Facebook
RSSGarry Breitkreuz
Jul 30
Politics, Gun Control, Politicians 5 Comments
Since people seem to love to go up against my views on gun control, I am going to post more in support of my view. This one is from Garry Breitkreuz, who is MP of the Conservative Party of Canada in the Yorkton - Melville constituency. For ease of reading purposes, I'm going to post the whole article, then pull pieces of it and comment on those individual pieces. I realize these are based in 2003, but there have been no major reforms in law that would cause them to be invalid today.
FIREARMS FACTS UPDATE
WEAPONS USED IN CRIME IN 2003
Updated: May 4, 2005STATISTICS CANADA TABLE SHOWS VIOLENT CRIME RATE MORE THAN 4 TIMES GREATER THAN IN 1962!
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/ViolentCrimeinCanada1962_2003.pdfSTATISTICS CANADA TABLE SHOWS THAT IN 2003, FIREARMS PRESENT IN 2.74% OF VIOLENT CRIMES & FIREARMS CAUSING INJURY IN 0.52% OF VIOLENT CRIMES
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/2005_April_ViolentCrimesInvolvingFirearms_2001_2003.xlsFOR THE 548 MURDERS IN 2003, STATISTICS CANADA REPORTS SHOW:
- 71% of murders were committed with something other than a gun.
- 29% of the 548 murders were committed with a firearm (6% of the guns used were registered, 26% were unregistered and the government didn’t know the registration status of the other 68%). Makes a sane person ask: “What good is the gun registry?”
- 68% of the 161 firearms homicides were committed with handguns (that the government has been registering since 1934).
- Between 1997 and 2003, the registration status was known for 46% of firearm-related homicides. Of these, 86% were not registered and 80% of the accused persons did not possess a valid FAC or Firearms Licence. Why? Because 69% of murderers were already known criminals including five that had previously been convicted for homicide. Why were these murderers back on the street?
STATISTICS CANADA REPORT: GUN REGISTRY AIMED AT THE WRONG TARGET
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Article442.htmFOR 526 VICTIMS OF ATTEMPTED MURDER IN 2003, STATISTICS CANADA REPORTS:
- 82% of attempted murder victims were injured with something other than a gun.
- 72% of the 93 attempted murder victims injured with firearms were injured with handguns (that the government has been registering since 1934).
TABLE: ATTEMPTED MURDER VICTIMS BY LEVEL OF INJURY AND WEAPON USED, 2003
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/2005_April_AttemptedMurdersbyWeapon2003.xlsFOR 22,906 ROBBERIES IN 2003, STATISTICS CANADA TABLES SHOW:
- 86% of robberies reported by police were committed with something other than a firearm.
- 95% of the injuries suffered by victims of police-reported robberies were injured with something other than a firearm.
- 88% of firearm robberies reported by police were committed with guns that were either already banned or handguns that should have been registered.
- 85% of injuries suffered by victims of police-reported robberies committed with firearms were committed with guns that were either already banned or handguns that the government has been trying to register for the last 70 years.
TABLES - ROBBERIES BY WEAPON PRESENT & LEVEL OF INJURY, 2003
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/RobberiesbyWeaponandInjury-2003.xlsFOR 26,155 ASSAULTS WITH A WEAPON IN 2003, STATISTICS CANADA TABLES SHOW:
- 97% of the assaults with a weapon reported by police were committed with something other than a gun.
- 98% of the injuries suffered by victims of police-reported assaults with a weapon were injured with something other than a firearm.
- 82% of assaults committed with a real firearm reported by police were committed with guns that were either already banned or handguns that should have been registered.
- 80% of injuries suffered by victims of police-reported assaults committed with real firearms were committed with guns that were either already banned or handguns that the government has been trying to register for the last 70 years.
TABLES - ASSAULTS BY WEAPON AND LEVEL OF INJURY, 2003
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/AssaultsbyWeaponandInjury-2003.xlsSTATISTICS CANADA TABLES SHOW: “VIOLENT CRIMES INVOLVING FIREARMS RESULT IN FEWER INJURIES (AND LESS SERIOUS INJURIES) THAN DO VIOLENT CRIMES INVOLVING OTHER KINDS OF WEAPONS.”
- 48% of assaults involving firearms result in the victims being injured, while 53% of assaults involving knives result in injuries, and 76% of assaults involving clubs or other blunt weapons result in injuries.
- 12% of robberies involving firearms result in a victim being injured, while 17% of robberies involving knives result in injuries, and 47% of robberies involving clubs result in injuries.
STATISTICS CANADA TABLE SHOWS VIOLENT CRIME RATE MORE THAN 4 TIMES GREATER THAN IN 1962!
So, in 1962 when there were relatively few restrictions on buying guns, gun ownership, etc, the violent crime rate was 1/4 of what it is today. Yes, population was lower, so I'll grant that this isn't the best of examples.
29% of the 548 murders were committed with a firearm (6% of the guns used were registered, 26% were unregistered and the government didn’t know the registration status of the other 68%).
So, the gross majority, 71%, of murders committed in Canada in 2003, were committed with something other than a gun. Of the guns that were used, only 6% of them were registered, and 26% were unregistered, which is pretty much what I've been saying all along. Criminals will get their guns, whether they steal them (registered) or they smuggle them (unregistered). What's sad is, even though the government has required registration of handguns since 1934, they don't even know the status of the other 68% of the handguns. Makes a person wonder. This is one of my primary reasons for acting against Bill C-68. It is obviously useless in curtailing the crime problem.
82% of attempted murder victims were injured with something other than a gun.
So again, we aren't trying to tackle the larger percentage of crimes, we attacking the small 18% minority with our gun control laws, which that last statement shows, isn't working anyway.
86% of robberies reported by police were committed with something other than a firearm.
Of the 14% that did include a firearm, 88% were guns that were supposed to be registered, or had been banned already. Again, my previous statement about criminals not following the law. They will get their tools, no matter what the law says, that's why they are criminals.
And just so everyone's clear:
From Merriam-Webster's DictionaryAnd further to that:Main Entry: criminal
Function: noun
Date: circa 1626
1 : one who has committed a crime
2 : a person who has been convicted of a crime
Main Entry: crime
Pronunciation: \'krim\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin crimen accusation, reproach, crime; probably akin to Latin cernere to sift, determine
Date: 14th century
1: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law
2: a grave offense especially against morality
3: criminal activity <efforts to fight crime>
4: something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful <it's a crime to waste good food>
synonyms see offense
Ok, so a criminal commits an act that is forbidden by public law. Wait, guns, using guns, isn't that forbidden by public law?
97% of the assaults with a weapon reported by police were committed with something other than a gun.
Of the 3% of crimes, notice the distinct lack of majority of assaults, commited with a gun, 88% of them were guns that either should have registered already or were outright banned. Remember my definition from before? Are we seeing a trend here?
I think you get my point. Guns are not the problem. The problem is people, and laws cannot control people who refuse to follow them. Oh, they can try, and, no matter how good the intentions of the government are, they can fail too. So, when a criminal hears that the government is banning a certain type of weapon, or restricting another means of defense, do you really think they're shaking in their collective boots? No, they're dreaming about how much easier it is going to be to take those law abiding idiots for everything they're worth.
On this topic, there has been a couple really good and fairly wide encompassing studies done in the US about gun control by one John Lott. His book "More Guns, Less Crime" is his first. He finds that those states that allowed a "shall-issue" permit, found their crime rate falling. He also found that states which had a conceal carry permit, saw a carry over effect from allowing law abiding citizens to carry. Now the criminals don't know who is carrying and who is not. Finally, upon interviewing the Chief's of Police from the counties which allowed non-discretionary, or shall-issue, carry permits, a large percentage of them, in the 90% and above range, had changed their minds on gun control and were now supporting it.
Makes one think, does the government really know what's best?
5 comments
I fully agree witrh you that gun registry in canada has been nothing short of a joke. However, i think the two biggest changes in the stats if handguns were easier to accquire in Canada would be the amount of murders would go up and the amount of murders committed with a handgun.
— Chris Turvill Sat, 19 Jul 2008
That's what a lot of of the Chief's of Police, I mentioned, thought. However, they were pleasantly surprised to find it instead went down. In a study done by Harvard Law, Dr's Kates and Mauser concluded that the average citizen doesn't murder, only an aberration of humanity murders. The exact quote is at home, I'm visiting the fairgrounds today. Anyway, they said that because the average citizen doesn't murder, disarming them is not only unproductive, but also counter productive.
— Tyler Beckett Sat, 19 Jul 2008
Ok, here they are. The 2 quotes I had referred to, are:
"Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murderers are ordinary law-abiding citizens. Rather, almost all murderers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors."
"Obviously there are certain people who should not be allowed to own any deadly instrument. Reasonable as such prohibitions are, it is unrealistic to think those people will comply with such restrictions any more readily than they do with laws against violent crime. In any event, studies analyzing acquaintance homicide suggest there is no reason for laws prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law abiding responsible adults because such people virtually never murder. If one accepts that such adults are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than to commit it, disarming them becomes not just unproductive but counterproductive."
Sounds a lot better than what I wrote. Anyway, if you are interested in reading more of their research into the subject the paper is at http://www.scribd.com/doc/256956/Harvard-Would-Banning-Firearms-Reduce-Murders-and-Suicide.
A lot of what people believe would happen is the result of media hyping something that, according to the statistics, is a fairly uncommon practice. It happens, and I agree, it's sick, but stopping me from buying a handgun will not stop a criminal from getting one through other, less than legal channels.
— Tyler Beckett Sun, 20 Jul 2008
yes but the more handguns there are the easier they will be available to the criminal elements.
Why are more gun murders committed per capita in the states than Canada or the UK? Becauase for exactly the reasons you stated you make handguns more accessible to ordinary civillians you make them more accessible to criminals as well..
And as you say an ordinary citizen cannot murder someone only a certain percentage of society can, seems kind o pointless to give them (therefore by proxy) criminals easier access to handguns.
Also the vast majorit of illegall handguns in canada are smuggled in from the USA where it is relatively easy to purchase them. If the USA had laws similar to most of the western world there would probably be even less handgun related murders in Canada.
Dr. Kates is part of the Pacific Rim institute, a conservative think tank who's funding comes from people whose primary interests are exctly what the papers they produce promote.
You can find stats for either side, it really just comes down to common sense.
What about the 100-150 or so children a year in the states who die from self inflicted or accidental gun wounds because their parents felt it neccesary to have a handgun int he hosue for portection?
— Chris Turvill Sun, 20 Jul 2008
"yes but the more handguns there are the easier they will be available to the criminal elements. Why are more gun murders committed per capita in the states than Canada or the UK? Becauase for exactly the reasons you stated you make handguns more accessible to ordinary civillians you make them more accessible to criminals as well.."
Are you sure of these stats? All the stats I have seen have placed the UK higher in crime than the USA. From everything I have read, crime is out of control. I imagine it's not as bad as everyone is claiming, however, when the Police over there won't give you any more than a "warning" for theft, robbery, and certain other "minor" crimes, there is really no deterrence to criminals to stop. That on top of their outright ban on 99% of guns, doesn't help them out. On top of this, even though they've had a complete ban on handguns, there were still some 9,803 firearms offences, according to the home office stats I just pulled for 2007/08.
Australia, they banned guns a year or so ago and their police still seem to be punishing criminals, so they must be doing better, right? Doesn't seem so:
I realize that a lot of these stats are coming from anti-gun control sites, but they are valid nevertheless.
In regards to Australia, they aren't parked right next to the USA either, so they have no free flow of guns like you describe Canada having. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be stopping the criminals from getting them. Gun control advocates have been responding with, "Just wait... we'll be safer... you'll see.."
I am having a hard time finding statistics in favour of gun control that haven't been skewed by some means. Here's another statement I found with it's resource followed right after so you can look it up yourself:
Statement:
"Easy access to firearms contributes to crime". (The Coalition for Gun Control)[2]
Truth:
Areas that have instituted tougher restrictions on the legal access or ownership of firearms have seen increases in the violent crime rates. Canada and Britain have both increased the restrictions on firearms owners in the last 15 years, and have seen dramatic increases in violent crime and the use of illegal firearms. Areas of the US (and several countries) that have liberal restrictions, or have eased their restrictions on legal gun owners have low crime rates, or have seen their crime rates drop.
Prior to January 1978 when Bill C-51 came into effect, Canada had very liberal gun laws. From 1977 to 1991, Canada's violent crime rate has increased 89% (583 to 1099 violent crimes per 100,000 population) compared to a 59% for the US in the same period. (476 to 758 violent crimes per 100,000 population). [10]
[10] U.S. Source "Uniform Crime Reports for the United States 1991", Federal Bureau of Investigation, p.58 CDN. Source "Crime Trends in Canada 1962-1990", Cdn. Ctr. for Justice Statistics, p.15.
"What about the 100-150 or so children a year in the states who die from self inflicted or accidental gun wounds because their parents felt it neccesary to have a handgun int he hosue for portection?"
What about the thousands of children who hurt themselves and the hundreds who die from self inflicted knife wounds?
That might sound cold, but it's true. People do get hurt by guns, but if you look at the statistics by county, the counties with shall issue carry permits, have much lower incidents of accidents than counties without such permits. If we look at that for a moment, why would that be? People are naturally curious, right? We need to stop making the guns a mystery. The people in states with permits, putting on their gun, for a lot of people, is no different than putting on their watch. It just becomes something normal. The people with these permits aren't showing off their weapons and they aren't going out and trying to dazzle people with their guns. They just want to have an equal chance at survival, should the worst happen.
Expect the best, but prepare for the worst.
You do not want to have to ever use the gun against another human, just as a cop doesn't want to, neither do I as an armed guard. However, fact of the matter is, criminals don't care what you want. They want what they want and their greed will see them through it. How do you propose I defend myself? With a knife? That's not very equal if the criminal has a gun. With a baton? Again, lacking in equality.
Say the tables are turned, now I'm allowed to carry the gun and the criminal comes at me with a knife. Do I immediately open fire? No, I am going to yell, or tactical communication as it's called, orders to leave, or drop the knife or something to the effect. Once the threat is no longer imminent, I can leave the situation and hopefully be done with it. If he decides he's going to lunge at me, even with me telling them to stop, I am going to shoot to incapacitate. Shooting does not always infer death. There's a chance it can happen, and a higher chance the more shots that are forced, but it's not a certainty.
What about petite women? Are they expected to stand up to a guy 6'3" and 280 lbs? They won't be able to run, they won't have any chance to fight back, they won't have any say.
Do you suggest they just stay still and be raped? Maybe they should call the omnipresent police? Unfortunately, the police just can't be at every situation when it happens. If they were able to, then I'd be all for your plans to remove guns from public. I've heard it said:
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
If this wasn't the case, CSI would have no basis in reality. It would be a fantasy TV series. I say guns, because it equalizes you to most situations. The petite woman, she can, if this rather large man doesn't go away, defend herself against rape. I vote we bring in laws that penalize the criminals tougher and hand out longer sentences for commission of a crime while in the possession of a firearm. THAT legislation makes sense. Banning a firearm from your law abiding citizens, that does not make sense.
— Tyler Beckett Mon, 21 Jul 2008