At 4:38pm (the time I accessed the story) on Friday, June 1, 2007, this story, carried at the Toronto Star website, reads (in part) as follows:
The federal Conservative government has rejected Ontario's call for a ban on handguns. ... [Stockwell] Day argued that other countries where handguns have been banned have seen the numbers of gun crimes increase. "In jurisdictions that have eliminated or tried to eliminate, to ban handguns – the United Kingdom, Ireland, other jurisdictions – in fact crime with guns has unfortunately gone up," Day said.
Here comes the torque:
Day's statements, however, don't appear to match with the facts.
Interesting. And, dear Canadian Press, what evidence do you marshall to maintain this assertion?
There was a 16 per cent drop in the number of firearms offences in the United Kingdom in 2006 compared with the previous year, according to figures from Britain's Home Office.
I know this particular blogging tic is increasingly frowned upon, but permit me to indulge: You. Absolute. Morons.
Read the whole thing. Terry Pedwell doesn't get the stats a "little" wrong. He gets them deceptively wrong.
For further proof of the correctness of Day's statement, and the absolute mendacity of the Canadian Press, let's look at this Home Office report. Here's what it reveals: there was a sixty percent (60%) increase in firearms crime from 1999/00 to 2004/05 (page 72). Also see Figure 3.4 - although it is a bit difficult to tell because the gradations are not provided, firearms crimes involving handguns more than doubled from 1998/99 to 2001/02, before declining somewhat until 2004/05, though finishing at a number approximately 50% higher than in 1998/99.
As of 7:39pm, there's been at least one edit. The sentence now reads "Day's statements, however, don't appear to match with recent facts."
"A few years back, Los Angeles gave 1.5 million in grants to a group known as "No Guns." ATF just arrested its founder for sale of a machine gun, two silencers, and other toys.Note to LA government: be cautious about trusting a million bucks to a guy who goes by "Big Weasel."
What's that saying? "As California goes, so goes..."
Notice how Bob Tarantino links his compelling and logical argument to reality via RESEARCH and FACTS and LINKS. Good job Bob.
The Star is Canada's number one conduit to UN utopian civilian disarmamemt.
They have a data pipeline to to Canada's premier hoplophobe and anit-gun zealot Wendy Chukier and Clayton Ruby.
They have routinely disinformed,misinformed, misdirected, lied and misrepresented the firearms issue to Canadians with a long term agenda of rigging stats, omitting data, repropagating proven erroneous theories and studies on gun ownership.
What they do for Kyoto utopianism they have done for civilian disarmament untopianism.
I'm surprised someone finds their utopian advocacy propagandizing as a new phenomena...it's the core essense of Star editorializing.
Happy Day
Good Day Mate
Day light
Dayo
Stockwell Day is my man on this issue.
I wish the finance minister was as enlightened in his area of plunder
The MSM likes to pretend bloggers don't matter.
The fact that bloggers now regularly force the MSM to correct their often highly disingenuous stories shows otherwise.
Just another example of agenda journalism and validation of why those in the media are not to be trusted. There are many ways to tell a lie. Here are three that Terry Pedwell uses in this story: contradict the truth, the lie of omission and the lie that mocks the truth. I wonder if he learned this in an ethics class at Ryerson's school of journalism. Oh wait, that class is an elective for Tor Star journalists.
ROFLMAO...Kate...you seriously expected them to tell an unbiased truth??...LOL/sarc
The difference between the MSM and a blog is that the MSM is unilinear - one way from the Opinion Writer to you, the hapless reader/viewer. This sets up a powerful system of propaganda.
A blog can have the same agenda of malice, of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform and corrupt the truth. BUT, a blog is 'self-organized' in that it is rapidly reviewed and corrected by commentors. This doesn't even have to be on the same blog - it might be a blog that doesn't allow comments (eg, Kinsella); it might be a blog that edits out criticism (eg, Turner, McLelland) but, the rebuttals and critique will appear elsewhere in the whole 'blogosphere'.
This article was both malicious, and, I'd add one of malpractice. In a unilinear system, the author has, I suggest, an ethical and professional duty - one that is not readily legislated - to provide reliable facts and an unbiased analysis. In a unilinear system, a breach of this ethical and professional duty ought to be viewed as malpractice.
Interesting that this just came in this morning.A bit dated but accurate.
Pat
Gun History
Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history. Something to think about ...
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13
million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up
and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan
Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were roun ded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because
of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new
law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million
dollars.
The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent. Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns! While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in
successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience
and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president,
governors or other politicians disseminating this information.
The word is spreading, we cannot expect the un-spun facts from the largely Liberal Lefty press, they're in extreme mourning since their buddies lost power.
It's gotten to the point that what's reported is skewed so badly it amounts to lies.
If a person's words are twisted to take on a different meaning, it's lies.
The worst part is having them take us all for fools.
Ethics in journalism appears to have been removed by the Leftist virus sweeping all our halls of higher learning.
It's sickening.
While I don't advocate handguns, I must say that we certainly are not surprised that the Prichard Pravda Star would ever let the truth get in the way of its reporting, would we?
Sorry Joe, but I do advocate hand guns...I advocate them for police, teachers, private bonded security, and certified civilians. I advocte them for any one who is similarly responsible for their personal safety and that of their family and fellow citizens.
The police do not have a monopoly on the use of defensive force...the prime unstated motivation of the leftist civil disarmament movement is to remone the basic right to effective self defense from the individual and place this in the hands of the state...which cannot protect you and who refuses to take legal liability to do so....in this sphere of realities the entire concept of disarming the victim is an civilly immoral orthodoxy of malignant leftist statism.
I think, Pat, that your outline has too few variables. You have only two variables. One is Ownership of a Gun (yes/no); the other is harm to the citizen (by the state/by the individual).
You are trying to link them, ie, claiming that IF those people in Turkey, Germany, Uganda etc had possessed guns, THEN the state could not have murdered them. I think that's a weak relation. I don't think that people in a ghetto, even with guns, would have been much of a match against a platoon of Nazis. Same for your other examples with regard to state vs citizen violence.
The examples of law-abiding citizens vs criminals, with only the latter having the guns, is more valid. But I think it's still weak.
I wonder if the increase in crime is not a direct result of the citizen not having guns, but is a result of our social ideology of insisting that the criminal is a victim. We refuse to acknowledge that criminals have made a choice to operate in this particular lifestyle.
The criminal economy is risky in some fields, but has few risks in other areas. How many people who scam millions are caught; how many robbers are caught; how many car thieves are caught? How many stolen cars are actually found? Bicycle thieves, corner store robberies? How about drugs? Now, that's a lucrative field. The criminal economy is lucrative. And, you don't have to slog through years of training; you begin about age 12.
But, since WWII, our social welfare mentality, the ideology of the left, has insisted that Evil is found only among Greedy Corporations. It doesn't exist among individuals, who are all victims of Greedy Corporations and a Greedy Government. So, we refuse to accept that criminality is a choice, an economic choice. Criminals are not weeping victims of 'abuse, homelessness or one-parent trauma'. They are responsible for their actions. The result? Lenient courts, non-existent sentences, immediate parole - all of which makes the 'costs' of the criminal economy extremely LOW.
The social welfare perspective should get out of 'criminology' and the courts should make criminality as an economic choice - both risky and non-lucrative.
Hey ET...why don't you just come out and say it simply....a**holes with guns kill and our courts do nothing do stop/deter it> Stop wasting our host's bandwidth with your long-winded diatribes!
ET:
"I don't think that people in a ghetto, even with guns, would have been much of a match against a platoon of Nazis. Same for your other examples with regard to state vs citizen violence."
During World War II Japan chose not to invade the USA because of the armed citizens.
"You cannot invade America. There is a rifle behind every blade of grass." Admiral Yamamoto
Sorry to disagree ET but I think a well armed citizenery is an excellent deterrent to state attacks on its people. This is why all of the above listed state attacks were PRECEDED by registration and confiscation of arms.
Ai agree with you that crime should be made a business that is too risky for the majority of would be criminals to attempt (there will always be a certain amount of crime). One way is to punish the criminal after the crime has been committed, another way is to make the crime an immediate threat to the life of the criminal (ie: personal gun ownership and castle doctrine type laws allowing defence of life)
This is not even mentioning the fact that disarming people leaves them defenceless against criminals. People need handguns etc as defensive weapons for much the same reasons that law officers do.
ET
Not trying to quibble with you but I do know of one family (Mennonite) living in Russia before the communists took over. The Mennonites were despised and hunted by the local Russians with devastating effect. Whole families were wiped out women raped etc. The Mennonites were easy prey being pacifist without arms to protect themselves except that one family I mentioned. That family emmigrated to Canada unscathed because the Russians knew that they were armed. That family never shot at anyone but the knowledge that the family was armed was enough to keep the Russians from attacking them.
We law abiding Canadian sheeple lock up our guns and ammunition, in separate containers, in separate rooms, and hope for the best if someone commits a "hot" burglary in our homes.
I knew a fellow years ago, member of the Canadian Federal security services, who slept with a loaded pistol in the headboard of his bed. As I was an occasional overnight guest in his home, he told me that if I ever had to wake him, to knock loudly on the door of his room, and to never enter until he had verified who it was. He told me all his colleagues did the same thing, slept with a loaded gun close at hand.
I've known several police officers, they all told me the same. Were all these people paranoid?
I find it interesting that the people who deal with crime every day, are determined to protect themselves with a loaded gun, while the public, us, are supposed to call THEM. Gee, don't they have any faith in their own colleagues, to come to the rescue before any harm is done to them?
You are trying to link them, ie, claiming that IF those people in Turkey, Germany, Uganda etc had possessed guns, THEN the state could not have murdered them. I think that's a weak relation.
Hard to believe anyone could be so naive. There wouldn't even be a U. S. of A. had the British disarmed the colonies.
Where do you think the idea for the Second Amendment came from?
justhinking - the reason I don't talk like you is because I'm not you; I don't use the same vocabulary.
And, I didn't just have one point to make - there were quite a few - number of variables; direct linear links;state vs citizen; criminality as a lucrative economic mode; and finally, the only you you referred to - a weak justice system.
Though you are right - I tend to ramble.
better to be armed than not.
This is a quibble. Most of the firearms crimes increase comes from an increase in crimes involving IMITATION handguns, which U.K. cops define as being a full-fledged firearm. Naturally, if you ban handguns, you are likely to see an increase in crimes where fake handguns are employed. Crooks wielding fake handguns is assuredly an improvement over the situation where they are using real ones, no?
Grim Reaper: "Crooks wielding fake handguns is assuredly an improvement over the situation where they are using real ones, no?"
Crime is still crime. Just because the criminal threatens with a very real looking water gun doesn't make the threat any less valid to the person at the wrong end of the barrel. 75% of the US states have concealed carry permits. Crime has gone down.
The grim Reamer:"Naturally, if you ban handguns, you are likely to see an increase in crimes where fake handguns are employed."
So how, exactly, does taking legal handguns from their legal owners increase the percentage of fake guns used by criminals?
"Crooks wielding fake handguns is assuredly an improvement over the situation where they are using real ones, no?"
Following that logic, maybe we should hook the criminals up with knives and baseball bats instead, you know, because "its an improvement over using real handguns"
ET: I'm going to belive this is simply a case of playing devol's advocate for the sake of getting some sort of debate going.
I don't bite though because from my perspective my right to defend myself in any effectove manner is not up for debate...by you aor the state...because for the simple matter we do not "dabate" rights.
As for the validity of civilian arms keeping populations from being murdered by their government...I would say that this is a deterrent factor that varies with the regime in power...in Nazi Germany the state would have either failed or had dificulty oppressing an armed jewish rebellion...the Warsaw ghetto proved that 28 Jews with 9 old servicable guns stood the Reich on its ear and had it panic at the thought of a large armed rebellion...had more jews rebelled and hidden arms they would not have been massecred.
In the case of say...Japan, the disarming of civilians has made them prey to Yakusa and thugs but the state has not murdered them...so far...In China we see the perfect model of the anti gun utopians...only the state has arms...abuses of Chinese civilians is mythic in proportion....even democracy will not come about unless the citizentry can turn the Army from protecting their communist overlords.
So to me there is no debate...we are not China...I am not a subjugated vassal of a authoratarian communist dystopia...so civilian disarmament has no net value in my society...why persue it unless you want to establish the utopian model for a disarmed citizenry?
ol hoss, I'd suggest that you are the one who is naive.
Do you seriously believe that because the US 'rebels', as individuals, had guns, then, that enabled them to win against the English?
Are you forgetting that the War of Independence wasn't carried out by individuals against the state, but was a well-organized war, lasting over 6 years, with a large loss of life (at that time), carried out by a state against another state, with a gov't, with military leaders (remember Washington?), and assistance from France, and, an overseas colonizer that was weak. That's not the same as private individuals having guns.
I maintain my point. I doubt very much that if the Jewish citizens of Germany had been armed, they would have been able to fend off the Nazis. Same with other citizens of a state dictatorship.
I still think that the society must view criminality as a particular economic mode - and make that mode far less profitable, far riskier, by means of severe penalties for entering it.
Firearms ban in UK has led to a lot of otherwise law-abiding citizens smuggling in handguns from the continent, due to the increase in gun violence, home invasions, etc;
". I doubt very much that if the Jewish citizens of Germany had been armed, they would have been able to fend off the Nazis."
Maybe not. But it would have been nice to know they took a few of the SOB's with them.
It's the same as the passivity being taught on college campuses - crawl under your desk and wait to be executed, because, God knows - if you teach people to fight back, someone might get hurt.
There is a ton of evidence out there that shows that where there is an armed citizenry, there is less crime.
Case in point- Kenneshaw , Georgia.
Kennesaw, Georgia.
As Rosie would say..."GOOGLE IT PEOPLE...GOOGLE IT, is that fudge??"
When the time comes, to hand in my guns, It will be THE AMMUNITION first.
There was a time in our countries history when the militia consisted of all the able bodied men of each county. They would muster once a year and they were all to come armed with their own firearms and ammo.
ET, I agree with you that some of Pat's examples might be stretching it, but the British and Australians examples are clear. In a very short period of time, with no other variables to consider the gun crime rate went up.
I haven't got the time or inclination to do it but I would love for someone to do a statistical analysis of the crime rate in Jamaica, vs the crime rate of Jamaicans in Canada, the US and Britain. I know its not PC to say it but Jamaica is one of the most violent countries in the world, and here in Toronto and area, one only need to read the newspapers to realize that Jamaican Canadians shoot each other at a far higher rate than the population in general. A lot of what we are seeing is multiculturalism. There is more to Jamaican culture than roti and reggae (love roti, not so much the reggae).
Our idiot mayor ( not mine actually any more but used to be) goes on about guns being to readily available and banning hand guns. As anyone who has ever owned a hand gun knows they are practically illegal already. When I was a kid there were probably guns in every house on the street. An adult could walk into Canadian Tire, drop down his ten bucks and walk out the front door with a military combat rifle. The only difference was it wouldn't have occurred to us to shoot anyone with one.
MALICE IN IT'S PUREST FORM.
"We shall defend every village, every town, and every city. The vast mass of London itself, fought street by street, could easily devour an entire hostile army; and we would rather see London laid in ruins and ashes than that it should be tamely and abjectly enslaved."
Winston Churchill
Not sure if this quote is directly related to a discussion of firearm ownership, but i guess it is related to taking "a few of the SOBs" with you. I always remembered that paragraph from somewhere, glad i finally found it all.
Happy Saturday night to all!
I doubt very much that if the Jewish citizens of Germany had been armed, they would have been able to fend off the Nazis
ET, that's not the point. Of course, in militaristic terms, the Nazis would have prevailed. But, don't you see how unpalatable and demoralizing it is for military personnel to think of carrying out military operations - full fledged combat - on their own soil against their own citizens?
Military operatios are to enforce a political ideal by force. But, no matter how much military might you have, you can't win a war without the will of the people behind you.
There is no way that the Americans could lose (in military terms) to the Vietnamese. But they also couldn't win without the support of the people. Without that support, the morale of the soldier goes - and with that, the efficacy of the military.
Armed Jews, the face of Nazi aggression would have been like the puny kid on the playground dealing with the school bully. If the weaker kid refuses to cower in fear and punches the bully in the face, he might very well get his a$$ kicked. But, win or lose, he only needs to refuse to back down. After fighting back just a couple of times (even if he gets his clock cleaned each time), the bully will lose interest.
ET, you sometimes make good points. But, in a small way, you remind me of Lenin - you attempt to measure things empirically, and your formulas work only when you ignore human nature.
When you post your ideas, you should always include the disclaimer "If all other things were equal - which they never are with individuals."
It has been difficult to obtain a license in Canada for a handgun since about 1935. Ontario's demand makes no sense - though it might be good politics. These gun murders in Toronto are all carried out with illegal firearms.
Questions to ask the typical left-liberal - "have you ever used recreational pharmaceuticals? Do any of your friends use them?" [any honest person will answer "yes" to at least the second] "But those recreational pharmaceuticals are mostly ILLEGAL, aren't they? The law and the police didn't stop you (or your friends) from getting ahold of them, DID they? Why then do you think that the law and the police can prevent people from getting illegal handguns (or even assault rifles)?"
It has been difficult to obtain a license in Canada for a handgun since about 1935.
This is totally anecdotal - so, of course, unscientific, but I personally know three old-timers who have handguns and are now keeping them in secret.
All three of them, had their guns registered in the past. But, of course, when you move from one address to another, you are supposed to notify the authorities that the handgun has moved too.
Well, a mutual friend of theirs recently relocated and, obeying the law, notified the police that he had moved and taken his handgun with him. Over the course of the next year, he received letters and phone calls (I'm not sure from which agency) wanting to know why he had the hand-gun. "You're not actively involved in target shooting. So, why do you need it?" is the kind of questioning he has had to deal with.
Thus, his buddies, wanting to avoid these kinds of headaches, aren't re-registering theirs. Can't say I blame them.
The town is Kennesaw, GA. No "h" as I just found by Googling it. (I already knew it was the pro-gun town.) And here's an article contrasting it with a "no guns" ordinance town.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
Regarding self defence. It is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have one. It is better judged by 12 citizens after an incedent than be carreid by 6.
I think ET has a large, well used brain.
Larger than many at least.
Go ET.
mbaron: "I would love for someone to do a statistical analysis of the crime rate in Jamaica,"
There was a small pamphlet published by the shooting sports assn of Ontario 10 years ago that compared these figures. If I remember correctly the US murder rate was much higher than today, around 8 to 9 per 100,000 population. The Mexican rate was 2 1/2 times that of the US and Jamaica was 2 times the Mexican.
Of course all guns are banned for the population in both places. Mexico may have allow some primitive form of gun for country gentry. (single shot shotgun)
Do you seriously believe that because the US 'rebels', as individuals, had guns, then, that enabled them to win against the English?
Well duh, they probably wouldn't have won without guns. And proficiency in markmanship gained from regular use to go along with them.
As well as tactics more common to the hunter than the head-on charges the British were familiar with.
Eggheads often confuse themselves with complicated theories.
I still think that the society must view criminality as a particular economic mode - and make that mode far less profitable, far riskier, by means of severe penalties for entering it.
I see you've managed to confuse yourself. What could be riskier, and more severe, than those indulging in criminal behaviour being shot by an armed citizenry?
Hoo-boy, I can't believe I am quibbling with ET and Kate, but...
"I wonder if the increase in crime is not a direct result of the citizen not having guns, but is a result of our social ideology of insisting that the criminal is a victim"
ET, that is certainly a valid point, but would NOT explain the 44 percent increase in armed robberies in one year that Pat was discussing. It would seem (at least on the surface) that gun ownership by civilians is likely a factor in the overall crime equation...a factor that decreases crime.
And Kate:
"It's the same as the passivity being taught on college campuses - crawl under your desk and wait to be executed, because, God knows - if you teach people to fight back, someone might get hurt."
I don't believe the fear of someone getting hurt is the root of the problem...you have to go one step further to find the truth IMHO. It is the fear of lawsuits. No educational institution would dare suggest that anyone expose themselves to ANY danger lest they be sued...heck, they're even stopping kids from playing tag. NO WONDER they would advocate hiding from danger.
I know it's naive and simplistic, but I lay much of the West's problems at the feet of unscrupulous lawyers and feeble-minded leftist judges.
And now for the kicker...western society is only going to get increasingly worse. In a few years, we'll be looking back at the "good old days" of the early new millenium.
When you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns i mean gun control laws only effect the law abiding citizen the crinimals get their guns through the black narket and if liberal nit wits cant get that into their cement heads then they should just step down
Thanks for the heads-up on this, Kate. "Here's the complaint I sent to the Star:
Re: "Day Rejects Ban on Handguns". As the Blogosphere is reporting extensively, the following is misleading and patently wrong:
"Day's statements, however, don't appear to match with recent facts".
In fact, relevant crime rates in the locations noted by Day have increased significantly since the hand-gun bans. Your adding the word "recent" suggests the original error was politically motivated, because if it were in fact an error, the sentence would have been totally eliminated.
My complaint is that this reveals an attempt by your staff to manipulate the Toronto Star readership for political ends, and this is a dangerous, even evil, action."
Both Day and the Star misled the public, whether deliberately or not, I don't know (or care, frankly).
Page 72 of the report indicates that alterations to the National Crime Reporting Standard led to increases in recorded firearms offences beginning in April 2002. Also, these increases do not seem to be reflected in robberies, only other crimes. They have not teased out these variables. In other words, we don't know if increases since April 2002 are due to more incidents of crime or due to differences in reporting standards.
The numbers indicate number of offences, and they are not boiled down to reflect fluctuations in population. More people equals more crime.
If a new law is introduced to ban firearms, the number of offences will increase accordingly. More laws to break equals more recorded offences, if we assume that the police don't ignore the new law.
Time periods aside, comparing crime statistics between countries is a tricky business, and very difficult to do without at the very least accidentally presenting misleading information. Unless you've got identical definitions of each crime, identical reporting practices, and can boil the numbers down to population information, it's really comparing apples to oranges.
Jan, that article was not comparing crime stats between counrties.
It was comparing crime stats in Britain before and after the gun ban.
Some people try and avoid acknowledging the reality of the British handgun ban policy failure by arguing weapons definitions (blaming the increase on imitation handguns, for example), category misdirection (imitation versus air weapons, handguns versus firearms/weapons, etc.), and changes in reporting standards (the April 2002 alteration to the National Crime Recording Standard – the NCRS). What does a brief straightforward review of the appropriate government documentation reveal?
Consider the Home Office Statistical Bulletin – Violent Crimes Overview, Homicide and Gun Crime 2004/2005, found at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf. Look at Fig. 3.1 on p. 72: crimes reported in which a firearm was used, category 'all weapons EXCLUDING air weapons' – every year from 98/99 (the year after the handgun ban) to 04/05 (latest data) has seen an increase, rising from ~5,000 to ~11,000 over this period. While the population grew by some ~2% over this reporting period (~0.3% per annum average growth rate), this firearms crime rate category more than doubled.
The NCRS (altered reporting standard) was implemented on April 2002, and affected the data from 02/03 onwards. It purportedly increases the 02/03 stats over the previous standard. Looking at Fig. 3.1 again (‘all weapons excluding air weapons’), the increase is near-linear from ~5,000 in 98/99 to ~10,000 in 01/02 (doubling in the three years after the handgun ban, under the old standard), “jumping” to ~10,500 in 02/03 and ~11,000 in 04/05.
Is the “Oh, it’s not handguns!” argument valid? Consider Fig. 3.4 on p. 75, which lists the firearm offenses by type of principle weapon: For handguns alone, in 98/99, there were ~2,700 reported cases, rising to ~5,900 cases in 01/02, and then the cases reported immediately began to steadily decline under the new standard to ~4,300 in 04/05. The ‘all weapons excluding air weapons’ category includes imitation weapons. BB guns constitute the bulk of such weapons, although the category includes include soft air weapons, deactivated firearms and blank firers. Their use has increased steadily, linearly from ~500 in 98/99 to ~1,200 in 01/02 under the old reporting standard, with faster growth to ~3300 in 04/05 under the new standard (see Fig. 3.4 on p.75). This growth roughly mirrors a matching decline in the reported handgun that began the year the NCRS was implemented.
It is transparently obvious that big yearly increases in reported firearms crimes happened (or continued) after the handgun ban. Clearly, the ban either worsened the situation, or had little effect (one would need to analyze pre-ban data to distinguish between these two options). Oddly, no statistically significant reported change happened after the new standard was introduced (10,000 and 11,000 are statistically equal). In the absence of any social or policy change since the “doubling period” that preceded the standard change, the more recent data are suspect in their uniformity, calling into question the process by which they are generated.
If you find now yourself questioning just what constitutes a firearms crime, and hope that a “proper” definition will restore the rose tint to the spectacles, I invite you to consider Table 3b on p. 76. This table reports firearm crimes by degree of injury. Interestingly, the incidence of injury for crimes involving air weapons has no apparent trend (1900 plus/minus 400 per year). Non-air weapon injuries, on the other hand, have increased from 864 in 98/99 to 3,856 in 04/05 – an increase greater than a factor of four!
We can now stop the experiment, OK?
When Day discusses gun bans in the House, we can reasonably assume that he is discussing gun bans in Canada. He was implying that since a gun ban in Britain did not work, a gun ban in Canada would not work. Therefore, we are comparing situations between two countries, Canada and Britain.
Day is correct in concluding that a gun ban will increase gun crimes in Canada. A new law will quite likely lead to more arrests, and more arrests will obviously increase the number of crimes recorded.
I'm not convinced by arguments on either side of the issue at this point.
"Tony Blair yesterday claimed the spate of knife and gun murders in London was not being caused by poverty, but a distinctive black culture.
Answering questions later Mr Blair said: "Economic inequality is a factor and we should deal with that, but I don't think it's the thing that is producing the most violent expression of this social alienation.
"I think that is to do with the fact that particular youngsters are being brought up in a setting that has no rules, no discipline, no proper framework around them."
Some people working with children knew at the age of five whether they were going to be in "real trouble" later, he said.
Mr Blair is known to believe the tendency for many black boys to be raised in families without a father leads to a lack of appropriate role models."
I said basically the same points in a letter to Lorrie Goldstein, an editor at the Toronto Sun who had written an article called Apartheid-Lite where he had said the shooting of the young black boy at his school was all our faults for failing them. Part of my letter follows:
"I refuse to accept any blame you are trying to spread by saying the black community is ignored purely because of their colour. The inner city black community in Toronto, as in any city you want to name, becomes a hellhole because of the culture of the black community within it. It is ignored because they refuse to make the effort to change and constantly blame whitey or the government or whatever, it is never their fault. This murdered boy was typical of that community, bluntly he was another black bastard probably killed by another black bastard. The black inner-city attitude of failing to help the police, demeaning education, endless welfare and no sense of responsibility is all part of their culture. People of any colour get sick of the drugs, crime, fear, gang intimidation and crumbling infrastructure and those that can move away and the core gets more rotten."
Lorrie wrote me back and ripped into me and said I was a racist and didn't I care about the innocent children at the school. An excellent article by a former teacher, Sandra Fusco, that same day showed how this school and its children had typically been abandoned by the administration, the school board and the unions. Anyone could walk into these schools and wouldn't be questioned. Stating reality is not PC.