Taken from the Ottawa Citizen
"It is not quite accurate to say that everything I know about the differences between Americans and Canadians I learned while babysitting. But I did pick up some crucial information that, decades after my babysitting years in suburban Chicago, still offers perspective. One experience has never left me. I thought about it earlier this month after a man opened fire on a political meeting at a Tucson supermarket.
I was looking after a young boy, the son of a family I had never babysat for before. At one point, he ran upstairs and returned with something to show me: a handgun.
Not only did having an easily accessible handgun in the house terrify me, but looking after a boy who was curious enough to drag it out to impress the new babysitter made me wonder how long it would be before he took a closer look, and whether he would survive his curiosity.
Having the gun in the house, no doubt, made his family feel safe. Why else would they have it by their bed? It made me feel the opposite. And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between the prevalent views toward handguns in Canada versus the United States. It also explains why no amount of statistics will change minds that are set in their views.
There has been plenty of talk about the gun culture in the U.S. since the Tucson shootings (in which six people, including a nine-year-old girl, were killed and 13 others, including congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords were injured.).
We now know that Arizona is ground-zero for gun culture in the U.S., that it has some of the most lax gun regulations in the country, and that almost anyone can get a gun and can then carry it, concealed, almost anywhere.
Alan Korwin, author of The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide, expressed the thinking behind that culture during an interview on CBC Radio. When his theory that the shooting would have turned out differently if someone else in the crowd had a Glock and could have stopped Loughner was questioned, he responded this way:
"We know that criminals go crazy, you send in people with guns to stop them. More guns, less crime. When the citizens are armed they are a deterrent to crime. When the citizens are disarmed, the criminals have no controls of any practical nature. And that's what we saw in that great tragedy."
But people in the crowd were, in fact, carrying guns that day. One man came around a corner, pointed his firearm at a man with a gun and told him to drop it. But that man was yet another bystander trying to take control of the situation with his own gun. Neither fired, but the two of them very nearly contributed to the carnage, rather than stopping it.
But this view that guns in the right hands make life safer and that gun ownership is such a fundamental right that it should only be denied in the most extreme of circumstance, finds support in tragedies such as the Tucson shooting. The more shootings there are, the more people like Korwin are convinced that more guns are needed.
The fact that statistics, studies and common sense say something else makes little difference to vocal anti-regulation gun advocates.
So it was with a sense of futility that, in the days after the shooting, I looked up a study written by three associate professors from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health comparing the U.S. and Canadian approaches to handgun regulation.
They noted that, at the time (2007) there were 200 million firearms in civilian hands in the U.S., and that 16 per cent of U.S. adults owned a handgun. In Canada, by contrast, there were about seven million firearms, about one million of them handguns. In 2004, nearly 30,000 people were killed by firearms in the U.S., while there are about 850 firearm deaths in Canada a year, most of them suicides.
The study found that more guns means more homicide, suicide and accidental firearms-related deaths, and that there are fewer guns in places with tougher gun laws. It seems so obvious that it hardly needs stating but it is not.
"Governments that implement restrictive gun laws may be viewed as paternalistic and lacking in deference to the wishes of law-abiding adults who perceive a need to own firearms for self-protection, or simply enjoy firearms," the report's authors write. So what is the ethical thing for governments to do? Restrict firearms, they conclude, for the same reason mandatory vaccine laws exist -- they make the community safer.
"Our analysis demonstrates that the Canadian approach to handgun regulation is an ethical one."
Most of us already knew that, but it is good to remember why.
Elizabeth Payne is a member of the Citizen's editorial board.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen"
I find it extremely insulting when reporters site "studys" that don't exist. Authors like Elizabeth Payne need to use this tactic to prove a point that is driven by the emotion of the author and disregard for actual fact.When you look at homicide rates based on country's an obvious trend begins to emerge. The countrys with the highest level of gun control suffer from the highest rate of homicides.International murder rates go as follows:| # 1 | Colombia: | 0.617847 per 1,000 people |
|
| # 2 | South Africa: | 0.496008 per 1,000 people |
|
| # 3 | Jamaica: | 0.324196 per 1,000 people |
|
| # 4 | Venezuela: | 0.316138 per 1,000 people |
|
| # 5 | Russia: | 0.201534 per 1,000 people |
|
| # 6 | Mexico: | 0.130213 per 1,000 people |
|
| # 7 | Estonia: | 0.107277 per 1,000 people |
|
| # 8 | Latvia: | 0.10393 per 1,000 people |
|
| # 9 | Lithuania: | 0.102863 per 1,000 people |
|
| # 10 | Belarus: | 0.0983495 per 1,000 people |
|
| # 11 | Ukraine: | 0.094006 per 1,000 people |
|
| # 12 | Papua New Guinea: | 0.0838593 per 1,000 people |
|
| # 13 | Kyrgyzstan: | 0.0802565 per 1,000 people |
|
| # 14 | Thailand: | 0.0800798 per 1,000 people |
|
| # 15 | Moldova: | 0.0781145 per 1,000 people |
|
| # 16 | Zimbabwe: | 0.0749938 per 1,000 people |
|
| # 17 | Seychelles: | 0.0739025 per 1,000 people |
|
| # 18 | Zambia: | 0.070769 per 1,000 people |
|
| # 19 | Costa Rica: | 0.061006 per 1,000 people |
|
| # 20 | Poland: | 0.0562789 per 1,000 people |
In all of these countries, citizens are restricted from owning firearms, or they are heavily regulated. When you look at countries that allow citizens to own or encourage use we can look at Switzerland. They allows there citizens to carry a firearm for the use of self defense, and it is common to have a modern evil black rifle hanging above the fire place. Switzerland is number #56 on the list. Canada is #44.| # 56 | Switzerland: | 0.00921351 per 1,000 people |
|
| # 44 | Canada: | 0.0149063 per 1,000 people |
|
|
|
What study was Elizabeth Payne using to back up her statement that more legal responsible gun ownership is equal to more homicide? More importantly where did her fear of guns come from? Does she feel that shes not mature enough or mentally capable to own a firearm for self defense? If that's the case maybe her drivers licenses should be revoked. She also may not be capable of refraining from drinking and operating an automobile, or perhaps she just may drive off a bridge or swerve into on coming traffic. After all she can't distinguish between right and wrong and needs the government to take her license away before that happens.
We as firearm owners are better then the antis and Liberals. We have convictions, believe in self sufficiency, carry on tradition and believe in the responsibility of ones own actions. I hold myself accountable from everything in my life. I don't expect or want the government to take care of me or my family. I believe that when you reach adult hood and become a contributing member of society you should own a firearm.
seeking legislation to make it mandatory to own a firearm, or to discharge in suburban areas. Every bit of the legislation we seek has to do with wanting to continue our own sport and traditions. It wants to take nothing from any individual. The Liberals seek to take away rights. We fight to save them.
