From: [d c d] at [se.houston.geoquest.slb.com] (Dan Day)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: I need help on debate with anti-gunner!
Date: 13 Feb 1995 20:09:05 GMT

In article <[whistlerD 3 r 5 xI Ms 3] at [netcom.com]> [w--st--r] at [netcom.com] (Billy Whistler) writes:
>cities.  He points out (I assume he is accurate with his figures) that
>Los Angeles had over 1200 homicides last year while Toronto had only
>65.  He points to the fact that gun ownership is illegal in Canada.
>My problem is that I don't know how to refute this argument.  I am
>almost ashamed to say that his arument makes sense for the anti-gunners.

Actually, no it doesn't.  If he feels that the gun control laws
are the key factor in explaining the difference, ask him how
he accounts for the following points:

   1. The *nongun* homicide rates for the two countries show similar
      disparity.  In fact, the US's *nongun* homicide rate exceeds
      Canada's *total* homicide rate.  From this, it appears that some
      general cultural factors are at work -- that is, the reason for
      the lower Canadian nongun homicide rate probably accounts for the
      lower Canadian gun homicide rate as well.
   2. Canada's homicide rate wasn't appreciably different *before*
      they instituted their various gun control laws than it is now.
   3. The US homicide rate was far *lower* in the past (prior to
      the implementation of our most restrictive gun control laws
      in 1968) than it is today.  Back when guns were available by mail,
      we had a homicide rate half of today's rate.
   4. Gun ownership is *not* illegal in Canada (your friend seems
      to have a very poor grasp of even the basic facts).  Many
      of my Canadian friends have guns, and in fact Canada's per
      capita gun ownership rate is only slightly lower than that of
      the US.  Thirty percent of Canadian households have guns.
   5. The most famous cross-country study (Kellerman et al, New
      England Journal of Medicine) of this type compared Seattle
      and Vancouver's homicide rates.  Although the author is an
      anti-gun activist and he claims the study "proves" that
      the only real difference between the two cities is the gun
      laws and that these were responsible for Vancouver's
      somewhat lower homicide rate, an examination of the data
      reveals that the author's own data *disproves* that hypothesis.
      It turns out that the cities are very different in ethnic/
      racial makeup, but when you compare the homicide rates for
      the only ethnic group which both cities had in appreciable
      numbers (whites, over 75%), you find that Vancouver's homicide
      rate was slightly *higher* than Seattle's.  Gosh, does gun
      control not work for white people?  Likewise, the difference
      in the cities' homicide rates is partly due to the fact that
      Seattle had larger numbers of the ethnic groups that had
      higher homicide rates (in both cities), and the fact that
      the Seattle non-white populations had higher homicide rates
      than their Vancouver counterparts.  Unless one is willing
      to put forth the hypothesis that gun control only works
      for non-whites, or that only non-whites go on killing sprees
      if you let them get their hands on guns, you're going to
      have to accept the conclusion that the it's the socio-economic
      problems of the Seattle minorites that make the difference,
      and not the gun laws.
   6. Given all the above, it's apparent that Canada's desire to
      implement gun control laws are the *result* of their less violent
      nature, not vice versa.
     

>It certainly appears that homicide rates are much lower in countries 
>with very strict gun control.

See point 6 above.  Also, I don't know of any of the countries to
which you allude which didn't have equally lower homicide rates *before*
they instituted gun control.


>I feel almost helpless to counter his
>arguments in this regard.  I need help!

I hope this helps.  The more you look into the "gun control
reduces violence" claims, the emptier they turn out to be.
-- 
"Don't tread on me"