homicides in Canada, 2003

[iverglas]

Gotta be quick. Bubbly awaits.

The Stupidity of Homicide in Montreal.

(I am not sure whether this link can be accessed, sorry.)

One started out as an argument over a neighbour's dog. Another came as the result of a dispute over who had dibs on a pool table.

This has been a stupid year," said Det.-Lt. Stephen Roberts, who says he prefers a good mystery, one with a crime scene that offers a challenge to the detectives under his supervision. Commander André Bouchard, head of the major crimes division, concurred while describing many of the homicides probed in 2003 as "nothing more than drunken quarrels."

At least 11 of the 42 homicides reported in the city as of yesterday occurred during arguments between strangers or disputes among neighbours.

"It was terrible. I have rarely seen a year where so many homicides have been about someone saying 'Hey, what did you call me?' and then BANG!," Bouchard said during an interview in his office at the Place Versailles office building.

"Bang!" shouldn't be taken literally -- the homicides that the article describes were not firearms homicides.

42 homicides in a city of ... 3.43 million, 2001 census. That would be about 1.2/100,000.


Calagary homicide trends lower

Calgary's homicide rate over the past decade has remained relatively low despite an increase of nearly 200,000 in the city's population.

Calgary has recorded 10 homicides so far in 2003, five fewer than in 2002. It had eight in 1993, nine in 1997 and 10 in 1996 and 1999.

... In 1993, Calgary's population was 727,719. The city recorded eight homicides that year. By 2003, the population had risen to 922,315 with only 10 homicides as the end of the year approaches.

Calgary is an affluent little place, of course.


Red tape slows murder probes: police

Keep in mind that the headline comes from the right-wing press. The issue is the Toronto police's declining rate of solved homicides.

Trials tax police resources in Windsor, the working-class city across the river from Detroit (population just over 300,000).

Actually, of the 8 murder cases scheduled for trial in the first 5 months of 2004, 2 are retrials, and some go back as far as 1997 and 1998. (This is kind of pointless information, sorry; it says nothing about actual homicide counts.)


In Toronto, from the Star: Homicide arrests elusive -- looks like homicides were just about as stupid as in Montreal:

A man is killed for saying hello to the wrong woman. Another is lured to his death after getting on the bad side of a bad guy he'd just met. Others met their end for reasons unknown, such as the execution-style hit last week of a man at a downtown nightclub.

Toronto police say the explosion of gang violence, coupled with elusive motives and reluctant witnesses, are partly why the homicide clearance rate — the number of cases police consider closed because of arrest or other reasons — was down in 2003.

... Toronto's homicide rate, however, has remained relatively stable for the past two decades, hovering between 50 and 65, peaking in 1991 at 89. The 2003 year-end total of 65 as of yesterday could increase, since police are still investigating four suspicious deaths. That happened in 2002, when two cases determined to be homicides increased the final tally from 60 to 62.

Damn. I guess all that carrying on we heard here a few weeks back, about the out-of-control violence and mayhem and murder in Toronto, just didn't quite reflect reality.

Toronto Census Metropolitan Area: 4.68 million. Homicide rate of just under 1.4/100,000.

For those interested in clearance rates:

Declining clearance rates in homicide cases is not just a Toronto problem.

In New York City, for instance, the clearance rate has not increased despite the
number of homicides in the city being at a 40-year-low. In Philadelphia, the killings are up this year — 337 as of Dec. 23 from 282 at the same time last year — but the clearance rate is down from previous years, at 64 per cent as of Dec. 15. Los Angeles, Washington, Detroit, Phoenix and Chicago are also struggling with a growing number of unsolved homicides even as their numbers have dropped.

Can't find a damned link, but the total homicide count in Ottawa (that's the capital city of Canada, metro population about 750,000) was 10.

.

[pansypoo53219]

1. jeez

and little Milw had about 100 or so.
i do like snow, but i like to be barefoot too. maybe the Canada side of Lake superior. hmm.....

[CO Liberal]

2. I Think One of the Big Differences Between Canada and the US...

...is that Canada was luck enough not to get saddled with assholes like Ted Nugent and Wayne LaPierre.

Happy New Year!!!!!

:toast:

[Columbia]

3. I thought Michael Moore said guns weren't the problem

So what is?

[the_acid_one]

4. He is.

[Columbia]

5. Can't argue with you there!

;-)

[MrBenchley]

6. You mean there's no bloodbath in Canada?

Go figure...

[demsrule4life]

7. Go figure

The non gun murder rate in the U.S. would still top Canada's total murder rate.

[MrBenchley]

8. Gee, dems, gun control not only works

but works spectacularly well....

[CO Liberal]

9. And That's What Drives the Pro-Gunners Crazy

Trying to argue against success, logic, and reason.

[demsrule4life]

10. Even with no gun control at all Canada

has always had a much lower murder rate then us. How can you explain that in three words or less.

[MrSandman]

12. Other unaccounted factors...

????

[MrBenchley]

11. Not so much a drive

more like a short putt....

[Romulus]

13. you mean

Canada's success in lowering their non-firearm murder rate below the U.S. non-firearm rate? And the logic behind reasoning that a non-firearm murder has nothing to do with gun control?

Trying to argue against success, logic, and reason?

[Columbia]

14. I think the argument

Is that Canada's murder rate regardless of implement has always been lower than the United States murder rate regardless of implement. Hence, the prevalence of guns has little to do with or has nothing to do with the difference in murder rates. Therefore, there are other factors that need to be considered before jumping to the conclusion that gun control is the answer to crime reduction.

[demsrule4life]

15. Give that man a cigar

:)

[MrSandman]

16. And I was tryng for three words or less

lol

[demsrule4life]

17. You have your pick of your

favorite brand.

[Columbia]

18. Cohiba por favor

Oops.. darn.. Hecho en Habanos no permisible...

;)

[MrSandman]

19. About 8oz. of good VA Burley

for my pipe.

[iverglas]

21. and of course

"Therefore, there are other factors that need to be considered before jumping to the conclusion that gun control is the answer to crime reduction."

... before jumping to the conclusion that it *isn't*, one would have to find some way to discount the decline in firearms homicides that coincides with tighter restrictions on firearms possession.

Who ever said that "gun control is the answer to crime reduction"?

Same old red herring ...

.

[Columbia]

35. I presume you haven't seen

The recent study published by the CDC surveying every major study involving gun control and crimes and determined that NO CONNECTION could be found linking gun control and crime reduction.

Many people incorrectly presume that "gun control is the answer to crime reduction" including our hometown favorite here, MrBenchley.

[MrBenchley]

36. Hahahahahahahha....

Hell, you ought to see the latest study by the Parks Department claiming the Grand Canyon is only a few thousand years old.

Here's a fact for you...the CDC has been prohibited by law since 1996 from collecting any evidence which might show gun control to be effective. It's the wonders of Republican pseudoscience.

[milliner]

37. Trying to learn

http://www.kidsandguns.org/study/states_deaths.asp?National

ok I need some help to learn how to create a link. this is just kind of a test. The above is a link on gun deaths. How do I make this a Link?

[iverglas]

38. shall I assume you don't remember ...

OJ?

Twelve of his peers determined that NO CONNECTION could be found linking him and the death of his wife and her friend.

I'm just not sure how the CDC or anyone else would conduct the kind of all other things being equal study that would have to be done in order to prove (or disprove) CAUSALITY in any comparison of this sort. I don't actually think that the CDC did that, or could do it.

Whether anything can be proved to exist is an entirely different matter from whether it exists. Surely we all do know that.

As I recall, the CDC didn't look at any international facts and figures -- either for internal comparisons or for comparison with the US. Kind of a glaring omission, to my mind. Kind of like the OJ jury not seeing all the evidence that we TV viewers saw ...


"Many people incorrectly presume that 'gun control is the answer to crime reduction' including our hometown favorite here, MrBenchley."

I find quotations so much more persuasive than allegations, don't you?

.

[Columbia]

39. No Proof Gun Laws Reduce Violence

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/03/national/printable576422.shtml

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

"An independent CDC task force reviewed 51 published studies about the effectiveness of eight types of gun-control laws. The laws included bans on specific firearms or ammunition, measures barring felons from buying guns, and mandatory waiting periods and firearm registration. None of the studies was done by the federal government. In every case, a CDC task force found 'insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness."

[iverglas]

41. no proof you exist

"In every case, a CDC task force found 'insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness'."

In the OJ Simpson case, a jury found insufficient evidence to determine that OJ Simpson had killed his wife and her friend.

I'm waiting for you ... or anybody ... to tell me that this proves that OJ Simpson did not kill his wife and her friend.

I'll bet that you have insufficient evidence to prove that I exist.

Poof, I just disappeared.

.

[milliner]

42. OJ , OK

I'm waiting for you ... or anybody ... to tell me that this proves that OJ Simpson did not kill his wife and her friend.

thats not my responsibility, that responsibility lands on the desk of the government. The government failed. If you could prove OJ is guilty you should have cared before the verdict was rendered.

[iverglas]

44. and now if only

... I had a clue what you're talking about.

May I respectfully suggest that you go back and reread something I actually said? You cut and pasted it, indeed ... and then seem to have addressed something quite other than anything I said.

My question is really very simple, you see.

Does the fact that "there is no proof of X" mean that mean that "X" does not exist?

Does the fact that someone says "there is no proof of X" mean that someone may come along and say "X does not exist"?

I have no proof whatsoever that, say, your left foot exists. May I say "your left foot does not exist"?


"thats not my responsibility, that responsibility lands on the desk of the government. The government failed. If you could prove OJ is guilty you should have cared before the verdict was rendered."

Please accept my humble apologies in the event that you truly believe that I have suggested that something is your "responsibility". I certainly never meant to suggest any such thing. In fact, I did not suggest any such thing.

And it is beyond me why you claim that it "lands on the desk of the government" to "tell me that this proves that OJ Simpson did not kill his wife and her friend", although that is what you seem to have said.

Nor have I any idea why you would say "If you could prove OJ is guilty", since I said nothing about anyone at all, let alone moi, proving that OJ was guilty.

And since whether or not I could prove that OJ was guilty was not in any way an issue in anything I said, it is completely beyond me why you would say "you should have cared before the verdict was rendered" to me.

It's a very simple question that I asked. Perhaps if I rephrase it:

Does the fact that OJ was not convicted of the murders of his wife and her friend prove that he did not kill his wife and her friend?

If someone sneaks out in the middle of the night and wraps your house in toilet paper, but no one sees him/her do it, and s/he leaves no telltale fingerprints or other identifying evidence, and no one ever finds out who did it -- did s/he not do it?

Can you perhaps explain, in your own words, the difference between a fact and proof of a fact?

.

[milliner]

49. Prove what?

'Does the fact that OJ was not convicted of the murders of his wife and her friend prove that he did not kill his wife and her friend?'

I had a teacher in the 7th grade and he explained a concept you may want to ponder. It is impossible to prove a negative.

In your example you want someone to prove a negative. You want Someone to bring forth facts that prove OJ did not kill two people.
Again you cant prove someone did not do activity X

Next example, 'I have no proof whatsoever that, say, your left foot exists. May I say "your left foot does not exist"?'

No you can't prove my left foot does not exist. You can prove that it does.

What you seem to want is someone to prove that gun control measures don't work. Being redundant, that cant be proved. However if you can show a population that has drastically tightened the access of guns and the corresponding decrease in crime you are on your way to proving that gun control works to reduce crime, even though I might argue, that, in fact I am not safer.

Although your language skills are impressive that does not mitigate the fact that there are lots of examples to give credence to the idea that loosening the restrictions on gun ownership and right to carry laws have not resulted in the predictable blood bath.

Then there is that whole messy constitution thingy. You know, that part about protecting my right to keep and bear arms.

[iverglas]

53. you gotta be kidding

"In your example you want someone to prove a negative.
You want Someone to bring forth facts that prove OJ did not
kill two people. Again you cant prove someone did not do activity X"

I'm afraid that I can very easily prove that I did not eat a pizza for breakfast, or jump off the Golden Gate Bridge yesterday afternoon. Are you seriously going to suggest that I cannot?

In any event, do you not see that you have made the very point I was making?

THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF "X" DOES NOT PROVE "NOT X".


"Next example, 'I have no proof whatsoever that, say,
your left foot exists. May I say "your left foot does not exist"?'
No you can't prove my left foot does not exist. You can prove that it does."

Did you hear me say "can I prove your left food does not exist"? I don't think so. Why, then, would you answer my question as if that was what I had asked you?

I did not ask you whether I could prove that your left food does not exist (although, if it actually did not exist, I would think that proving that it did not exist would be a relatively simple matter.)

I asked you whether the fact that I cannot prove that it exists means that I can say it does not exist.

Allow me to connect the dots.

The fact that no proof that firearms control measures have a particular effect can be found does not, in itself, entitle anyone to say that firearms control measures do not have that effect.

If this standard of proof -- proof of a causal effect -- were to be applied to all legislative activities, we would pretty much have no laws. Laws against speeding have certainly not put an end to highway accidents, and yet we are all "punished" (as someone else here would have it) by laws that stop us from driving as fast as we want.

"What you seem to want is someone to prove that gun control
measures don't work. Being redundant, that cant be proved."

"Redundant"? Is that something your grade seven teacher said, too? I can't even guess what it's supposed to be meaning here.

Perhaps that is what I "seem" to want, to you. Your impression would be inaccurate, in that case.

What I have said is that absence of proof that firearms control measures have a particular effect is not proof that they do not have that effect.

"However if you can show a population that has drastically
tightened the access of guns and the corresponding decrease
in crime you are on your way to proving that gun control works
to reduce crime, even though I might argue, that, in fact I am
not safer."

Of course, that would mean that I, or someone, claimed in the first place that firearms control measures are designed to reduce "crime".

This is what is known, of course, as a straw person argument, at least when it is addressed to me, and when it is made in respect of, say, the firearms control measures introduced in the UK and Australia in recent years.

I, you see, am not making any argument at all about the effects of firearms control measures as examined in the studies that the CDC reviewed.

I'm very simply saying that absence of proof that those measures had any particular effects is not proof that they did not have those effects. As far as I can tell, you agree.

"... there are lots of examples to give credence to the idea
that loosening the restrictions on gun ownership and right to carry
laws have not resulted in the predictable blood bath."

"Predictable"? Might you mean "predicted"? And might I ask: "by whom"? Do I smell another straw fella?

"Then there is that whole messy constitution thingy. You know,
that part about protecting my right to keep and bear arms."

Ah, there's just nothing like a good appeal to authority, is there?

Your constitution just doesn't really settle the issue of the effect of firearms control measures, though, I don't think.

.

[milliner]

55. Pizza for breakfast?

I thought I was the only person that would admit to that. But in fact There is no way to prove that you did not eat pizza for breakfast. You really want this exercise this point? You may be able to present eye witnesses that saw you eat pizza, but from a positive, without any doubt, that in fact, you did not eat pizza, no one could prove. You could present person(s) that were with you but then was that every single second? What about breakfast? My father-in-law worked the 2cnd shift and often met his wife for breakfast at midnight. Is the time if day relevant to the terms used.

THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF "X" DOES NOT PROVE "NOT X".

Yeah thats pretty much the point. Lack of evidence to enact more restrictive laws.

You brought up the existence of my left foot. I simple say you can't prove it does not exist. The only way to do that is prove the positive existence of the left foot. Tell me how, without using the existence of a foot you can prove it does not exist.

And so

The fact that no proof that firearms control measures have a particular effect can be found does not, in itself, entitle anyone to say that firearms control measures do not have that effect

So lack of an argument does not prevent me from arguing a point that doesn't exist.

And you advocate enacting laws that even with the absence of supporting evidence are a good idea. How about I take your children from you when the children turn the age of 5 and return them to you when they hit the age of 13. This will result in a better society.


Of course, that would mean that I, or someone, claimed in the first place that firearms control measures are designed to reduce "crime".

Gee, thats my bad, I made an assumption that after reading hundreds of posts on this site that gun control measures reduced crime. IF that is not the case what are firearms control measures designed to accomplish?

I, you see, am not making any argument at all about the effects of firearms control measures as examined in the studies that the CDC reviewed.

I'm very simply saying that absence of proof that those measures had any particular effects is not proof that they did not have those effects. As far as I can tell, you agree.

Not so much, I like some evidence that laws enacted will result in a shift of some specified action. Your 'absence of proof that those measures had any particular effect' Why would any measures be enacted without the evidence of their effectiveness? Gee we keep going in circles and meeting ourself.

Ah the appeal to authority! I call that law, and I am rather comforted by its presence.

[Columbia]

45. Due Process

There's a lot of difference between your analogy of OJ and the CDC report, but just because you seem to like it so much, I'll entertain it.

What you are suggesting is that OJ should be punished for a crime that he was found not guilty of. Well, a jury did not find enough evidence to convict him, so he should be punished for it anyway just because gosh darnit, he had to have done it! I just know he did! Sorry bub, that just isn't how it works here.

As for gun rights and the CDC report, what you want to happen to OJ is happening to us gun-owners. We are being punished with restrictive gun laws despite the fact that there is no proof that gun laws help reduce crime.

However, with OJ, at least there was some modicum of evidence that he might have committed the crime. The defense was able to plant enough reasonable doubt in the jury's minds to persuade them to give a not-guilty verdict. However, the CDC looked at 51 different published studies and did not find even one that lent credence to the gun control propaganda.

Just because you want something to exist, doesn't mean it's there either.

[iverglas]

50. For The Record

"What you are suggesting is that OJ should be punished for a crime
that he was found not guilty of."

I would respectfully request that you prove the truth of your statement about me or withdraw it.

For your assistance, this is how you could prove the truth of your statement about me: find a statement made by me that can be correctly characterized as "suggesting that OJ should be punished for a crime that he was not found guilty of". Failing that, explain the basis you have for this characterization of what I have said and/or believe. Hint: find anything I have said that makes any reference, or can by any stretch of the imagination be construed as referring, to "punishment".

In deciding whether to attempt to prove the truth of your statement or withdraw it, you might like to consider the following:

I DID NOT SAY, SUGGEST OR IMPLY, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE AND HAVE SAID NOTHING THAT SUGGESTS OR IMPLIES THAT I BELIEVE, "that OJ should be punished for a crime that he was found not guilty of".

I can think of two kinds of people who might say or believe "that OJ should be punished for a crime that he was found not guilty of" --

(1) very stupid people who do not understand the concept of due process, among other things;

(2) very evil people who do not believe that the concept of due process should govern the imposition of punishment for crimes.

I am quite familiar with the concept of due process, among other things, and I have never said anything that would suggest to anyone acting in good faith and giving due consideration to my words that I am so stupid that I do not understand that concept.

I believe that due process should govern the imposition of punishment for crimes, and I have never said anything that would suggest to anyone acting in good faith and giving due consideration to my words that I believe anything different.

I will engage in no speculation as to why you would unequivocally state that I have suggested something that I never suggested.


"Well, a jury did not find enough evidence to convict him,
so he should be punished for it anyway just because gosh darnit,
he had to have done it! I just know he did!"

Whose voice do you claim to be speaking in? Since I assume that you are not voicing your own opinion, I can only assume that you are purporting to be voicing someone else's. From the context, it appears to me that you purport to be speaking in my voice, since I can see no one else in the vicinity whose voice you might purport to be speaking in.

If you purport to be paraphrasing something I have said, or expressing something I believe, you are making a statement about my words and/or beliefs that is not true. The statement you have made is in no way an expression of anything I have ever said or anything I believe. It is a complete misrepresentation of what I said and of what I believe.

"Sorry bub, that just isn't how it works here."

Ah, I see, you are addressing "bub" -- an obviously very stupid and/or evil person, since s/he has apparently claimed and/or believes that a person who was not convicted of a crime should be punished for it anyway. Do I know this "bub"?

"As for gun rights and the CDC report, what you want to happen to OJ ..."

You very much need to prove that **I** have said anything whatsoever about what **I** "want to happen to OJ". Or, perhaps, offer convincing argument for your inference that I "want" what you allege that I want. Or retract your allegation.

"... is happening to us gun-owners. We are being punished with
restrictive gun laws despite the fact that there is no proof that
gun laws help reduce crime."

It seems to me (but I may just be confused) that you are the one who doesn't quite understand that "due process" business.

I'm afraid that I don't see how "restrictive gun laws" have "punished" anyone ... except perhaps people who have been charged with, tried for and convicted of violating them. Just as I don't see how speeding laws, or shoplifting laws, or homicide laws, or any laws that require or prohibit any conduct at all, "punish" anyone at all ... except people who are charged with, tried for and convicted of violating them.

"However, with OJ, at least there was some modicum of evidence that
he might have committed the crime. The defense was able to plant
enough reasonable doubt in the jury's minds to persuade them to
give a not-guilty verdict."

And you do realize how utterly devoid of any relevance all of this is to the point I made, right?

If there had been no evidence at all that OJ Simpson had killed his wife and her friend, would that mean that he had not done it??

NO.

The fact that there is insufficient evidence to persuade a trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt that a person did something does not mean that s/he did not do it.

You might want to read very carefully at this point.

The fact that there is no evidence of something does not mean that it does not exist, did not happen, is not the case, etc. etc.

In the criminal process, the fact that there is insufficient evidence that a person did something to persuade a trier of fact (jury), beyond a reasonable doubt, that s/he did it means that s/he may not be punished for doing it.

You may be needing to distinguish those two separate and equally true statements in your mind.

You do need to distinguish what I said, which was:

the fact that there is no evidence of something does not mean that it does not exist

... from what I did not say but which you nonetheless claimed that I had said and/or believe, which was:

a person may/should be punished for doing something even where it has not been proved that s/he did it.

You have no evidence whatsoever for that claim: nothing I said can possibly be interpreted as a statement that I believe that a person may/should be punished for doing something even where it has not been proved that s/he did it.

Of course -- HAHA -- that does not mean that the claim is false, does it?

However, since you have chosen to make the claim in public, and since the only way that it could be true is if (a) I am so stupid that I do not understand the concept of due process, or (b) I hold such illiberal and undemocratic beliefs that I believe that due process should not apply to criminal trials in general or OJ Simpson in particular, this is a situation in which I require that you present such proof or withdraw your allegation.

This is not a disagreement about a matter of opinion, or a factual issue on which different conclusions are possible. This is a false characterization of my intellectual competence and/or my character. Whether it was inadvertent (and whether as a result of innocent mistake or negligence) or intentional (for whatever reason) is not of concern to me at this point, and I make no claim whatsoever that it was one or the other. I state simply that it is false, and I simply require that it be substantiated or withdrawn.

.

[Wickerman]

46. A casual reading of the CDC study

or, even, a careful reading says that all 51 studies had serious metholodical flaws. The claim does not match your post title. I did not read the CBSnews article but if the article states that then they need to find someone on staff who can read a scientific study.

"The Task Force's review of firearms laws found insufficient evidence to determine whether the laws reviewed reduce (or increase) specific violent outcomes (Table). Much existing research suffers from problems with data, analytic methods, or both. Further high-quality research is required to establish the relationship between firearms laws and violent outcomes. Potential areas for further investigation will be discussed in detail in an upcoming article in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine."

edited for clarity

[Columbia]

47. No Proof Gun Laws Reduce Violence

That was the title of the article and I still stand by it. Let's dissect it:

1. There are 51 major studies attempting to connect gun control with reduction in violent crime.

2. The CDC found that for several reasons each and every one of them could not prove that gun control results in a reduction in crime.

3. Thus, there is no evidence or proof that gun laws reduce violence.

3. Therefore the statement stands as "No Proof Gun Laws Reduce Violence"

[MrBenchley]

48. Yeah, it's GOP pseudoscience at its best

[CO Liberal]

51. And There's No Proof Guns Themselves Reduce Violence, Either

Bear that in mind......

[MrBenchley]

52. But there's plenty of proof

that the corrupt gun industrry hired a crackpot to produce a piece of pseudoscientific fraud claiming that very thing.

[milliner]

56. No Proof

on either side. So why the debate? Guns don't cause crime. Why is the insistance for more gun laws so prevelent.

[Wickerman]

54. Fine with me, but does not represent the CDC study accurately

I have no dog in the RKBA hunt (apologies to pro hunt control folks, and no offense meant to avid hunters :D).

For me, with the original study available, I will review the primary source and forego secondary sources, particularly something as unscientific and biased as the liberal media as exemplified in the CBSNews source.
--------------
If I dissect the CDC Study:

1. There are 51 major studies attempting to connect gun control with reduction in violent crime.

B. The CDC found “the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes.”

3. Thus, “Although the Task Force's systematic review of the existing literature on firearms laws found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of these laws in preventing violence, research should continue on the effectiveness of firearms laws as one approach to the prevention or reduction of firearms violence and firearms injury. Evaluation should include not only the laws reviewed here, but the broad array of other federal, state, and local laws.”

IV. Therefore the statement "No Proof Gun Laws Reduce Violence" is spurious, or, plainly, Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false.
A more accurate title would be:

“CDC Meta-analysis of existing Gun Control Studies is inconclusive: more research needed.”

Your mileage may vary

-------------
I did break down and read the CBS article. What I found compelling was this statement – the one I find most informative in all the discussion of the effects of gun control:

“It's hard to study whether gun control laws work in this country because we have so few of them,” said Peter Hamm. “Talking about studying gun control in this country is like talking about studying democracy in Iraq.”

Please note that this statement was issued before the heroic Turkey drop of our commander in thei, er, chief. These days, comparisons of democracy in Iraq may not be as valid. :eyes:

And, I did appreciate this comment, too, come to think of it:

About the only conclusion the task force could draw from the surveys was that mandatory waiting periods reduced gun suicides in people over 55. But even that reduction was not big enough to significantly affect gun suicides for the overall population.

and,

“When we say we don't know the effect of a law, we don't mean it has no effect. We mean we don't know,” said Dr. Jonathan Fielding, chairman of the CDC task force. “We are calling for additional high-quality studies.”

That’s all for me. Just like to see someone’s scientific work treated as such.

[MrBenchley]

43. Actually

the CDC was forbidden by law from considering evidence in favor OF gun control. It's part of the wonders of Republican pseudoscience.

[Liberal Classic]

20. Maybe Canada should ban...

...alcohol. Maybe that will help.

(sarcasm)

[iverglas]

22. I dunno

Maybe we need more treatment programs for firearms-o-holics.

After all, addiction is a powerful thing ... as the lack of success enjoyed by alcohol and drug prohibition laws shows.

Of course, Canada has not banned guns, so I don't even know why you'd raise the issue. Do you?

.

[alwynsw]

32. Canada hasn't banned guns?

Try getting your hands on a legal revolver or pistol.

[iverglas]

34. oddly enough

... you can't buy cocaine in the local drug store in Canada either ... but you can still get pennicillin. So, has Canada "banned drugs"?

Quite a sizable proportion of Canadian households owns one or more firearms. How would you explain this, in a country that has "banned guns"?

"Try getting your hands on a legal revolver or pistol."

I might ... if I could think of a single reason why I'd want to.

.

[RoeBear]

23. I'm glad that this is...

...just an entertaining game to him.

"This has been a stupid year," said Det.-Lt. Stephen Roberts, who says he prefers a good mystery, one with a crime scene that offers a challenge to the detectives under his supervision."

[milliner]

24. statistics

You google homicide rates and get this

Statistical Comparison of Hommicide rates in the Priarie Provinces and 4 American Boarder States 1978-1992 By L.G. Morrison, M.P.

Summary Homicide rates per 100,000

Montana 3.8
Manitoba 3.6
Idaho 3.4
Sask.& Alb 3.1
Minnesota 2.4
N Dakota 1.3

Using these numbers

Canada 3.2
US 2.7

[MrBenchley]

25. Wow...

Wonder why there's no link?

[iverglas]

26. hey!

If you add you and me together and divide by one -- why, you'd think that the average DUer was politically progressive. ;)

No murders were committed on my street last year. Canada therefore obviously has a homicide rate of 0.

Statistics and ... what were those other things called?

.

[MrBenchley]

27. I think they're called facts...

You know, those things the RKBA crowd never have? They can often be distinguished by links to websites read by sane people...

Meanwhile, you will notice that just about every US city of note had increases in mayhem and bloodshed last year...the result of having a corrupt GOP administration hand-picked by the gun lobby, actively pandering to the scum of the earth....

""Were it not for your active involvement, it's safe to say my brother would not be president of the United States," the younger Bush said. "

http://www.grassrootsvictories.org/Content.cfm?contentid=430

"The embarrassing claim emerged in a leaked video of a closed NRA meeting in Los Angeles in which the gun lobby's second-in-command, Kayne Robinson, declared that this year's presidential race could prove pivotal for the or ganisation's future.
In the video, which is being broadcast by a gun control advocacy group, Mr Robinson told NRA members: "If we win, we'll have a president where we work out of their office - unbelievably friendly relations." "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,2763,217390,00.html

"Speaking to an NRA "Get Out the Vote for Bush Rally" in Grand Rapids Michigan, Heston, in October of 2000, said something that should have resulted in a visit from the Secret Service: "Now, saying 'I'm with you guys on guns.' In any other time or place you'd be looking for a lynching mob." The crowd responded with "let's do it" and "I've got a rope," according to a Grand Rapids newspaper."

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/04/11.html

[iverglas]

29. well ...

I was thinking of those things that Mark Twain, was it?, placed above statistics in the hierarchy of goodness.

;)

.

[MrBenchley]

30. There's them too...

Seems to me there was a quote from Thomas Jefferson (or was it that more important founding father Tench Coxe?) on the subject...

[iverglas]

28. da link

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Gov/morrison2.html

Found on a quick google for "A Statistical Comparison Of Hommicide Rates In The Priarie Provinces" (after correcting the spelling mistakes).

You may have noticed the url in question here before -- http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html
A hotbed of freedom-loving Canadians, that one.

The MP in question is of course former Member of Parliament from Saskatchewan Lee Morrison -- a stalwart of the old Reform and Alliance parties. That is, of the far right wing of Canadian politics. Those law-abiding unregistered firearms owners <sic> loved him:
http://www.lufa.ca/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=2217

From the report quoted:

In response to criticism that the three states contained no large cities, Minnesota was added to the mix. The twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have a combined population comparable to that of Calgary, Edmonton or Winnipeg.

Uh ... yeah. But Alberta has Calgary *and* Edmonton (both with metro populations approaching 1 million) ... *and* Manitoba has Winnipeg (reported to have the highest gang membership of any city in Canada) ... so somehow I'm still just failing to see the comparability basis.

2001 population stats:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/010925/d010925a.htm
Alberta 3,064,200 (nearly 2/3 of that in Calgary and Edmonton combined)
Saskatchewan 1,015,800 (418,000 in Regina and Sastatoon combined)
Manitoba 1,150,000 (670,000 in Winnipeg)

From the Morrison report:

To nullify the erratic effects of sampling from small populations, the four American states were treated as one single entity, and the three prairie provinces as another.

Unfortunately, it just doesn't nullify the effects of comparing a Canadian region in which nearly 60% of the population lives in 5 large urban centres with a US region with only one comparable large urban centre. Duh.

Since the western border states permit almost unimpeded possession and use of firearms, this contradicts the assumption that crime increases where guns are most readily available.

And so do the prairie provinces, actually (i.e. so does Canada). The firearms restrictions in Canada simply do not apply to the normal person who wants to obtain a normal sorta firearm -- the kind that people in rural states like North Dakota -- which do not "attract unattached young men", as the study puts it -- actually tend to own.

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/general_public/news_releases/GPC/survey.pdf
- as many as four in ten rural households in the prairies are estimated to own firearms (three in ten rural households, nationally)

"The majority of North Dakotans have firearms in their homes", according to Morrison's report. But firearms ownership in Canada really is a matter of choice, not regulation, and the rate of firearms ownership really does reflect choice, not regulation, just like in North Dakota; so what does Morrison imagine are the differences between the things he is comparing, and what does he imagine the differences he is observing are caused by anyway?

And in fact --

In order to test the truth of this casual observation, homicide statistics between 1978 and 1992 were compared for the three prairie provinces and four northern tier states.

-- we're just a tad out of date here. That period certainly precedes major firearms-control initiatives in Canada.

Of eight jurisdictions (four states, three provinces and Canada as a whole), Montana had the most homicides per capita over the fifteen year period, with an average of 3.8 per 100,000 citizens. Manitoba was second highest at 3.6, followed by Idaho at 3.4, Saskatchewan and Alberta, each at 3.1, Canada at 2.7, Minnesota at 2.4 and North Dakota at 1.3.

Damn ... what happened to the US as a whole??

Well, picking a year that pops up on google at random (kinda like Mr. Morrison seems to have done), we get -- and hey, it's our freedom-loving friend's copy of a StatsCan release:
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Stats/murder.can.1997.html

Compared with other industrialized countries, Canada's 1997 homicide rate of 1.92 per 100,000 population was less than one-third that of the United States (6.70), but higher than most European countries, such as England and Wales (1.00) and France (1.66).

Canada as a whole is about as urbanized as the US (very similar urban/rural population split). But unfortunately for Mr. Morrison and our friend, Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and Idaho just are not demographically comparable in any way to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

I wonder why Mr. Morrison didn't try doing a study in which he compared homicide rates in, say, Alberta -- where there's lots of oil and lots of cows, and just over 1/3 of the population lives in small cities or rural areas and just under 1/3 lives in large cities -- with ... well, maybe, Texas?

.

[MrBenchley]

31. Seemed to me I remembered

this coming up once before....

"I wonder why Mr. Morrison didn't try doing a study in which he compared homicide rates in, say, Alberta -- where there's lots of oil and lots of cows, and just over 1/3 of the population lives in small cities or rural areas and just under 1/3 lives in large cities -- with ... well, maybe, Texas?"
Gee, that IS a mystery....(snicker)

[CO Liberal]

33. One Little Problem With Your Method

Averaging the homicide rates for the states and provinces is only valid if each state and province has the same number of people, which they don't.

By any chance, have you worked for John "Cook The Books" Lott in the past? :-)

[happyslug]

40. Good Comparisions are often hard.

For example, the American South has always has much higher murder rates than the American North. In fact most US Cities had LOWER THAN AVERAGE Murder rates till the 1960s because of the EXTREMELY HIGH RURAL SOUTH MURDER RATES.

Mark Twain made fun of Southerners and their need to "Revenge" i.e. kill each other. The rural south is still that way (the urban South is not a bad, influenced by the movement of people from the North that do not tolerate such needs to "protect one's honor").

Even today a comparison between any of the Southern States and any other state outside of that region (and any comparison to Canada) must take into consideration this historical high murder rate. While the Study of the Great Plains Provinces with the Great Plains States is affected by the higher urban populations of the Provinces than the States, a comparison with Texas would be worse. Texas is affected by that Southern Murder tradition, which the Provinces (and the States) of the Great Plains do not have.

For more details on Murder Rates and the American South see the following:

http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9293/Oct26_92/27.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/region.htm

http://www.umass.edu/journal/car/studentwork/premack.html

Here is an interesting cite showing a lack of connection between Gun Control and Murder rates (and that the drop in Murder rates in the US in the 1990s is more the result of a drop in NON-FIREARM Murders not in Firearm murders):

http://www.claytoncramer.com/DroppingCrime.PDF

One comment - Alcohol, Violence and Murder are all tied in together. In my own experience most of the people who kill, had a long history of other violence BEFORE their kill. These are the people involved in Child abuse and Protection From Abuse (PFA) petitions. They are violate in Grade School, than High School and into Adulthood. Non-violate people avoid them. They commit a huge percentage of violent crime (generally simple assault ect),

In my own opinion, the reduction in murder in the 1990s is the result of increased child intervention into troubled families that began under Reagan (through it started while he was President, it was lead by the States and Congress Not Reagan). Violent children tend to be the product of violent families. Early Family Intervention (i.e. Children and Youth intervention) tend to show the children of such families that violence is NOT the answer, but is the problem. Prior to the 1980s children in such families only reference point was their own family, and they grew up seeing that beating up someone weaker was perfectly acceptable. With increase CYS intervention, these children learned that such violence is not only bad but breaks up one’s family. Thus instead of growing up as a violent child and adult, the children of these families grow up to reject such violent and thus the lower murder rates (and the much lower non-firearm murder rate).

Simply put the best way to reduce the crime rate would be to increase CYS spending and such spending will reduce crime in about 10-15 years (When today’s children become teenagers). Every time I see a study this fact that CYS is the best way to reduce crime becomes more and more clear. The problem is the people who control spending prefer to spend money in ways that gets them elected and spending the money on Police