The number of mass homicides and the number of people killed in mass homicides in Australia has gone up since the gun control initiatives of the mid s.
If history is to be any guide, no matter what the resolution to the gun control debate is, it is probable that the arguments pro and con will be much the same as they always have been. Inlegislation was passed by the Canadian Parliament regulating long guns for the first time, restructuring the availability of firearms, and increasing a variety of penalties.
Canadian firearms law is primarily federal, and "therfore national in scope, while the bulk of the firearms regulation in the United States is at the state level; attempts to introduce stricter leglislation at the federal level are often defeated".
The importance of this issue is that not all North Americans are necessarily supportive of strict gun control as being a feasible alternative to controlling urban violence.
There are concerns with the opponents of gun control, that the professional criminal who wants a gun can obtain one, and leaves the average law-abiding citizen helpless in defending themselves against the perils of urban life. Is it our right to bear arms as North Americans?
Or is it privilege? And what are the benefits of having strict gun control laws? Through the analysis of the writings and reports of academics and experts of gun control and urban violence, it will be possible to examine the issues and theories of the social impact of this issue.
Mundt, of the University of North Carolina, points out that "Crime in America is popularly perceived [in Canada] as something to be expected in a society which has less respect for the rule of law than does Canadian society Inthe Canadian government took the initiative to legislate stricter gun control.
Among the provisions legislated by the Canadian government was a "Firearms Acquisition Certificate" for the purchase of any firearm, and strengthened the "registration requirements for handguns and other restricted weapons The purpose of the leglislation was to reduce the availability of firearms, on the assumption that there is a "positive relationship between availability and use".
The only positive effectMundt, found in the study was the decrease in the use of firearms in robbery with comparion to trends in the United States. Informed law enforcement officers in Canada, as in the United States, view the "impact of restricting the availability of firearms is more likely to impact on those violent incidents that would not have happened had a weapon been at hand" In an article by Gary A.
Mauser of the Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, he places special emphasis on the attitudes towards firearms displayed by both Canadians and Americans.
According to Mauser, large majorities of the general public in both countries "support gun control legislation while simultaneously believing that they have the right to own firearms" Mauser Despite the similarities, there are apparent differences between the general publics in the two countries.
As Mauser states that "Canadians are more deferent to authority and do not support the use of handguns in self defence to the same extent as Americans". As Mauser points out that "it has been argued that cultural differences account for why Canada has stricter gun control legislation than the United States" Surprisingly enough, nationwide surveys in both Canada and the United States "show remarkable similarity in the public attitude towards firearms and gun control" Both Canada and the United States were originally English colonies, and both have historically had similar patterns of immigration.
Moreover, Canadians are exposed to American television both entertainment and news programming and, Canadians and Americans read many of the same books and magazines.Canada. As in the United States, Canada’s national government sets gun restrictions that the provinces, territories, and municipalities can supplement.
What is clear is that other countries don't have the gun violence issues that the US does. The president has tried to hammer home this point again and again. The president has tried to hammer home. The relationship between gun ownership rates and gun violence rates, meanwhile, is well established. Reviews of the evidence, compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health’s Injury Control. The high rates of gun violence in the United States, which has the highest rate of gun-related deaths per capita among developed countries: 29 despite having the highest number of police officers, is sometimes thought to be attributable to its extreme rate of gun ownership, as it is the only nation in which guns exceed people.
And like its southern neighbor, Canada’s gun laws have often been driven by gun violence. Myth: The United States has the highest violence rate because of lax gun control Fact: The top countries for homicide do not include the U.S.
44 The top ten countries all have near or total firearm bans.
Nov 07, · When the world looks at the United States, it sees a land of exceptions: a time-tested if noisy democracy, a crusader in foreign policy, an exporter of beloved music and film.
In politicizing mass murders, gun control advocates, such as President Obama, insist that more laws against firearms can enhance public safety. Over and over again, there are calls for common sense.
Disclosure statement. Based on his academic research, John Donohue has served as an expert witness on behalf of various state and local governments that have been sued in efforts to overturn gun. The high rates of gun violence in the United States, which has the highest rate of gun-related deaths per capita among developed countries: 29 despite having the highest number of police officers, is sometimes thought to be attributable to its extreme rate of gun ownership, as it is the only nation in which guns exceed people.