[notty]

The United States has 203 metropolitan areas of 200,000 or more persons. Canada has 17 such areas. In the U.S., there are approximately 31 people per square kilometer. In Canada, there are approximately 3 people per square kilometer.

[TheZookie007]

...in other words, Canadians are worse shots than Americans.

-- TheZookie "America! FUCK YEAH!" 007

[notty]

In the U.S., 90% of gun crimes occur in metropolitan areas, with a population distribution of 75% to those areas.

[Real]

well look at canada, or any other industrialized nation in the world you feel like.  no matter how you break it down, its alarming.  

in 2005 80 people were murdered in metro toronto (just under 6 million people) in what was dubbed "the year of the gun."  with about the same urban/rural distribution as the states, gun crime rates arent anywhere even near close. many urban areas 1/6 the size in the united states would call that "the year of peace"  simple fact.

but why would some people even acknowledge that when you could just be a nationalist philistine i guess?  just figured the fact there are places where guns are a plenty and people dont shoot each other at such a crazy pace is relevant.

again if you dont want to take canada, take basically anywhere but columbia lol...

[notty]

Canada has 1/6th the firearm homicide rate of the U.S. at 1/10th the population density. Six percent of Canadians legally own firearms compared to 25% of U.S. citizens. There are 0.00010 homicides per firearm per year in Canada. There are 0.00012 homicides per firearm per year in the U.S.

[Real]

well canada has 1/6th the gun homicide rate of the us period.  rate means population disparity has been accounted for. as far as physical area canada is a good 50(imo 80-90)% uninhabitable arctic, not really relevant.  three quarters of all canadians are along the saint lawrence, in s. ontario, the calgary-edmonton corridor and lower mainland bc.  very americanized urban centers.

but point taken when youre talking about per firearm, i suppose i undervalued exactly how many guns there are in america...

[Hugeboobfan]

Quote:
Real said:
but point taken when youre talking about per firearm, i suppose i undervalued exactly how many guns there are in america...

The obvious solution here is that america needs more guns.  Right patriots?

I suggest leaving huge piles of handguns in city parks for anyone to pick up and protect themselves with.  Think how safe we'd be then.

[notty]

The homicide rate is density-dependent. As humans come into close contact with one another, their propensity for violence increases. Even if the "uninhabitable" portions of Canada are removed from the analysis, the population density is still very much less than that of the United States, with far fewer population centers.

[notty]

Quote:
Hugeboobfan said:

Quote:
Real said:
but point taken when youre talking about per firearm, i suppose i undervalued exactly how many guns there are in america...

The obvious solution here is that america needs more guns.  Right patriots?

I suggest leaving huge piles of handguns in city parks for anyone to pick up and protect themselves with.  Think how safe we'd be then.

No one uses the parks anymore. We're all a bunch of fatties. You'll have to go door to door, delivering them.

[Hugeboobfan]

Quote:
notty said:
No one uses the parks anymore. We're all a bunch of fatties. You'll have to go door to door, delivering them.

Like a modern day equivalent of Johnny Appleseed?  Spreading death, err... I mean freedom and protection wherever he goes?

[TheZookie007]

Quote:
Real: three quarters of all canadians are along the saint lawrence, in s. ontario, the calgary-edmonton corridor and lower mainland bc.  very americanized urban centers.

The figure I heard is that 90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the US/Canada border.

[Real]

Quote:
notty said:
The homicide rate is density-dependent. As humans come into close contact with one another, their propensity for violence increases. Even if the "uninhabitable" portions of Canada are removed from the analysis, the population density is still very much less than that of the United States, with far fewer population centers.

nah, that is misleading.  ill repeat 75% of canadains are located in a grand total of 4 regions.  it would still be less desnse than america, but if canada is what youre clammoring to compare density to id check the relevance.

if the us were to conquer canada tomorrow its population density would drop from about 29 to 16 people per km.  not because people spread out and things got safer, but because you added the second largest land mass in the world, the majority of which is simply uninhabited.  i mean national numbers tweaked by the people spread out across montana, idaho and the dakotas doesnt mean its safer in urban centers and vice versa.

plus nevermind comparaisons to canada, least densely populated country on earth, the 29 ppk is not high at all on a global scale and does not really explain abberant high gun murder rates.

again, just ask 6 million people in dense urban toronto about the "year of the gun."  50 murders.  check the popluation density of urban montreal, vancouver, calgary, the capital region and edmonton (which should be the highest) youll still find the same relative story...

[notty]

So, cities are islands unto themselves, and have no bearing on each other? Toronto is surrounded by...not much. New York is surrounded by...?

But, hey, you're the one who first compared the U.S. to Canada. I'm merely pointing out that it's a bad comparison, and shouldn't be made. If you want to match up the Great White North with another country, try Australia. They are very similar in many ways. But, wait, uhoh, Australia's firearm homicide rate is almost half that of Canada.

 

[TheZookie007]

Quote:
notty: The homicide rate is density-dependent. As humans come into close contact with one another, their propensity for violence increases. Even if the "uninhabitable" portions of Canada are removed from the analysis, the population density is still very much less than that of the United States, with far fewer population centers.

But I don't think population density entirely explains the high US homicide rate. There are parts of the world which have far higher population densities and don't have nearly as much gun violence/homicides as the United States is burdened with, even when you take into account how easy or how hard it is to acquire a firearm in those countries.

[notty]

I would agree that cultural and political influences are vast. But, if I may borrow a page from the SAT test booklet, which of these is not like the others:

A. United States
B. Canada
C. Australia
D. India

That aside, if you look at the firearm homicide rate vs the overall homicide rate for most any country, you find one of two trends: high firearm homicide rate, slightly higher overall homicide rate, or low firearm homicide rate with a huge increase in the overall homicide rate. Granted, homicide rates vary, and I do attribute that to cultural and political measures, but the fact is that, in the absence of guns, people simply find other ways to kill each other.

Having said that, I hate guns. I can't stand rifle hunting, sport shooting, or any other gun-toting activities the rednecks so enjoy. I find the whole concept of gun ownership repugnant. I also find the concept of a technology that functions solely to kill other organisms repugnant. But,  that's just me, and unfortunately, the gun laws aren't going to change any time soon.