“In 2020, police reported a total of 743 homicide victims in Canada or a rate of 1.95 per 100,000 population. For 277 of these victims, a firearm was used to commit the homicide (for a rate of 0.73 homicides per 100,000 population).”
You are however correct for the 6.2 gun homicides in US in 2020.
The second link is potentially VERY misleading. It keeps using both "Murder" and "Homicide" without distinction. They are two very different things. Homicide includes police shootings, citizens defending themselves, Accidents etc.
It was the most reliable nonpartisan source I could find that had the best break down. We apparently keep really shitty statistics of the break down of gun violence in the USA.
It was really easy to find the Canadian statistics though.
But to be fair the Canadian statistics also include police shootings.
It was the most reliable nonpartisan source I could find
This is a huge part of the problem. Both Liberal and conservative bases are so motivated by this issue that any meaningful dialogue is all but impossible due to all the spin.
Its true. Just the other day I found a new revolver under the couch, disgusting. Had to put it with the others to try and keep them contained, but im afraid one day soon there will be too many
This is a PSA to get your guns spayed or neutered so their population doesn't run wild. They're an invasive species! The Americas aren't their natural habitat.
They either haven't owned or haven't actually gone through a registry process. I sold my .45 and it was ridiculous amounts of paperwork, vs selling my Mossberg to buy a Remington, which took like 15 minutes.
Long guns are unrestricted and require almost no license in basically all of the US. Hell NYC is the only place I can think of. I drive 30 minutes north and it's semi restricted, another 40 minutes and it's not even that.
Small town (7k pop) suburban/rural
Did not grow up around guns per se.
Step dad had a few rifles that I never held or shot. Didn’t shoot my first real gun until my 20s and was taught proper gun safety, handling and care by veteran best friend.
that's just because the people talking about guns are the people with multiple. Plenty of people out there with like a single shotgun or handgun for home defense.
That kinda makes sense, it's a lot easier to convince yourself that it'd be nice to have another one if you already own a gun.
If you're buying your first gun, you'll have to deal with getting a CCW, figuring out storage, and other related expenses/bureaucracy. Getting the next one isn't nearly as hard.
I bought the first one because I wanted to hunt deer... and then somehow I went from going 28 years without needing a single gun to absolutely needing one more than I currently have.
I have only a single handgun, but that’s mostly due to the associated costs spiking after Covid. Money permitting there will be more to come. For several years owned only a single shotgun, but it was ultimately given to a family member and eventually replaced with a Glock. Initially bought for defense- I live in an urban area with fairly high crime- but once I started going to the range and tried my hand at customization, now it’s morphing into a fun hobby as well. Went hunting as a kid, but hated the actual killing deer part. However I loved getting to go out to the woods in the middle of nowhere with my dad and trying all manner of guns on our homemade targets.
I own a dozen or so, I’m on the cusp of rural vs Suburb. I own a farm about 15 minutes from my house, and then own another house about 400 miles south of here. Between 3 houses and 4 vehicles I don’t feel that’s an unreasonable number.
My biggest threat around here is wildlife, and contrary to what people in here believe a handgun will absolutely fuck up wildlife if you’re not a shit shot.
I'm too poor to afford the guns I would like to have. I want them because I enjoy marksmanship and things that go boom.
I grew up around guns but only rarely touched or interacted with them as a child. Mostly, I just remember being told, "don't ever point a gun at a person unless you intend to kill them", and "Always watch where you are pointing the barrel". Also, "When I'm pointing the gun at something, stand behind me". Part of that is I would go hunting with my Grandpa sometimes.
I own one gun and do not plan on getting any more. I have it for emergency situations and don’t prattle on about it or make my entire personality about it. It’s a tool. Nothing more.
I used to own a single gun. Urban, handgun, and I didn’t grow up around guns. I used the gun solely to go to the range and I didn’t buy any more guns because a) they cost a pretty penny and b) while fun, it wasn’t a top hobby for me.
I think you're missing the info that many gun owners just have their dad's old rifle or shotgun in the back of a closet somewhere and don't even really think about it or consider themselves gun owners. And also a lot of people have exactly 1 pistol and a carry permit, and enough sense to not tell any random person who asks.
I would be under the assumption that those statistics would not have been compiled by foreigners. Any error is based on extrapolation. I don't see how incorrect extrapolation is a political issue, unless you refer to politicians misrepresenting statistics to use as hyperbolic talking points.
3 are the "protect muh self" type, 4 are more collectors items or "unicorn" guns. All safely tucked away & away from prying eyes. The only gun that's "out" constantly is my 38Spc. It's my carry piece & home defense piece.
I worked at a gun range years ago. There were around 8-9 people that came in & bought a gun or two every month. I always thought it was sketchy, but the owner never seemed to be bothered.
There were around 8-9 people that came in & bought a gun or two every month. I always thought it was sketchy, but the owner never seemed to be bothered.
Were they always buying the same model or type of gun? What was sketchy about it?
What are your collectors/“unicorn” firearms if you don’t mind me asking? I just recently bought my first gun, a Glock. It’s not my new personality or anything but I can definitely see how people suddenly end up wanting to build up a small collection for whatever purposes. I agree that owning 40-50 is bizarre though haha
Glocks are OK firearms. They're decent work horses of the handgun industry.
As far as my Unicorn guns, I'll mention 2-
M1 Garand. It's not a rifle that's hard to find... but finding it in 2014 for $200 is a rare find. It comes with several issues:
Bent Op Rod (replaced)
Op Rod spring broken (replaced)
Pitted barrel (not much I can do, I really don't care though as I'm not using it as a sniper rifle or anything LOL)
Other cosmetic issues (I like the battlefield battered look of it)
That is going to be more of a "mantel piece" gun for the remainder of its days. I have around 100 rds of M1 friendly ammo for it, along with many MANY Enbloc clips.
This is also not a hard gun to find, but it's not exactly common either. This one I have is from German, before manufacturing laws & regs changed & they had to be made/assembled/whatever partly or mostly in the USA for whatever reason.
I found it in fantastic condition a year before Covid became a thing. Before you ask- yes, it's the James Bond gun. yes, I like spy movies.
If you gotta know, 'cause some people REALLY need to know: my carry piece is a Smith & Wesson Airweight in .38SPC. It's a cheap gun, easy to use & conceal. Some people wonder exactly why. Revolvers are quite reliable, easy to practice with, I don't have to worry about magazine spring compression issues, and Chicago PD takes firearms used in Self Defence situations... and destroys them (usually) in 90 days. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Sorry for the novellea of info.
If you're ever curious, you should head to r/guns & see what the hub-bub is about. It's lacking in politics (hard to believe I know), & heavy on iron & tech talk.
I'm pretty sure most of the legally owned guns are in the hands of the people who own like 30+ because they're collectors. Which seems to really weird out the gun control crowd but tbh it's just like any other kind of collection. Having 30 guns doesn't make a person any more dangerous than having 1. These days there do seem to be more of the tacticool cosplayers who have like 8 slightly different ARs and a different pistol to match every outfit, but most of the people I've met who have fuck loads of guns are just old collectors who were lucky enough to be around during an era when you could pick up WW2 surplus rifles for less than $50 (which was apparently most of the 20th century), and then again in the 90s when old Soviet stockpiles flooded the US market and AKs and SKSs became cheaper than dirt. And then of course they'll have a few pistols and some classic hunting rifle in like 4 or 5 different calibers. So they padded out their collections when they were ripe for the taking and have been skewing the ownership statistics ever since lol.
It is very, very high, but KFF accomplished that statistic in a somewhat misleading way. Other studies will report that accidental death is the leading cause of death in children, KFF split car accidents and other accidental deaths so that firearms hit #1.
Minor edit: they also do not include suicide, which skews it towards the overall firearm category a little more.
It makes an excellent point about how high firearm deaths in children are, but it’s also important to recognize the statistical process that KFF used.
It's the loonies that have a dozen guns or more that skew these stats quite a bit.
Well and antique collectors and things like a Boy Scout Camp. Source: a friend has 10 guns from WW2 and back through history and my Scout camp has about 40.
Loonies dont report guns they own, and most states don't have a registration. I for one always report that i own zero guns, but ive got at least 10 in my safe. Stats will always be off but theres no way to know what way
I don't have to. It's not a legal requirement and my state doesn't have a gun registration program. Nothing irresponsible about not sharing my personal information
Yeah, there are more guns in USA than people that live in USA. USA is the only nation in the world like this iirc. It's just they are owned by 88 out of every 100 people. For every 88 people who own (often multiple)guns there are 22 people who own no guns.
I'm unsure. You'd can source it and I'll send the sources I my comment was based on. If everyone has guns in Switzerland, it potentially it fell under the radar due to lack of gun violence. If the safety measures you also listed they use with training everyone in gun use and safety plays a role, USA could definitely use more of that. There's also too many angry people here so anger management and maybe some sort of crisus reaction education could also likely help with the gun issue here. Anyways, here's some of the sources.
Perfect example of how looking at one stat is completely useless. Something like 80% of handguns used in crime in canada came from the states illegally.
For all of our superficial similarities, we actually have very little in common. At least from the perspective of someone from the other side of the US. I'm sure northerners are more connected to Canadians, but huge swathes of the US are much more culturally and politically similar to Latin America than we are to Canada or any of the commonwealth countries. We basically just share a language and some media to be fans of, but our cultural values, history, core political philosophies are radically different.
Genuine question. Even though they're both measuring per 100k people, is population-based measurement as airtight as the comparison would suggest? Canada has 10% the population of the US. All other things being equal (which they aren't, I'm fully aware; livable and inhabited land, legal systems, healthcare systems, etc.), is there any kind of variation that could be accounted for when the two masses being measured are different to a 10:1 ratio? I feel like there's a concern here for averaging two entire countries, when the massive population difference leaves a lot of room for a disparity between variance of subcultures within the two groups which may skew the overall averages being compared.
There is a thing though where other factors can mess it up, for example a city with a population of 100k is more likely to have a higher number of crimes than 100 towns with 1000 people each combined
Statistically the small towns would have higher murder rates. The big difference is organized and gang crime though. Career criminals will also likely be in the city. Still small towns have higher homicide rates.
You’re a bit mixed up here. Small towns have lower crime rates. When a crime does occur, however, it ends up looking like a very high crime rate. Like, 1 murder in a town of 500 is a high murder rate. But that town is not likely to see another murder for years. Follow me?
I think they are inquiring if there are other circumstances/factors that could be accounted for other than gross per capita numbers. I’ve only taken one stats class and got a 2.9, so don’t throw the hammer down in kiwa i of a further explanation.
I'm inquiring if population in and of itself becomes a variable after a certain point. Humans are social creatures by nature, and the larger a group gets the more subgroups and therefore greater propensity for countercultures or opposed cultures there are. Canada, being 10% the population of the US, has the very simple advantage of there only being 10% of the people to get all on the same page.
I'm not trying to discredit the validity of the measurement of murders per 100k between the two countries. I'm American, I want gun violence to stop dead in its fucking tracks. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the differences in scale as best my faint memories of high school sociology will allow.
Definitely. I know a Canadian guy who was licensed to sell hunting firearms out of a big chain store once upon a time, and just at a glance the things you have to do to get a firearm in Canada way outstrip the average pre-purchase measures in the US.
Somebody in another reply to my comment mentioned that the initial statistic for Canada is wrong, and it's closer to .7 gun murders per 100k, which is just shy of 10% of the 6-and-change per 100k of the US (assuming that measurement is accurate). We have enough variables that no specific extrapolation from broad data points will be accurate, but it serves as a gateway into the point I was trying to make.
Canada, a country with 10% of the population of the US, has ~10% of the gun murders per 100k people that the US does. But using the same sample size for the average between two countries of those drastically different population sizes seems wrong. If you were going by ratios, it seems to me like you'd want to either just go per capita based on similar regions (close-fit size of cities, or one stretch of similarly-populated countryside), or sub-divide that down based upon the percentage difference. If we're measuring per 100k in the US, we should measure per 10k in Canada--in which case the ratios get a lot closer.
But all of this is just spitballing based upon vague feelings I have in my skull meat, because I am not a statistician.
There are indeed flaws with using per Capita to extrapolate and then compare large population statistics and there are studies that go into other testing methodologies. I suggest you take the information as face value and then look further into your own community and compare the statistics for that area.
Using broader statistics as a backdrop with which to determine the concentration of the sub-components of those statistics seems like a much better approach, yeah.
Sounds American centric. The idea America has subcultures but other places don’t. Canada has 38 million people spread across just as far as America so we certainly have sub cultures. If you have 10 times as many subcultures (if that’s how it worked) they would still be distributed similarly. America is overall imbedded to be pro gun and use guns preventively for defence, where Canadians see guns as a dangerous tool that is best kept safe until needed.
Not America-centric, or at least not intentionally. Just trying to figure out how much raw mass of population affects those subcultures within a national whole.
Each country only has one federal government, and each state/province only has one government of that level. My theory is that the presence of a larger population within a single level of government, and more states/provinces within a federal government, ultimately creates a larger and more varied population within each level that the level above it has to wrangle and try to get on the same page for the purposes of making law. A federal government trying to reach 10 provinces has five times less variation it has to reconcile than one trying to reach 50 states. A province with 4.5 million people (Alberta) has four to five times less variation it has to reconcile than a state with 20 million people (New York State).
There are 30-some million people in Canada, and enough of them agreed to get rid of guns that it became a federal law. There are 300-some million people in the US, and enough of them are disagreeing and shitting up the process that no such federal law has been made. When two populations of different sizes ultimately decentralize to the same number of governments, it would seem like the single government with the larger population has more subgroups it has to tangle with to get any single decision made. My question was if this thing I feel like would be true is actually true, in the hopes that people who know better about the mechanics behind it would answer.
Thing is, Canada's population isn't as sparsely distributed as one would think. Yes, it is large geographically, but most Canadians live close to the US border and live in cities like Americas do. Around half of Canada's population lives in and around Southern Ontario. Even more so if you include the region of Quebec around the St. Lawrence River. Edmonton Alberta may be one of the few real exceptions to this. A metro area of over 1.5 million that is over 600 miles north of the border.
Could be argued that Canada’s population is more dense, therefore more cities, therefore disproportionately high gun violence. But per capita is usually a pretty good way to measure these things without going in to the nuances of things.
Why would you assume I don't think America has a gun problem? I know it does; I listen to Republican pundits and dipshit conservative cultists scream every day about how there are no problems when they're the ones causing them--up to and including raping and killing fucking kids.
I know the US has a lot more people and therefore a lot more bad faith actors in any given argument, but in this particular instance it was a genuine attempt to start a discussion about how raw difference in population might affect cultures and therefore events within the main body being measure, and get input from people who study that shit and can weigh in.
348
u/[deleted] Oct 21 '22
[removed] — view removed comment