

            I started to write more but realized that I need a full Diary, not a comment to do it justice.  The short version:  The political right's fascination with firearms has nothing to do with the firearm itself but with the need to maintain a sociopolitical caste system and arm themselves as Filibusters against loosing their privileged status.  I see firearms ownership as symbolic reassurance that there is public trust between the governed and the governing and more importantly relates to concepts of citizenship seen in places and times where the citizen soldier protected and participated in the governance of the polity (Classical Greece, Switzerland, other parts of Central Europe to a lesser extent because they lost, and the United States).  

            I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

            by DavidMS on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 06:13:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes. That too.. (0+ / 0-)

              Guns are a symbol in America of the "trust" between father and son against a hostile and aggressive world, or, the world as perceived by fathers for whom the world IS or WAS hostile.

              As you say, the history of American Filibusters is long and weird, and we can see it playing out today in the Militia armies and Armed Camps today. I agree that this is a motivating factor as well.

              The need to maintain a caste system, or as they perceive, prevent a caste system from forming (too late, but whatever) is also a concern among working class white people since the time before the Revolution, and during the Civil War. It is social class warfare the best way they know how, or the best way they think they know how.

              It is also mythological as you suggest, the citizen soldier, Cincinnatus retiring from Emperorship to return to his farm, Washington doing the same. It is part of the myth of rugged and last ditch underdogism that permeates the "survivalist cults"

              And, not that any of this is inherantly bad on its face. The problem is the lengths and paranoid extent to which these are taken as facts in the real world, and used to actually harm those principles which they say they defend. That is where gun worship can fill in the gap; if they sense the ideology is just a bit too strident, they can take comfort in the sheer beauty of a highly technical tool, its mechanisms, its variations, and create a world of gun love to hide from the real world.

              Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

              by OregonOak on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 06:53:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  There are a few things you miss (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Firstly, I think more along the lines of Switzerland which after 1815 has never engaged in a foreign adventure nor been invaded in part because of their military traditions.  

                Secondly, I disagree with your characterization of Cincinnatus and Washington as being anything but exemplary.  These were men who turned down permanent dictatorial power, not "rugged and last ditch underdogism" because they won and then wisely retired. If you want last ditch underdogism look at the Spanish Maquis or the Forest Brothers of the Baltic States.   The former should be honored for being supporters of the Spanish Republic and the latter dammed for being Fascists.  

                Third, you have no disagreement with me on the right being crazy.  Their gold fetish, belief that if food stamps are not delivered on time to inner cities that blacks will riot burning everything in their path and every other conspiracy theory they believe in is a method of explaining why they don't personally sit on the Iridium Throne.  The right is at their core tribal and in their current form incomparable with republicanism (please not the little 'r').  

                I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

                by DavidMS on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 08:02:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Its hard to make applicable parallels for Swiss (0+ / 0-)

                  attitudes and American attitudes towards firearms. They do have Citizen Soldiers and Home Carry, but the right to keep is strictly regulated based on the perceived sanity and need of the soldier. The individual right to keep at home has been revoked many times, or never granted because the citizen cannot qualify for military service, before an individual act of aggression. Their weapons are also locked up in a home armory and taken out only for maneuvers and in case of invasion. The Swiss are also protected by an economic system which encourages everyone to store their valuables there, so it is not advisable to desire Swiss territory or Swiss much of anything. It is a stony land.

                  And I didnt mean to disparage Cincinnatus and Washington. I meant to say that the GunWing takes their mythology too far into the realm of Godhood and a sense that their example can be imitated personally by the members of Militia Groups. They cloak themselves in this mythology to pretend there is nothing wrong with their obsession, in my view. They are all little Cincinnatus Warriors, just doing their bit and then retiring to their farms.

                  And we agree on their antipathy to republic poltics. They honor authoritarians, racists and dead enders, and their gun myth is just part of the desire to hate on democracy in any form.

                  Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                  by OregonOak on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 08:52:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, suicides very much depend on the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          i saw an old tree today

          immediate presence of objects such as guns.  People who contemplate suicide by gun do it because the gun is right there.  Suicides tend to be spur of the moment, not elaborately planned out.  For example, when fences or nets are put up at bridges where suicides have occurred, people don't just move on to the next bridge and try from there.  They don't jump.  In England, they now sell pain relievers in smaller packages.  This has helped reduce those types of suicide.

          Guns, coupled with ridiculously weak ownership regulations in the US, are an incredibly and unfortunately successful means of suicide -- to the tune that just about 50% of all suicides are due to gun violence.  If someone is feeling suicidal, saving them means getting guns and other dangerous objects away from the ASAP.  That IMHO should be done first as opposed to calling for long term improvements to the social safety net or ACA -- all the while opposing any and all reasonable gun regulations.

    •  Here's something to add into your theories. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Midwest is best, DavidMS, oldpunk

      U.S. violent crime up for first time in years

      (CNN) -- The rate of U.S. violent crime went up last year for the first time in nearly two decades due to a jump in assaults, the Justice Department said on Wednesday.

      Data collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in telephone surveys showed a 22 percent increase in assaults, pushing up the overall rate for violent crime for the first time since 1993.  Crime rates have been declining steadily over the period and last year's increase compares with a record low figure for 2010.

      Statistics showed that the rate of assault victims increased from 19.3 per 1,000 persons to 22.5 per 1,000 last year.
      The statistics include 3.9 million simple assaults defined as crimes involving a threat but no weapon that resulted in relatively minor injuries.

      Point of fact, assaults without weapons are increasing.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 09:40:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And other violent crimes? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Miggles, i saw an old tree today

        Any info on other violent crimes - homicide, robbery, rape, etc?

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 11:19:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This might help. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Midwest is best, gerrilea, DavidMS

          From the FBI UCR
          January to June Percent Change for Consecutive Years       

          Years    "Violent crime"    Murder  "Forcible rape"    Robbery
          2010/2009    -6.2            -7.1            -6.2            -10.7   
          2011/2010    -6.4            -5.7            -5.1             -7.7   
          2012/2011    +1.9            -1.7            -1.4             +2.0   
          2013/2012    -5.4            -6.9           -10.6             -1.8

          You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

          by oldpunk on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 11:59:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Doesn't the link, if you follow it, go over it? (0+ / 0-)

          Wait, here maybe you missed the first line that I put in bold:

          The rate of U.S. violent crime went up last year for the first time in nearly two decades due to a jump in assaults
          The list of "violent crimes" would include homicide, rape and robbery.

          The reason violent crime went up was because of violent assaults WITHOUT a weapon went up.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 04:04:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  If you conclude this: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpunk, DavidMS
    Overall decreases in violent crimes gives evidence that gun regulations do not leave the public vulnerable to criminal attack and do not result in greater crime victimization.
    because of decreases crime during a time of increased gun control in Canada, then you have to hold the same standard to the overall decrease of violent crime seen here in the USA during a time of increased gun rights & conclude that
    Overall decreases in violent crimes gives evidence that increased gun rights do not leave the public vulnerable to criminal attack and do not result in greater crime victimization.

    Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.

    by Midwest is best on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 08:31:47 AM PDT

    •  I stand behind my conclusions (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles, i saw an old tree today

      I stand behind my conclusions: I have provided the data that supports those conclusions for you to read/view.

      You are welcome to write your own diary and put into it any data you have and draw from that any conclusions you want to make.  I will be happy to read it.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 08:52:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks Hugh nt (2+ / 0-)

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 12:11:35 PM PDT

  •  It seems... (2+ / 0-)

    that getting a good picture regarding the efficacy of gun regulation always runs into a lack of data or an inability to show a causal relationship.  

    I think there are a lot of factors that are difficult to get a handle on.  Not only the number of guns, but the number of households that have them, the density of the population where the guns are, and the makeup of the society that owns the guns.  

    The general overall conclusion I get from looking at different countries, is that we are doing something terribly wrong in the U.S.'s the new smart for right wingers.

    by StevenD56 on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 06:02:23 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site