With Few Gun Laws, New Hampshire Is Safer Than Canada

Why would Newfoundland/Labrador be the exception and not "the territories"? Your assertion completely falls apart when you get further south. The territories have pretty substantial social issues affecting their murder rate.

Huh?

why does it fall apart?

I'm acknowledging Newfoundland/Labrador buck the general trend -even in Canada- of more gun ownership, more murder.

Do you disagree with that?

And as an aside, aren't there a lot of gun owners who complain about restrictions in Nfld/Lab?


This is a remarkable graph that the OP discovered- for the wrong reasons, from the perspective of at least some gun owners (the more guns, less crime school of thought).
 
With the exception of Newfoundland/Labrador, maybe New Brunswick, seems like more licences (more gun owners?), more murders, doesn't it?

I'm probably being dense here, but I'm not seeing this conclusion? With the exception of Manitoba, all of the other provinces are in the lower 1/3 of that graph?

As to the Territories, there are several unique factors at play up there? Isolation, poverty, and....culture...spring to mind? Also, correlation is not causation? For instance, I'd be curious to see how many of the deaths in the Territories (and Manitoba, say) also had alcohol as a factor?

I'd be remiss if I did not point out that the chart above does not deal with Homicide by Firearm. As we all know, firearms are not the leading method utilised by murderers in Canada, here's the chart:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11882/tbl/tbl04-eng.htm
which also shows that that all the methods used for murder have remained constant, on average, while if you look here for a minute, you'll see the trend downwards in total numbers of homicides, even in the Territories?
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11882-eng.htm






Alternately, with regard to Newfoundland, I could just say that every other province in Canada had far fewer people that complied with our licencing laws....
 
Last edited:
With the exception of Newfoundland/Labrador, maybe New Brunswick, seems like more licences (more gun owners?), more murders, doesn't it?

It seems like you were attempting to draw a conclusion that more guns = more murders. I don't except that. If we acknowledge that it is more appropriate to only compare the provinces, since they have similar social situations, there is no connection between gun ownership and murder rate.
 
I'm probably being dense here, but I'm not seeing this conclusion? With the exception of Manitoba, all of the other provinces are in the lower 1/3 of that graph?

nntw is making the same case that Wendy did.
That provinces and territories with higher gun ownership have higher homicide rates.

Ignoring that guns aren't the cause and this is a third-party-variable problem to start with so Wendy's and nntw's comparison is bogus on its face,
a counter example is the Yukon, which had a zero rate three years in a row, yet the highest gun ownership -- over 4 times that of Ontario.
 
Hmmm I wonder if access to medical facilities may have played a part of the territories high rate. With access to medical services not exactly a drive down the road when something does happen it is more likely that it will take longer to get to the hospital that could save your life therefore we could guess that with access to closer facilities maybe their homicide rate would be lower. I would like to see the rate of violent crime compared state to province to territory, that may give a more telling tale. I mean if you get shot in or near a major center compared with someplace 400km from a hospital with the exact same injury it is just common sense that the person in or near a major center is much more likely to survive and not be included in this chart.
 
nntw is making the same case that Wendy did.
That provinces and territories with higher gun ownership have higher homicide rates.

Ignoring that guns aren't the cause and this is a third-party-variable problem to start with so Wendy's and nntw's comparison is bogus on its face,
a counter example is the Yukon, which had a zero rate three years in a row, yet the highest gun ownership -- over 4 times that of Ontario.

Like.
images
 
Hmmm I wonder if access to medical facilities may have played a part of the territories high rate.

Could be.
There's a maxim in emergency wards that says
if someone crashes their body into a brick wall at 100 mph, the medicals don't know what to do, where to start, or even if there's a point to any effort beyond morphine (air bags and seat belts and crumple zones are your only friend against inertia and high G forces);
but if someone has a bullet wound, they know exactly what to do and get to work immediately stabilizing, drugs, surgery, lots of activity and a high survival rate (not cheap, and 'recovery' is annoying at best, but solvable from a survival point of view).
Not like the old west where a gut shot was the end of you.
 
nntw is making the same case that Wendy did.
That provinces and territories with higher gun ownership have higher homicide rates.

Ignoring that guns aren't the cause and this is a third-party-variable problem to start with so Wendy's and nntw's comparison is bogus on its face,
a counter example is the Yukon, which had a zero rate three years in a row, yet the highest gun ownership -- over 4 times that of Ontario.

Okay- let's clean this copy up now that I'm at a computer, not a tablet....

The OP threw out some assertions, based on some questionable data.

I just thought I'd see about correlating the provincial deaths against ownership. And you know, I'd bet if we did a bit of statistical analysis on it, we WOULD confirm the correlation.

Except for Newfoundland/Labrador.

And that might bear some study.


Now, do I really think more guns = more deaths?

Not really.

But RB's thrown out 'Ignoring that guns aren't the cause....' without supporting it in any way shape or form.


Cheers.

But it's certainly interesting.
 
Last edited:
The onus should be to prove that guns cause more problems than they solve (complete cost-benefit), since the null hypothesis is difficult.

PALers commit murder at between half and a fifth the rate of non-PALed depending upon how you do the math. Yet virtually all PALers have guns.
If guns were the cause then the opposite would be true, rather than the '99.98% of the PALers don't commit murder' stat. Guns don't cause murder, other things do.
Same in the USA, 400 million firearms in citizen hands, if they were the problem it would be massively obvious.
Based upon some admittedly thin multi-year coroner's report statistics, it appears to me that half the PALers who did commit murder did not use their firearm in the commission of the act, although several subsequently committed suicide with firearm after the murder. Again, if guns were the cause, one would assume that the gun would be used.

Canadians expend about half a billion rounds of ammunition per year (ammunition import statistics). If guns are the cause of homicide, we're missing 99.9999992% of the time.

It's obvious to anyone who isn't trying to twist themselves around a link between firearms and homicide -- because that's the debate that the anti's want to frame the discussion in -- that the cause of homicide is something else.
It took me years of reading and critiquing studies to undo massive media brainwashing on this topic, and I'm still no where in the league of some who do it better than I -- at least one judge comes to mind.
In my early years at this I started reading some anti studies and was convinced/agreed. Then one day I noticed a flaw in their reasoning, and started spotting that same flaw in other anti studies. Then I started spotting a different flaw, repeated. Then I spotted studies that were dependent upon previous studies flawed conclusions for their conclusions. Gads most of the 'studies' are wastes of time.

Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.
– G.K. Chesterton​

Of those hundreds of you reading this thread who are PALed, please post if you've committed a murder since you purchased your first legally owned firearm. And if you've committed a murder, please post if the reason you committed murder was because you owned a gun; rather than at the moment of the incident you, for example, hated your victim. And, add if you've committed the murder using your firearm. If you could add how the presence of the firearm, and not other factors/causes, lowered in your opinion the victim(s) right to breath such as your need not to be disrespected or how you took offense at something they said about your mother's shoes or how your 'employer' wanted more money, please add that.
 
The onus should be to prove that guns cause more problems than they solve (complete cost-benefit), since the null hypothesis is difficult.

PALers commit murder at between half and a fifth the rate of non-PALed depending upon how you do the math. Yet virtually all PALers have guns.
If guns were the cause then the opposite would be true, rather than the '99.98% of the PALers don't commit murder' stat. Guns don't cause murder, other things do.
Same in the USA, 400 million firearms in citizen hands, if they were the problem it would be massively obvious.
Based upon some admittedly thin multi-year coroner's report statistics, it appears to me that half the PALers who did commit murder did not use their firearm in the commission of the act, although several subsequently committed suicide with firearm after the murder. Again, if guns were the cause, one would assume that the gun would be used.

Canadians expend about half a billion rounds of ammunition per year (ammunition import statistics). If guns are the cause of homicide, we're missing 99.9999992% of the time.

It's obvious to anyone who isn't trying to twist themselves around a link between firearms and homicide -- because that's the debate that the anti's want to frame the discussion in -- that the cause of homicide is something else.
It took me years of reading and critiquing studies to undo massive media brainwashing on this topic, and I'm still no where in the league of some who do it better than I -- at least one judge comes to mind.
In my early years at this I started reading some anti studies and was convinced/agreed. Then one day I noticed a flaw in their reasoning, and started spotting that same flaw in other anti studies. Then I started spotting a different flaw, repeated. Then I spotted studies that were dependent upon previous studies flawed conclusions for their conclusions. Gads most of the 'studies' are wastes of time.

Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.
– G.K. Chesterton​

Of those hundreds of you reading this thread who are PALed, please post if you've committed a murder since you purchased your first legally owned firearm. And if you've committed a murder, please post if the reason you committed murder was because you owned a gun; rather than at the moment of the incident you, for example, hated your victim. And, add if you've committed the murder using your firearm. If you could add how the presence of the firearm, and not other factors/causes, lowered in your opinion the victim(s) right to breath such as your need not to be disrespected or how you took offense at something they said about your mother's shoes or how your 'employer' wanted more money, please add that.





Well that's interesting

Because right at the moment there certainly does t seem to be a pressing gun problem in Canada with the way things are
 
Canadians expend about half a billion rounds of ammunition per year (ammunition import statistics). If guns are the cause of homicide, we're missing 99.9999992% of the time.

This line is worthy of becoming a signature.
 
When there's a murder, do police check CFRO to see where the nearest PALer lives? That's probably where most of the guns are.
Or would that be a complete waste of time, and not SOP for homicide detectives, relative to, you know, causes.


[SOP standard operating procedure; CFRO Canadian Firearms Registry Online]
 
Yes, NH with practically no gun laws.

Canadians (especially politicians and gun control advocates) need to be informed that restrictive gun laws do not equal lower murder rates. No one wants to see us selling guns in the 7-11 or a vending machine but why are we wasting our time, effort and money nickel and dime-ing law abiding gun owners with magazine capacity and barrel length when social issues are way more important?

You want to lower the homicide rate? Spend your time and money on poverty, mental health and admit that the useless war on drugs is a total failure.

i would add focus on socio-economic factors. Jobs keep people too busy to do stupid sh!t.
 
Well that's interesting

Because right at the moment there certainly does t seem to be a pressing gun problem in Canada with the way things are

And there wasn't a pressing gun problem in Canada with the way things were either. Also Canada's homicide rate (as well as most Western nations) has been falling well before most gun control measures were legislated and implemented.

Where there is a problem is in Toronto where "carding" has been stopped. A significant increase in gun play and shootings has resulted. Are they related? My guess is yes, but that's just a guess.
 
uscan_homicide.jpg




Interesting chart....I'm taking it from your link, haven't validated it or researched it.

Note which provinces have the lowest instances of murder.... and note which territories has the highest.


Now cross reference this to an RCMP document which discusses licencing rates



Province/Territory Licences per 100,000 Population
Ontario 4,362
Prince Edward Island 4,395
British Columbia 5,731
Quebec 6,270
Manitoba 7,010
Alberta 7,177
Nova Scotia 7,957
New Brunswick 9,171
Saskatchewan 9,463
Nunavut 9,722
Northwest Territories 12,638
Newfoundland and Labrador 14,249
Yukon 19,698

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/facts-faits/index-eng.htm


With the exception of Newfoundland/Labrador, maybe New Brunswick, seems like more licences (more gun owners?), more murders, doesn't it?

Then why do 23 US states have less murders than Manitoba? I haven't checked the other states, but I know for a fact both Minnesota and North Dakota have concealed carry. And I'm willing to bet the other 21 have way more guns in circulation than Manitoba does.
 
The onus should be to prove that guns cause more problems than they solve (complete cost-benefit), since the null hypothesis is difficult.

PALers commit murder at between half and a fifth the rate of non-PALed depending upon how you do the math. Yet virtually all PALers have guns.
If guns were the cause then the opposite would be true, rather than the '99.98% of the PALers don't commit murder' stat. Guns don't cause murder, other things do.
Same in the USA, 400 million firearms in citizen hands, if they were the problem it would be massively obvious.
Based upon some admittedly thin multi-year coroner's report statistics, it appears to me that half the PALers who did commit murder did not use their firearm in the commission of the act, although several subsequently committed suicide with firearm after the murder. Again, if guns were the cause, one would assume that the gun would be used.

Canadians expend about half a billion rounds of ammunition per year (ammunition import statistics). If guns are the cause of homicide, we're missing 99.9999992% of the time.

It's obvious to anyone who isn't trying to twist themselves around a link between firearms and homicide -- because that's the debate that the anti's want to frame the discussion in -- that the cause of homicide is something else.
It took me years of reading and critiquing studies to undo massive media brainwashing on this topic, and I'm still no where in the league of some who do it better than I -- at least one judge comes to mind.
In my early years at this I started reading some anti studies and was convinced/agreed. Then one day I noticed a flaw in their reasoning, and started spotting that same flaw in other anti studies. Then I started spotting a different flaw, repeated. Then I spotted studies that were dependent upon previous studies flawed conclusions for their conclusions. Gads most of the 'studies' are wastes of time.

Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.
– G.K. Chesterton​

Of those hundreds of you reading this thread who are PALed, please post if you've committed a murder since you purchased your first legally owned firearm. And if you've committed a murder, please post if the reason you committed murder was because you owned a gun; rather than at the moment of the incident you, for example, hated your victim. And, add if you've committed the murder using your firearm. If you could add how the presence of the firearm, and not other factors/causes, lowered in your opinion the victim(s) right to breath such as your need not to be disrespected or how you took offense at something they said about your mother's shoes or how your 'employer' wanted more money, please add that.

What we need is to get real.
With tobacco and alcohol still legal and the proven record of human suffering and carnage associated with these substances which have killed more people that firearms did or ever will including all the wars ever fought why are we even talking about guns?
Because corrupt, incompetent politicians and bureaucrats and 3rd world dictators who have a hand in shaping UN policies are paranoid about the citizens they are exploiting possessing guns ... that's why.
 
The likes of Bloomberg and that wrinkled troll Feinstein. :rolleyes:
 
And there wasn't a pressing gun problem in Canada with the way things were either. Also Canada's homicide rate (as well as most Western nations) has been falling well before most gun control measures were legislated and implemented.

Where there is a problem is in Toronto where "carding" has been stopped. A significant increase in gun play and shootings has resulted. Are they related? My guess is yes, but that's just a guess.

What is carding?
 
nntw is making the same case that Wendy did.
That provinces and territories with higher gun ownership have higher homicide rates.

Ignoring that guns aren't the cause and this is a third-party-variable problem to start with so Wendy's and nntw's comparison is bogus on its face,
a counter example is the Yukon, which had a zero rate three years in a row, yet the highest gun ownership -- over 4 times that of Ontario.

Therein lies the problem. The average Canadian is brainwashed into believing that more guns=more deaths and thus support these nonsensical gun laws they are trying to pass. Just today I had a tradesman in my home and we started talking about the debates in the US. He said, "everyone is crazy down there. They all have guns and are shooting each other." I informed him that both North Dakota and Minnesota plus 21 other states had a lower murder rate than Manitoba. He was quite surprised to hear this. Hopefully it stuck and he will tell other people. One person at a time.
 
Therein lies the problem. The average Canadian is brainwashed into believing that more guns=more deaths and thus support these nonsensical gun laws they are trying to pass. Just today I had a tradesman in my home and we started talking about the debates in the US. He said, "everyone is crazy down there. They all have guns and are shooting each other." I informed him that both North Dakota and Minnesota plus 21 other states had a lower murder rate than Manitoba. He was quite surprised to hear this. Hopefully it stuck and he will tell other people. One person at a time.



Have a look at your post and the rcmp stats.

More gun licences lined up with more murders.

Let's have your explanation.
 
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Register now
or