The Canadian violence rate would still be below most areas of the US (not below those areas where gun ownership is freest (i.e., Vermont, ND, SD), but not the Canadian suicide rate.
However, what Mr. Lambert tends to ignore is that there is no evidence for real positive effect from the gun laws imposed in Canada, Australia and Britain (unless you count the switch in Australia from guns to hanging as the preferred means of suicide in the youth category). We can argue 'till the cows come home about whether the American model of freedom degrades public safety compared to Canada, Britain, and Australia (for people not in the illegal drug trade, it appears the US wins -- for those in the drug trade, the US loses). There are enough differences in counting rules that comparisons between countries are difficult. The difference in approach to illegal drugs provides a big difference. And there are some shifts in perspective by Mr. Lambert in his reactions to Lott/Mauser that are suspect. For example, Mr. Lambert attacks Lott/Mauser's comment about increasing violence in Canadian cities by shifting to overall Canadian violence (much non-city violence included) which didn't increase. Mr. Lambert also ignores the big increase in Canadian violence from the 1950's and the increasingly restictive gun laws introduced during that period. He criticizes Mauser for claiming an increase in violence over the past decade by pointing to a graph which he says (correctly) shows no decrease -- but if you look at the full extent of the graph (20 years), there are great increases during a period where Canada passed a number of gun laws. Any sane man would look at the data and ask where is the evidence that all the money spent for these gun laws has had a positive impact on violence? Moreover, Mr. Lambert continues to obscure the increases in gun violence in Britain and the increases in serious violence by using overall violence figures that include less serious crimes (a criticism he delivers against Mauser too). And he continues to drag out the change in counting rules and ignore the increases that have happened since the counting rules have changed. Violence wasn't supposed to increase that way. The restrictions were supposed to decrease violence, but it appears that year-to-year the violence grows (at least in England and Wales). Phil <snip> > > More to the point, during the 1990's, when firearm sales in the US were > rolling along nicely and states were passing "shall issue" laws with glee, > we see a growing per capita gap between US and Canadian violent crime. If I > were standing on the border, I would see the US rate steadily dropping after > 1991, and the Canadian rate peaking and staying roughly level. This would > make any sane person want to head south. > > -------------------- > Guy Smith > Silicon Strategies Marketing > 630 Taylor Avenue > Alameda, CA 94501 > 510-521-4477 (T) > 510-217-9693 (F) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.SiliconStrat.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof > _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
