The LA Times today has a disapproving article about the new Canadian Conservative Party-led government’s move from registering guns to arresting criminals.
Police began kicking down doors before dawn on a chilly May morning while gang members in Toronto’s Jamestown neighborhood still slept. By lunchtime, officers had made 106 arrests, collected 33 guns and announced that they had broken an international gun ring run by the notorious Jamestown Crew.
The raid was a shot across the bow from newly elected Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who says his Conservative Party government is going to spend its money on crime control, not gun control.
The sweep came two days after Harper announced plans to dismantle Canada’s controversial gun registry — a system reviled by conservatives and gun owners, but lauded by others for reducing homicides and helping police.
The article makes a case for Canada’s peacefulness:
Compared with the United States, where there are 220 million guns among 300 million people, and 10,800 gun-related homicides in 2004, Canada is a peaceful backwater, with 7.1 million registered guns and only 175 gun homicides that year. Los Angeles alone had 416 gun-related killings that year.
But whether out of laziness or other motives, Maggie Farley fails to do some simple math:
| Canada | USA | ratio | ||
| population in 000’s | 33,098 | 298,444 | 9.02 | |
| guns in 000’s | 7,100 | 220,000 | 30.99 | |
| guns/person | 0.21 | 0.74 | 3.44 | |
| firearms deaths | 175 | 9326 | 53.29 | |
| per 1000 people | 0.005 | 0.031 | 5.91 | |
| per 1000 guns | 0.025 | 0.042 | 1.72 |
So the US has 9 times Canada’s population, and 53 times the number of firearms murders (Canada’s numbers from the Times article, the 2004 US numbers from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports). We have 31 times the number of guns.
So we have 5.9 times the number of murders/person and 1.7 times the number of guns. These may suggest that there’s something cultural afoot, instead.
But Canada’s gang-related killings have gone up fourfold in a decade, along with the growth of gangs largely imported from the U.S. that attract what police and social workers describe as young black males from mostly West Indian immigrant families. And with the gangsta culture come the guns.
“If you want a gun, you can get one in a day, a couple of hours maybe,” said Andrew Bacchus, 30, founder of Toronto’s Vice Lords gang who is now working with Breaking the Cycle, a gang-exiting program. “The gun registry hasn’t made any difference on that.”
Homicide rates have increased, but shootings have mostly been confined to neighborhoods inhabited by gangs, such as Jamestown in the northeast part of the city. But the death last year of a 15-year-old girl caught in gang crossfire in a downtown shopping center the day after Christmas — and in the middle of an election campaign — was a turning point.
Fighting crime became a part of nearly every stump speech, a theme that hit home not just with Conservatives, but with middle-class voters across the spectrum. Harper promised stricter sentencing, but also a repeal of the gun registry, saying the millions it cost a year to track hunters would be better used for cracking down on gangs.
The article makes two of the three arguments I’ll make about a program like Canada’s.
1. It doesn’t work.
Washington DC and New York City are among the highest crime cities in the US, and yet have the most Draconian firearms laws.
2. It costs a lot – financially in this case – and that money would be better spent on other programs to reduce crime.
The registry was an obvious target. When it was created a little more than a decade ago, it was expected to cost only a few million dollars, and to be largely self-sustained by user fees. The expense of creating an extensive computerized database spiraled out of control, however, and an auditor general’s report this month estimated the cost to be nearly $1 billion over 10 years. It also showed that officials with the former Liberal Party government buried budget overruns so they wouldn’t have to go before Parliament to seek more money.
So if it has halved the firearms death rate in Canada, from 350 to 175, it has saved 175 people a year, or 1,750 people over ten years at a cost of a billion dollars. I’ve got to believe that you can do better than that by spending the money somewhere else.
My third reason is visible outside my dining room window, in the park across the street that’s just being renovated.
The playground used to have a 20’tall climbing structure and slide that was one of the most heavily used in the park. It’s gone now, because it’s considered unsafe to let children play in an environment where they might injure themselves. There are new standards for playground equipment, and many of the favorites that my older sons played on are now illegal.
The idea that we would leave people free to make mistakes in order to create a culture of responsibility is one of the major victims of laws like those gun control aimed not at legitimately restricting some aspect of firearms ownership (and I do think there are legitimate restrictions we could enact). Instead they are about changing the culture:
Although it doesn’t directly address the problem of illegal handguns, the registry helps create a culture in which guns are seen as dangerous and owners are held accountable, said Wendy Cukier, a professor of justice studies at Ryerson University and the co-author of the book “The Global Gun Epidemic.”
And that’s why people like me, who believe that some firearms regulations can have impacts and are sensible and equitable tend to side with the absolutists.
Because regulators like Prof, Cukier don’t really care if the regulations work, or if they are the best expenditure of the state’s money or legitimacy.
They just want a world where there are no guns, and no playground equipment is more than 4′ off the ground.
I don’t know, I think spending a billion dollars to convince people that “guns are dangerous” and owners should be held responsible for their actions is a fabulous bargain.
It’s not like, for instance, NRA training programs do that for a miniscule fraction of the cost.
I know Prof. Cukier, and A.L.’s characterization is mostly bang-on. Her thought process is bounded by political correctness, and ends abruptly at its limits. The thought that a rural farmer might have different needs or legitimate interests isn’t part of her Starbucks latte world. Nor is the idea that a $2 billion gun registry is a failure by definition. After all, it’s all about her own feelings and self-image.
In this, of course, she is a typical product of the modern university monoculture – and also, of course, an enforcer of same.
Washington DC and New York City are among the highest crime cities in the US, and yet have the most Draconian firearms laws.
Just a small correction – Washington DC’s crime rate is very high, but New York City is (among cities with a population of more than 500,000) one of the safest cities around.
It’s the 4th safest city in the country. That safety is the result of, not of gun control, but of Giuliani’s zero tolerance policies towards crime.
Europe also has draconian gun laws, and they are very willing to tolerate crime. Their crime rate are going up exponentially, surpassing ours in Finland and Britain. The policy of forbidding self-defense while tolerating crime has always caused crime rates to go up, but like communism, it’s a theory that never dies no matter how often it fails.
Of course the places with gun control tend to be the places with a lot of crime. Crime causes gun control.
People who believe in gun control might argue that the crime would be even worse without it. I think that’s basicly a religious argument, it’s far too hard to test. Like the idea that communism might someday lead to prosperity for all, or that free enterprise might someday lead to an efficient economy. But the claim that crime tends to lead to gun control is easy to test and to some extent it’s true. Except in, say, texas.
We have to win elections with the voters we have, not the voters we wished we had.
But gun control is an erroneous response to crime.
There is no positive correlation between firearms diffusion and crime (and neither a negative one).
In my opinion, wide availability of guns can eventuallly facilitate occasional crimes – like the guy losing it because his girlfriend left him and the like. But this is part of the risk/benefit analysis.
Mary,
I was about to point out that NYC’s crime rate is now so low, we no longer fit this model, and again, you are right it has nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with zero tolerance for crime and the idea of “statistical policing” which is generally credited to Rudy, but actually started under the last year of Dinkins (got to give him credit for that) True that Rudy took it a lot further, and really made it work…
That said, it looks like Mayor Blooming Idiot is giving up on the zero tolerance for petty crime stuff. I’m seeing more homeless sleeping/begging on the subways, more graffiti, and a seeming tolerance for crime coming back under Bloomberg…
I NEVER thought I’d say this – but it’s possible that even Dinkins was better than Bloomberg (NO fan of Dinkins)
sigh
FabioC, you arew being rational. But a lot of voters are not as rational as you are.
When there’s too much violent crime then voters demand that the government has to do something, Some places they demand gun control. Other places they demand harsher punishment for criminals. Neither does much to bring the crime rate down, but they pretty consistently demand one or the other.
The only thing I’ve heard that actually brings crime rates down is prosperity, or at least employment. When there are lots of jobs crime rates go down — but maybe not far enough down. These other approaches mostly cost a lot of money without helping much.
But if you’rea politician and the voters are demanding gun control or long sentences, then you’ll campaign for what they want or else you’ll lose.
Well, there is the response of building more prisons and giving out longer sentences, as in the perrenial NYT editorial, “Why are we building so many prisons when crime is down?” Although I’ll grant you I haven’t actually seen any studies on this (one way or the other.)
On the other hand, “the only thing that works is a better economy” is a bit hard to prove too, especially in light of experiences such as Britain’s–they certainly haven’t experienced an economic decline commensurate with their crime problems.
Kirk, the obvious answer to “Why are we building so many prisons when crime is down?” is Parkinson’s Law. Prison administration is a bureaucracy, and bureaucracies grow at X% a year regardless — unless they are hampered by outside forces.
There is no more evidence that longer sentences recuse crime than that gun control reduces crime. It’s all just so much belief. Of course it makes sense that if criminals have fewer guns then they’ll use fewer guns in crimes, and it makes sense that if criminals spend more of their lives incarcerated then they’ll have less time to do crimes. But somehow the data is lacking.
I’ve seen the repeated claim that when employment is up (and going along with that, wages are up) crime goes down. I have to admit I haven’t seen any studies on that either. I’ve seen the claim that such studies exist, and I’ve been unduly willing to believe that claim. It just makes sense. 🙁
My bad.
As a resident of one of Canadas many violent Ghettos (by choice , i like cheap rent) statistics mean little to me .
Recently some kind of ” law ” was enacted regarding reporting gun violence , doesn’t mean anyone will actually follow ” the law ” .
I sure as hell will not , nor will anyone else that works with me in our various community organiztions , it is simple not worth the risk to directly challenge the many gun carrying crooks in that way , sometimes .
I wonder what Torontos murder rate would be if Cuba was as close to it as to Miami . If only 1/4 of one percent of illegals are violent criminals ….
Didn’t Michael Moore address this Canada/U.S. comparison in Bowling for Columbine? I believe Moore concluded that it wasn’t the number of guns or restrictions on gun ownership, its that Americans are violent racists.
Ill cut the violent crime rate in half in both countries in 4 years. Legalize drugs, invest all the money wrapped up in the drug war cash bonanza into prevention and recovery, begin filling prisons with only violent offenders- any crime committed with a gun is an automatic 20 year sentence, end of story. This isnt some stupid 3 strikes your out law that hits some kid stealing a loaf of bread… if you brandish a gun committing a crime you have forfitted your right to remain in civilized society. _That_ will make gun crimes ridiculously not worth the price. I am continually amazed that our society tolerates knocking over a liquor store with a .38 special far more ammicably than selling cocaine to a consenting adult. Think about that dynamic, it is seriously insane.
If people were really tired of gangs they would insist that the government quit supporting and financing them. You hadn’t heard about such a program? It is called:
The Government Cocaine Price Support and Gang Finance Program.
Only the government (at enormus expense) can make a pile of vegetables worth their weight in gold.
Drug prohibition is the very best thing the gun prohibition guys have going for them. Funny thing is that the drug prohibition guys can count on gun owners for their support.
People rational? I don’t think so.
Mark,
Hadn’t read #12 before I posted #13. Great minds…
J Thomas,
Free markets do tend to lead to economic efficiency. The business that can deliver more for less has a competitive advantage.
I NEVER thought I’d say this – but it’s possible that even Dinkins was better than Bloomberg (NO fan of Dinkins)
I’m no fan of Bloomberg, but despite his nanny-statism, the crime numbers in NYC are still consistantly low. He’s no Giuliani – there’s no way he would ever take on organized crime the way Rudy did – but he’s been competent enough so far.
I can’t understand why more people don’t adopt zero tolerace policies. They work. Gun control doesn’t work. It should be simple.
M Simon, I strongly agree with your #13. I try to avoid arguing religion so I won’t comment on your #15, except to point out that it makes sense that businesses which deliver more for less ought to have a competitive advantage, just as it makes sense that fewer guns should result in fewer gun crimes and that more criminals locked up for long times should result in less crime.
Gun control IS a religion.
The idea that fewer guns would result in fewer gun crimes is attractive but flawed.
One reason is that any reduction in numbers of guns would come from law abiding citizens turning in theirs, while criminals keep theirs (and continue to commit crimes with them).
Mariner, gun control doctrine isn’t as simple as you make it but I see no point in explaining their counter-arguments to your rebuttal. You are presenting a similar religious argument to oppose them, and if I show how they explain away your claim it would look like I was favoring their religion over yours which I certainly don’t believe and don’t want to appear to do.
I want to repeat my own claims, though. If we wanted to take a nonreligious stand, we would start by collecting data and look for biases in the data, and then look for ways to collect improved data. We would draw our conclusions from reality more than from our expectations about how things would work if people were rational and thought the way we do.
And that approach might likely result in policy recommendations that would work. But those recommendations would be useless to politicians, because the politicians’ voters have their superstitions already established about what they want. Voters who want gun control won’t be satisfied with something else that actually works. They’ll think gun control would have worked and the actual reduction in crime is coincidence. Voters who want longer sentences won’t be satisfied by something that works. They wsnt longer sentences and harsher punishments more than they want reduced crime. Politicians give voters what they want or get replaced.
Reality-based approaches (I mean actual reality-based approaches, not things that Democrats apply the label to) have little place in politics because the number of voters who support them is too small to matter.
Joe
If university is a monoculture where did you go to college or were you home schooled?
When parsing US and Canadian stats for murders committed with firearms, it’s important to get apples to apples.
For instance, I’ve read that white Canadians kill at about the same rate as white Americans.
I suspect that, properly analyzed, Canada’s gun crime rates relative to the US have nothing to do with the firearms registry.