Canada blames U.S. for gun violence
Toronto shooting is latest death in a record year

Tuesday, December 27, 2005; Posted: 9:54 p.m. EST (02:54 GMT)

TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- Canadian officials, seeking to make sense of another fatal shooting in what has been a record year for gun-related deaths, said Tuesday that along with a host of social ills, part of the problem stemmed from what they said was the United States exporting its violence.

Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Toronto Mayor David Miller warned that Canada could become like the United States after gunfire erupted Monday on a busy street filled with holiday shoppers, killing a 15-year-old girl and wounding six bystanders -- the latest victims in a record surge in gun violence in Toronto.

The shooting stemmed from a dispute among a group of 10 to 15 youth, and the victim was a teenager out with a parent near a popular shopping mall, police said Tuesday.

"I think it's a day that Toronto has finally lost its innocence," Det. Sgt. Savas Kyriacou said. "It was a tragic loss and tragic day."

While many Canadians take pride in Canadian cities being less violent than their American counterparts, Toronto has seen 78 murders this year, including a record 52 gun-related deaths -- almost twice as many as last year.

"What happened yesterday was appalling. You just don't expect it in a Canadian city," the mayor said.

"It's a sign that the lack of gun laws in the U.S. is allowing guns to flood across the border that are literally being used to kill people in the streets of Toronto," Miller said.

Miller said Toronto, a city of nearly three million, is still very safe compared to most American cities, but the illegal flow of weapons from the United States is causing the noticeable rise in gun violence.

"The U.S. is exporting its problem of violence to the streets of Toronto," he said.

Miller said that while almost every other crime in Toronto is down, the supply of guns has increased and half of them come from the United States.

Miller said the availability of stolen Canadian guns is another problem, and that poverty in certain Toronto neighborhoods is a root cause.

"There are neighborhoods in Toronto where young people face barriers of poverty, discrimination and don't have real hope and opportunity. The kind of programs that we once took for granted in Canada that would reach out to young people have systematically disappeared over the past decade and I think that gun violence is a symptom of a much bigger problem," Miller said.

The escalating violence prompted the prime minister to announce earlier this month that if re-elected on January 23, his government would ban handguns. With severe restrictions already in place against handgun ownership, many criticized the announcement as politics.

Martin, who says up to half of the gun crimes in Canada involve weapons brought in illegally from the United States, raised the smuggling problem when he met with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in October.

Martin offered his condolences in a statement Tuesday, saying he was horrified by the shootings.

"What we saw yesterday is a stark reminder of the challenge that governments, police forces and communities face to ensure that Canadian cities do not descend into the kind of rampant gun violence we have seen elsewhere," Martin said.

John Thompson, a security analyst with the Toronto-based Mackenzie Institute, says the number of guns smuggled from the United States is a problem, but that Canada has a gang problem -- not a gun problem -- and that Canada should stop pointing the finger at the United States.

"It's a cop out. It's an easy way of looking at one symptom rather than addressing a whole disease," Thompson said.

Two suspects were arrested and at least one firearm was seized soon after the shootings Monday. Kyriacou said it was an illegal handgun.

Three females and four males were injured, including one male who is in critical condition. Police believe they were bystanders.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

======================================

when will people start blaming people for their actions, instead of looking for a scapegoat?

That is SO weird. I was actually just thinking about going up to Canada and shooting some people...

Canadians are making me have gay sex and smoke pot.

Haha ...

The reality is, gay sex happens wherever it's going to happen. Whether it's in Saudi Arabia, where the "offenders" will be hung publically, or if it's in Ottawa, where the couple gets confetti thrown at them.
Same goes for pot. While I'm not the biggest fan of having a penis in my butt, I do enjoy a bi-weekly gagger. I'll smoke what I want, when I want - thanks for coming out.

Where guns are concerned, they'll be fired at fellow degenerates whether they're legal or not, thank you, King Paul. A handgun ban is the most asinine, short-sighted "fix" that anyone of any level of education could possibly think of.

The mindless violence that has gripped Toronto this year will only continue until someone steps in and imposes martial law, in my opinion. If I lived in North York, I would welcome the police into my home for a search - warrant or not - if it meant that something was being done to end the moronic gangland bullshit that has been crippling our hometowns.



VOTE CONSERVATIVE ON JANUARY 23RD.

Bush should just pre-emptively annex Canada and make it America's largest National Park.

i fixed that for you

Exactly.

Americans may provide 50% of the supply, but Canadians provide 100% of the demand.

It's not really an issue of who's at fault. It's more of an issue of the sooner the Canadian government outlaws handguns the better.

Exactly. A criminal's life will be so much more efficient and less stressful if he doesn't have to worry about you pulling a gun on him.

That's harsh yet true.

There was some report out of Britian this year where like 85% of home burgleries where done when the victims were at home vs. like 20% for the US. The reason given was that criminals in the US feared getting shot by home owners so they waited till the victims were gone. Alas, because the British had no guns, the criminals didn't worry.

*Source for oil and gas

But then it'll be an American National Park, and we can't drill for oil and natural gas in an American National Park.

I don't understand why so many people think it's nuts to ban hand guns.

It doesn't seem that complicated. If there aren't handguns people don't get shot with them...

It's not a way to stop crime in general but it does lessen the chance someone will get shot

Like if u ban steriods, baseball players won't use them? Or if you ban alcohol, people won't drink?

Why not ban anything that could possibly harm you or anyone else near u? A whole generation of bubble people!

Note: I am in no way in favor of any attempt at a gun ban in this country. I just felt like playing devil's advocate.



That argument would work a lot better if the US didn't have a little over four times the number of murders and eight times the number of gun deaths of countries that ban firearms. Obviously, banning had some impact.



I don't think that "we should remove guns from the public sphere" necessarily leads to this thought.



The presence of guns provided an incentive not to show up when the owner was home, but does it actually prevent the crime? News sources report 5.52 million total crimes for Britain in 2001. According to the FBI, last year there were more than 10 million property crimes alone in the United States.

Are those numbers per capita? The USA should have ten times more murders than Canada if the population is ten times larger.



Repealing the 2nd ammendment would be huge. It could lead to all kinds of things.



Crime will never cease to exist, no matter what you do. Britain's population is only 20% of the USA's.

You put ALOT of trust in your government by favoring a ban on handguns.

As I've said before, if you want to know what happens to the gun market after a law like this, just look at the drug market. Laws don't eliminate the demand for such products. As long as there's a demand, there will be a supply. It just gives criminals the upper hand.

Yes, they are. Sorry, forgot to mention that.



So, just based on the numbers there, we can theorize that the crime rates themselves are essentially the same. Guns in the hands of homeowners don't really deter anything. Of note here is that a much smaller percentage of Britain's crimes were murder or attempted murder.



But I don't, and I mentioned that.



Again, I'd say that the much lower per capita murder rates and gun deaths of countries with bans in place could be used to argue that, yes, a ban would have a huge impact on their presence in our society. Drugs in general are mind-altering substances, most of which are addictive. That plays a huge part.

Again, I'm not in favor of banning guns. I'm just opposed to some of the arguments being made. In order to defend gun availability you need to specifically address the murder rates and gun-related deaths per capita...I'd think about other possible factors or alternative causation...because as it is I'm just one weeping mother asking 'how many children have to die to make it too many' away to getting that ban put in. Or maybe I could use the abortion tactic and label you pro-gun death. Mwa-haha.

According to the stats I found, there were 1.73 homicides per 100,000 people in Canada in 2003. The US had 5.7 homicides per 100,000 people in 2003. So there are actually 30 times more murders in the US than Canada if the US is 10 times larger

Here's an article on gun deaths in Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/28/gun-deaths050628.html

Not obviously. You are pointing out CORRELATION not CAUSATION.

It could very well be cultural differences. Or demographic differences. The US is unique in many, many factors and it's almost apples to oranges with most other countries.

I would argue that crime has increased because of the decrease in belief in religion. People no longer fear and imaginary hell, so why not live it up?



Probably. I would suspect it prevents assault and battery (possibly rape/murder) and makes it less likely for the burglar to carry a gun.



You need to compare per capita rates as you have done elsewhere for any valid comparison.

True. But correlation is significant as well. Until alternate impactors are proven to be so significant, I'm skeptical.



I would argue the opposite. Studies suggest that religious fundamentalism is on the rise in the US, and religion has played an enormous part of the national dialogue over the last few years (abortion, evolution, right to die cases, etc.). Each successive year since 2000, a higher and higher proportion of Americans label themselves "very religious," which means little on its own but combined with the aforementioned trends seems to suggest to me a significant occurance.



From Nationmaster.com:

United Kingdom
------------------
Variable Amount/description Rank
Crime > Car thefts (per capita) 5.6054 per 1,000 people [3rd of 55]
Crime > Murders (per capita) 0.0140633 per 1,000 people [46th of 62]
Crime > Murders with firearms (per capita) 0.00102579 per 1,000 people [32nd of 32]
Crime > Rapes (per capita) 0.142172 per 1,000 people [13th of 65]
Crime > Total crimes 5,170,830 [3rd of 61]


United States
---------------
Variable Amount/description Rank
Crime > Car thefts (per capita) 3.8795 per 1,000 people [9th of 55]
Crime > Murders (per capita) 0.042802 per 1,000 people [24th of 62]
Crime > Murders with firearms (per capita) 0.0279271 per 1,000 people [8th of 32]
Crime > Rapes (per capita) 0.301318 per 1,000 people [9th of 65]
Crime > Total crimes 23,677,800 [1st of 61]



So I guess we don't steal as many cars, anyway...