Guns and Control - A Long Read
Quebec to push PM on guns
Tearful Charest vows to oppose Harper's plan to scrap registry
CAMPBELL CLARK AND RHÉAL SÉGUIN
Excerpts From (15 Sept) Friday's Globe and Mail
The province said it will send a delegation to Ottawa headed by Public Security Minister Jacques Dupuis and made up of police chiefs, psychologists, families of shooting victims and other groups to make their case before Parliament.
The new resolve from Mr. Charest, perhaps Mr. Harper's most important provincial ally, signals another potential danger for the Conservative Leader's hopes of a breakthrough in Quebec that would win him a majority government. His government's popularity already is suffering in a province he had targeted to help propel him to a majority in the next election.
In his first public appearance since the shooting, Mr. Harper did not back away from the plan to scrap the registry, although he signalled plans for a crackdown on guns.
“Frankly, I think it's not a day for a discussion of policies,” Mr. Harper said. “I can only note that obviously the current laws did not prevent this incident, and as a government we are seeking more effective laws for the future.”
“The long-gun registry failed in relation to [Wednesday's] events,” federal Public Works Minister Michael Fortier, the minister for Montreal, said in a television interview. He said it is “revolting” that opposition politicians are trying to gain political advantage from the tragedy.
Mr. Charest, however, said that the untold story behind the gun registry is perhaps the potential tragic events it has prevented.
Canada's two major police associations oppose the scrapping of the gun registry, insisting it is a tool they use to ensure they have confiscated all the guns from an individual if they have reason to believe the weapons are a threat to others.
“We've used the registry to seize weapons, in order to seize weapons in anticipation of potential violence. My service has done that and I'm sure all the services across the country do that,” said Deputy Chief Clayton Pecknold of the Central Saanich Police on Vancouver Island, a spokesman for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
The Conservatives announced a one-year amnesty in May that means owners of ordinary rifles and shotguns no longer need to register each gun they own, and proposed legislation to scrap the long-gun registry.
In Quebec, Parti Québécois opposition leader André Boisclair reiterated his support for the registry. So, too, did the Bloc Québécois: “It's a method directly inspired by the Americans,” said Bloc MP Serge Ménard, who called for the registry to be maintained and for semi-automatic assault rifles to be prohibited.
“The reflex is always more and more severe laws,” said Liberal deputy leader Lucienne Robillard. “I did not hear [Mr. Harper] say today that he will put more of an emphasis on prevention.”
With reports from Brian Laghi and Daniel Leblanc in Ottawa
------------
MORE GUNS = MORE DEATHS
Some claim that more guns will make us safer. In fact, where there are more guns there are more deaths. A terrible irony, both in Canada and internationally is that where there are more guns there tends to be more opposition to gun control. But where there are more guns there are also higher rates of gun death and injury.
International Comparisons. Among industrialized countries, where there are higher rates of gun ownership there are also higher rates of gun death. This is because when there are guns in the home they are more likely to be used in suicides, domestic homicides and accidents.
This is also true within Canada. In spite of the attention focused on urban crime, there are higher rates of gun death and injury in rural areas. For example, Northeastern Ontario has gun death rates which are twice the provincial average, driven largely by higher than average suicide rates but also domestic violence with firearms and accidents. Provinces with high rates of gun ownership such as Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba tend to have higher than average rates of gun death and injury. In spite of the surge of gang related handgun violence in Toronto, Ontario has one of the lowest rates of gun death and injury in the country.
Source: Miller, T. and Cohen, M. "Costs of Gunshot and Cut/Stab Wounds in the United States, with some Canadian Comparisons. " Accid Anal Prev 1997; 29 (3): 329-41.
The research has shown that when other factors are held constant, the gun death rises in proportion to the rate of gun ownership. One study found a 92% correlation between households with guns and firearm death rates both within Canada and in comparable industrialized countries. Other studies show that increased risks are associated with keeping guns in the home: Homicide of a family member is 2.7 times more likely to occur in a home with a firearm than in homes without guns. Keeping one or more firearms was associated with a 4.8 fold increased risk of suicide in the home. The risks increase, particularly for adolescents, where the guns are kept loaded and unlocked.
Comparing Canada and the US is also instructive. Rates of homicide without guns in the US are only slightly higher than in Canada whereas rates of homicide with guns are much higher. This suggests that the availability of firearms is a critical fact in the high US homicide rate.
Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. In Canada, handguns have been licensed and registered since the 1930’s, ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right and several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect citizens from guns. Handgun ownership has been restricted to police, members of gun clubs or collectors. Very few (about 50 in the country) have been given permits to carry handguns for "self-protection." This is only possible if an applicant can prove that their life is in danger and the police cannot protect them.
As a result, Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 76 million. While there are other factors affecting murder, suicide and unintentional injury rates, a comparison of data in Canada and the United States suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is roughly equivalent (1.8 times) to that of Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 14.5 times the Canadian rate. The costs of firearms death and injury in the two countries have been compared and estimated to be $495 (US) per resident in the United States compared to $195 per resident in Canada.
Criminologist Neil Boyd concluded that there is more evidence to support the efficacy of gun control legislation in reducing death and injury than there is for most other legislative interventions. In reviewing the evaluations of the Canadian legislation he wrote:
"In three separate forms of statistical analysis - exploratory, time-series and structural - researchers have found evidence to suggest that gun control has had an impact on homicides and firearms homicides. The finding that an amendment to criminal law can change behaviour in the direction desired is unusual. We have had many amendments to Canadian criminal law during the past 40 years: for example changes to the penalty structure for homicide in 1961, 1967, 1973, 1974, 1976 and 1985; changes for the penalty structure affecting illegal drug use and distribution in 1961, 1969 and 1974.... In none of these circumstances has it been possible to establish that a change in law can impact behaviour in the direction that the law hopes for or anticipates. With gun control legislation, we have some preliminary evidence - some strong suggestions - that the criminal law is working. And it is working, not by manipulating penalty levels for specific forms of crime, but by putting a regulatory system in place that can limit access to firearms, enhance the safety of firearm use, and, in a more general sense, educate the public with respect to the dangers inherent in widespread availability of these potentially lethal commodities."
The Case For Gun Control
-----
Prominent historian and Kennedy Advisor Arthur Schlesinger wrote that "the global wave of sympathy that engulfed the United States after 9-11 has given way to a global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism,' and even in friendly countries the public regard Bush "as a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein."
(Hegemony or Survival, Chomsky 12)
Why then is our PM so adamant about following the path and strategies that have been the downfall of our neighbours? Why then is our PM ignoring the outcries of his citizens who he was elected to represent. Is his role as Prime Minister not to reflect the thoughts of the Canadian population, to be our speaker and voice the concerns of the people? What has pushed our 'PM' to lead us down the path of no return.
It saddens me to say this but with people in power such as Stephen Harper whose actions reflect poorly on the rest of the nation, it embarrasses me and makes me hesitant to call myself Canadian. A thing I once thought of as an eternal 'truth' that could never be broken, a thing that I thought I could always be proud of, a thing I still painstakingly cling on to. Dear Mr Harper, please step down and stop shaming this country, its history and every person that has stood up and fought for its reputation of peace and all things good. You do an injustice to the citizens of my country.
Tearful Charest vows to oppose Harper's plan to scrap registry
CAMPBELL CLARK AND RHÉAL SÉGUIN
Excerpts From (15 Sept) Friday's Globe and Mail
The province said it will send a delegation to Ottawa headed by Public Security Minister Jacques Dupuis and made up of police chiefs, psychologists, families of shooting victims and other groups to make their case before Parliament.
The new resolve from Mr. Charest, perhaps Mr. Harper's most important provincial ally, signals another potential danger for the Conservative Leader's hopes of a breakthrough in Quebec that would win him a majority government. His government's popularity already is suffering in a province he had targeted to help propel him to a majority in the next election.
In his first public appearance since the shooting, Mr. Harper did not back away from the plan to scrap the registry, although he signalled plans for a crackdown on guns.
“Frankly, I think it's not a day for a discussion of policies,” Mr. Harper said. “I can only note that obviously the current laws did not prevent this incident, and as a government we are seeking more effective laws for the future.”
“The long-gun registry failed in relation to [Wednesday's] events,” federal Public Works Minister Michael Fortier, the minister for Montreal, said in a television interview. He said it is “revolting” that opposition politicians are trying to gain political advantage from the tragedy.
Mr. Charest, however, said that the untold story behind the gun registry is perhaps the potential tragic events it has prevented.
Canada's two major police associations oppose the scrapping of the gun registry, insisting it is a tool they use to ensure they have confiscated all the guns from an individual if they have reason to believe the weapons are a threat to others.
“We've used the registry to seize weapons, in order to seize weapons in anticipation of potential violence. My service has done that and I'm sure all the services across the country do that,” said Deputy Chief Clayton Pecknold of the Central Saanich Police on Vancouver Island, a spokesman for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
The Conservatives announced a one-year amnesty in May that means owners of ordinary rifles and shotguns no longer need to register each gun they own, and proposed legislation to scrap the long-gun registry.
In Quebec, Parti Québécois opposition leader André Boisclair reiterated his support for the registry. So, too, did the Bloc Québécois: “It's a method directly inspired by the Americans,” said Bloc MP Serge Ménard, who called for the registry to be maintained and for semi-automatic assault rifles to be prohibited.
“The reflex is always more and more severe laws,” said Liberal deputy leader Lucienne Robillard. “I did not hear [Mr. Harper] say today that he will put more of an emphasis on prevention.”
With reports from Brian Laghi and Daniel Leblanc in Ottawa
------------
MORE GUNS = MORE DEATHS
Some claim that more guns will make us safer. In fact, where there are more guns there are more deaths. A terrible irony, both in Canada and internationally is that where there are more guns there tends to be more opposition to gun control. But where there are more guns there are also higher rates of gun death and injury.
International Comparisons. Among industrialized countries, where there are higher rates of gun ownership there are also higher rates of gun death. This is because when there are guns in the home they are more likely to be used in suicides, domestic homicides and accidents.
This is also true within Canada. In spite of the attention focused on urban crime, there are higher rates of gun death and injury in rural areas. For example, Northeastern Ontario has gun death rates which are twice the provincial average, driven largely by higher than average suicide rates but also domestic violence with firearms and accidents. Provinces with high rates of gun ownership such as Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba tend to have higher than average rates of gun death and injury. In spite of the surge of gang related handgun violence in Toronto, Ontario has one of the lowest rates of gun death and injury in the country.
Source: Miller, T. and Cohen, M. "Costs of Gunshot and Cut/Stab Wounds in the United States, with some Canadian Comparisons. " Accid Anal Prev 1997; 29 (3): 329-41.
The research has shown that when other factors are held constant, the gun death rises in proportion to the rate of gun ownership. One study found a 92% correlation between households with guns and firearm death rates both within Canada and in comparable industrialized countries. Other studies show that increased risks are associated with keeping guns in the home: Homicide of a family member is 2.7 times more likely to occur in a home with a firearm than in homes without guns. Keeping one or more firearms was associated with a 4.8 fold increased risk of suicide in the home. The risks increase, particularly for adolescents, where the guns are kept loaded and unlocked.
Comparing Canada and the US is also instructive. Rates of homicide without guns in the US are only slightly higher than in Canada whereas rates of homicide with guns are much higher. This suggests that the availability of firearms is a critical fact in the high US homicide rate.
Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. In Canada, handguns have been licensed and registered since the 1930’s, ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right and several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect citizens from guns. Handgun ownership has been restricted to police, members of gun clubs or collectors. Very few (about 50 in the country) have been given permits to carry handguns for "self-protection." This is only possible if an applicant can prove that their life is in danger and the police cannot protect them.
As a result, Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 76 million. While there are other factors affecting murder, suicide and unintentional injury rates, a comparison of data in Canada and the United States suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is roughly equivalent (1.8 times) to that of Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 14.5 times the Canadian rate. The costs of firearms death and injury in the two countries have been compared and estimated to be $495 (US) per resident in the United States compared to $195 per resident in Canada.
Criminologist Neil Boyd concluded that there is more evidence to support the efficacy of gun control legislation in reducing death and injury than there is for most other legislative interventions. In reviewing the evaluations of the Canadian legislation he wrote:
"In three separate forms of statistical analysis - exploratory, time-series and structural - researchers have found evidence to suggest that gun control has had an impact on homicides and firearms homicides. The finding that an amendment to criminal law can change behaviour in the direction desired is unusual. We have had many amendments to Canadian criminal law during the past 40 years: for example changes to the penalty structure for homicide in 1961, 1967, 1973, 1974, 1976 and 1985; changes for the penalty structure affecting illegal drug use and distribution in 1961, 1969 and 1974.... In none of these circumstances has it been possible to establish that a change in law can impact behaviour in the direction that the law hopes for or anticipates. With gun control legislation, we have some preliminary evidence - some strong suggestions - that the criminal law is working. And it is working, not by manipulating penalty levels for specific forms of crime, but by putting a regulatory system in place that can limit access to firearms, enhance the safety of firearm use, and, in a more general sense, educate the public with respect to the dangers inherent in widespread availability of these potentially lethal commodities."
The Case For Gun Control
-----
Prominent historian and Kennedy Advisor Arthur Schlesinger wrote that "the global wave of sympathy that engulfed the United States after 9-11 has given way to a global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism,' and even in friendly countries the public regard Bush "as a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein."
(Hegemony or Survival, Chomsky 12)
Why then is our PM so adamant about following the path and strategies that have been the downfall of our neighbours? Why then is our PM ignoring the outcries of his citizens who he was elected to represent. Is his role as Prime Minister not to reflect the thoughts of the Canadian population, to be our speaker and voice the concerns of the people? What has pushed our 'PM' to lead us down the path of no return.
It saddens me to say this but with people in power such as Stephen Harper whose actions reflect poorly on the rest of the nation, it embarrasses me and makes me hesitant to call myself Canadian. A thing I once thought of as an eternal 'truth' that could never be broken, a thing that I thought I could always be proud of, a thing I still painstakingly cling on to. Dear Mr Harper, please step down and stop shaming this country, its history and every person that has stood up and fought for its reputation of peace and all things good. You do an injustice to the citizens of my country.
posted by fifi at 1:06 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home