Charlton Heston wants long-gun registry scrapped...

[Saipan]

Abusive Police

Katey Montague’s

The BC Civil Liberties Assn

has filed a complaint against the

Media Relations Officers involved

in what they are calling the

“Buddy Tavares Incident.”

The RCMP made allegations

that Mr. Tavares was involved in a

domestic dispute. That allegation

is almost certainly unfounded,

since neither Mr. Tavares nor his

ex-wife Trudy have any idea what

the RCMP is talking about.

If you’re not familiar with this

case, you can watch the video of

the brutal assault on YouTube.

RCMP constable Geoff Mantler

kicked Buddy Tavares in the face

while he was on his knees in the

street. The kick to the face was

completely unprovoked.

The CBC did a 15-minute

interview with Buddy Tavares a

few days after the brutal assault,

which you can watch on the CBC

website. The Kelowna News also

did an interview (20 minutes

long), which you can see on the

Castanet website.

So far Cst. Mantler has been

placed on desk duty and is still

receiving full pay.

And while the RCMP constable

is given a paid holiday, Mr.

Tavares has been charged with

careless use of a firearm.

That’s just plain wrong.

Junior Alexander

Manon Case

A press release I found on

the Toronto Police Services

(TPS) website says that all

seven constables involved in

the beating death of 18-yearold

Junior Manon have been

cleared of all wrong-doing.

Of course they have.

Shocking, isn’t it?

What’s strange is that even

though the TPS website

quotes from the Ontario

Special Investigations Unit

report, I coudn’t find the

report anywhere on the SIU

website.

I was planning on writing

more about Junior’s case this

week, but being sick all week

and doing my best to keep up

with my university courses

made that impossible.

I’ll have more on Junior’s

beating death at the hands

of seven TPS constables and

how the SIU handled their

investigation in next week’s

Bulletin.

[Saipan]

In the wake of the tragic shooting in Arizona that killed six people and wounded 14 on January 9, 2011, CBC Radio interviewed author Alan Korwin about the availability of guns in U.S. society. Korwin told his interviewers that it's time to stop confusing sport shooters with criminals.

Korwin wrote his first book, The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide, in 1989. It is now in its 24th edition with more than 150,000 copies in print. He went on to write or co-write nine more books on gun laws, including state guides for California, Florida, Texas, and Virginia, the unabridged federal guides Gun Laws of America and Supreme Court Gun Cases, his 11th, which debuted in 2008, is The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed!, and his latest, After You Shoot, about the deadly loophole in self-defence law.

With his wife Cheryl he operates Bloomfield Press, which has grown into the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in America. His website, gunlaws.com, features a free National Directory to every gun law in the country and more than 220 books and DVDs for gun owners and the freedom movement. Alan's blog, PageNine.org, is carried by scores of paper and online outlets.

Here is a transcript of that CBC interview:

Jeff Douglas: Much of the discussion south of The 49th has been about the nature of political discourse in The U.S., but there's also been talk about guns, especially about gun laws in The State of Arizona. Alan Korwin knows these laws well. He's the author of The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide, which is updated regularly since he first published it in 1989. We reached Mr. Korwin in Phoenix.

Carol Off: Mr. Korwin, is there anything in the gun laws of Arizona that might have stopped Mr. Loughner from owning and concealing that weapon?

Alan Korwin: If this person had a record of being certifiably mentally disturbed, he could not legally buy a firearm. There's a whole list of prohibited possessor categories: a previous felon, user of illegal drugs, dishonourable discharge (from the military), that would prevent him from getting a gun legally. But that said, you can buy cocaine in this country in every city in America 24 hours a day, and there's no legal channel for that whatsoever. So preventing people from getting illegal things through law isn't the easy solution that people would like to see.

Off: What exactly did he have to do to qualify to purchase a Glock 19 semi-automatic weapon?

Korwin: He can buy a firearm in this state the same as you can buy any legal property. He could go into a firearms store, fill out a lengthy form—it's then submitted to the FBI by phone or by fax or by Internet. They do a background check. If there are any disqualifiers, he cannot buy the firearm, and if there's any question, his purchase will be delayed. But, if he appears to be like you, or I, or any other honest, law-abiding adult, he would be able to buy a firearm the same as any other law-abiding adult.

Off: A Glock is a handgun. You can't use it for hunting. What would be the point of having a weapon like that?

Korwin: Actually, the shooting sports are the number two participatory sport in the nation—ahead of golf and just behind exercise. And handguns are used frequently to stop crime and deter criminals. One of the greatest travesties of this situation was that there was nobody else there with a Glock 19 or any other gun to stop this perpetrator from this heinous act. That would have been a perfect use for a firearm. Imagine how different the story would play If this guy had attempted an assassination and a citizen had stopped it. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case.

Off: A citizen did attempt to stop him by trying to knock the clip out of his hand and he was about to reload. You're suggesting that there should have been a shoot out? With citizens shooting at each other?

Korwin: You make it sound like the Wild West. We're a very civilized place down here. The whole purpose for your earlier question, “Why would a person want a gun?” Guns save lives. That's why you have them. Not for committing assassinations or being a crazy person. If a citizen was there with a firearm, and this guy started doing what he did, what would you do? Have the guy just stand there and watch? Or should he use a legally-owned firearm to stop the perpetrator? Which would you prefer?

Off: But there are a lot of people around, including the nine-year-old who was also killed. What happens if people start to shoot each other? Isn't it better just not to have concealed handguns inside shopping malls?

Korwin: There is a risk of harming other people, but those other people are at a deadly risk right then at that moment. This maniac, psychological crazy guy is shooting people: you would say, “Nobody should act to stop him?” Is that what you would say?

Off: But how did the psychological crazy guy get a gun?

Korwin: That's a great question. At what point do you say somebody is crazy? The issues necessary to deny a person his civil rights, certify them as crazy, are complex. They have a right to appeal, and to have an attorney. They need doctors to study them. Courts have to make decisions to actually deny a person all his civil rights. You'd lose your right to vote, to hold office, as well as lose the right to keep and bear arms. Maybe you're suggesting that we should give psychological testing to every youngster who ever did anything a little wacky. And then, give everybody a card that says, I'm certifiably sane, and it expires in a year, and you have to go back for more tests. Would you do that?

Off: Your Governor, Jan Brewer, just in this past year, I guess, passed a law that allows for a concealed weapon without having to have permit. Why did so many people want that law to be passed?

Korwin: That law has been a very good law. It has led to a reduction in crime. I understand that in Canada, it's a difference in the culture that makes it a little hard to understand why a person might even want a firearm, as you asked earlier. We've had open carry in the state of Arizona since Statehood in 1912. You could own a firearm, wear it on your hip, go about your business all day long, for almost a hundred years now with no government permission or tax, photograph, fingerprints, entry in a criminal database, or a plastic-coated permission slip that says you're OK. What the Constitutional carry law does—it allows your shirttails to fall over your firearm and you haven't committed a crime. Prior to that law, with your sport coat or jacket if it's cold—if the firearm is concealed in any way, you automatically became a criminal without actually doing anything wrong, with nobody harmed, with no victim. That didn't seem like a proper way to go if you value freedom.

Unfortunately, there was nobody there that day--which would have saved the day—if only somebody would have been there and could have acted.

Off: This semi-automatic weapon that he had, had about thirty rounds in it. Wasn't there an effort to try and limit the number of rounds…

Korwin: How many rounds would you allow a person to have, Carol? Your question presupposes its answer. If the logic is that we can limit the amount of ammunition you can have, or the size of the round, or the size of the magazine, then we might as well limit them down to zero and outlaw guns for every decent, law-abiding citizen—by that logic. It's a free country.

Off: But Mr. Korwin, if the only solution to what happened this weekend is to have more people with guns, where does that stop? Doesn't that just become a bigger problem when people are armed and able to have shootouts in public places?

Korwin: The ignorance behind that question is monumental. I don't even know how to begin to address that. We know that when criminals go crazy, you send in people with guns to stop them. More guns, less crime. When the citizens are armed, they are a deterrent to crime. When the citizens are disarmed, the criminals have no controls of any practical nature. And that's what we saw in that great tragedy.

You're assuming that if a person has a firearm, they automatically go crazy and shoot people. That's very typical of the political left in this country. The anti-right bigots keep saying that if we have firearms, we'll kill people.

We've had open carry banquets with 400 people—all carrying firearms—and the service is slow—and the waiters all get out alive. It's not about having a firearm and the gun makes you psychotic. It's about having a firearm to be able to stop a person who is a psychotic.

Off: Mr. Korwin, thank you.

Korwin: Thanks very much.

[Saipan]

PRESIDENT OF THE CALGARY POLICE ASSOCIATION

Prime minister Paul Martin is re-thinking another one of the legacies of the Chretien era. Martin says his government will review the federal gun registry. The registry has already cost one billion dollars and the Liberals want to find out if the money could be more effective in other areas, such as border security. The head of the Calgary Police Association says the money could be better spent hiring more police officers or cracking down on the criminals. "A lot of our members on the street say they don't really care if the gun that's firing at them is registered or unregistered," said Al Koenig. "The fact is, the gun exists and the person that pulled the trigger should be paying a far greater price than what they are receiving right now."

Source: Quote from CTV NEWS – "Gun registry under fire from prime minister" - CFCN.ca – Posted at 6:07 PM Wednesday, January 7

[Saipan]

CALGARY POLICE ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT AL KOENIG:

The aim by the province to curb gang violence by tabling an amnesty on guns is hardly bulletproof, says a city police official. Calgary Police Association president Al Koenig is skeptical of the Alberta government's plan to have people willingly hand over unregistered guns. "To presume that gangsters will hand over their guns, somebody is living in wonderland," Koenig said. "Gang-bangers' guns are already illegal, and they're already committing so many crimes that carrying an unregistered firearm is the least of their worries." Koenig said under a gun amnesty, a proposal to be introduced tomorrow,

Albertans may turn in guns they have at home they don't want, but the ones carried by gang members should be the targets. "The only way to get a gun away from a gang member is when a police officer takes it away from them," Koenig said. Koenig pointed to the federal government initiative calling for increased jailtime for gun crimes as stronger arsenal in the fight against gang violence.

SOURCE: CALGARY SUN, GUN AMNESTY PROPOSAL BORN 'IN WONDERLAND', Page 7, September 25, 2006.

[segnosaur]

Well, obviously it must be more than just a no-brainer, since you haven't actually, you know, provided proof that people with senile dementia provide a substantially elevated risk for gun violence. You have pointed to articles that talk about the difficulty of removing guns from the homes of such people (a reasonable action), but nothing about just how much "added risk" is caused by elderly people loosing control of mental faculties.

The first article talks about the number of guns in the homes of elderly people, and gives guidelines on how to get them to give up their firearms. Nowhere does it give any sort of statistics giving increased risk.

The second article talks about how, in the U.S., people who are suffering from Senile Dementia can have a conservator appointed, who would have the right to remove firearms from the home. Personally, I think that's a much saner method than eliminating all private gun ownership and storage.

It's good to see someone is giving some thought to the issue.

Yeah, unfortunately some people react to the issue by A: Confusing anecdotes for actual statistics, B: Misusing facts, and C: mistakenly accepting their opinions as truths grounded in hard data.

Kind of like the person who's claiming that an increasing number of elderly people will lead to our old age homes being a shooting gallery, without providing any sort of real statistics to back up that claim.

It's easy to imagine there must have been a time when the idea of conservators had to fight an uphill battle against the tide of gun advocacy too.

And the people who fought for prohibition in the U.S. pre-1919 probably also had an uphill battle. However, at some point people realized that it was a dumb idea.

The point is, just because something is an 'uphill battle', does not mean that the goal (whether it is prohibition or elimination of private ownership/storage of firearms) is something that is worth following through on.

Ummm.... according to that article, the person was responsible for the shooting was not the wife (the one suffering from Alzheimers), but the husband. There's nothing in the article to suggest the husband had lost any of his mental faculties.

No, I cited it as an example of a caregiver at their wits or perhaps financial end.

Except that was not the claim that you had originally been making. Back in post 212/222, you had warned about the dangers of the "demented taking up arms". The issue of domestic violence is a different issue.

And, it should be noted, this is still just a single case/anecdote. I'm still waiting to see some statistics that show:

- Those suffering from senile dementia are more likely to engage in shooting deaths than younger gun owners

- Domestic shooting deaths become more common as gun owners age

The strain of mental illness on most families is often as staggering as it is unrelenting. Given these things and in the wake of the million or so new cases of dementia I think the evidence of added risk will be apparent soon enough.

Yup. And how many of them are improperly using their firearms (causing death/injury)? What proportion of gun crimes are caused by people with senile dementia?

Probably just a small one right now. As it grows with it's incidence it'll just be one more reason to argue for better gun control.

I see... you think the evidence will be apparent? You probably think the proportion is small? Those are not the words of a person who actually, you know, has evidence.

Here's a little hint... if there really was a real risk, you would not need to "wait for the evidence"... we already have millions of gun owners in North America, and millions of elderly people. All you would have to do is look at the respective rates of gun crimes among elderly and non-elderly people to determine what the future risk will be. The fact that you have not done so suggests that either you are a very poor researcher, or the data (and therefor the risks) do not exist.

http://www.helpstartshere.org/kids-and-families/family-safety/family-safety-current-trends-about-domestic-homicide-and-murder-suicide.html#situations

It's pretty clear there is an association between senile dementia and murder/suicide. The more I look into this the more apparent it becomes that it is care-givers who are the one's driven to desperation.

Ummm... "pretty clear"? You still haven't given any real statistics.

How about telling us what percentage of 20-40 year olds use firearms in the commission of crimes and what percentage of 70+ year olds use firearms to commit crimes.

Or how about telling us what portion of fire-arm owning care givers engage in murder/suicide, as opposed to non-firearm owning individuals, in both elderly and non-elderly populations?

And I find it telling that you would use the phrase "the more I look into this..." You have been calling for "real gun control" for a while, yet the fact that you are changing the reason (i.e. gone from having the demented person themselves be the risk, to the care giver) suggests that you had a pre-existing opinion, and you are desperately searching for a justification to maintain that opinion.

I think the numbers we do have any reasonable handle on kind of speak for themselves, 5 million guns or so in Canada - 65% of owners in the US are senior citizens so it stands to reason the percentage is probably similar in Canada, and if a million of these are likely candidates for dementia.

Numbers which, even if they were accurate, are not necessarily irrelevant. If an elderly person is less likely than (for example) a 20 year old to use a firearm in a violent situation, then an increase in the number of elderly gun owners is less of a concern.

..I'm simply wondering if this is a cause for concern, especially in light of the association between dementia and murder/suicide.

Still waiting for statistics backing up the "association between (senior) dementia and murder/suicide".

Edited January 25, 2011 by segnosaur

[eyeball]

I see... you think the evidence will be apparent? You probably think the proportion is small? Those are not the words of a person who actually, you know, has evidence.

Yes I do think this will become more apparent and I certainly think I have enough to begin discussing it. The association between mental illness and gun violence is patently clearer with each and every incidence of mentally incompetent people taking up firearms.

Here's a little hint... if there really was a real risk, you would not need to "wait for the evidence"... we already have millions of gun owners in North America, and millions of elderly people. All you would have to do is look at the respective rates of gun crimes among elderly and non-elderly people to determine what the future risk will be. The fact that you have not done so suggests that either you are a very poor researcher, or the data (and therefor the risks) do not exist.

Evidence? The knowledge that mental incompetency and guns are often a lethal mix doesn't mean anything to you at all?

Still waiting for statistics backing up the "association between (senior) dementia and murder/suicide".

So is the Alzheimer's Society, thankfully it's on their radar too.

Edited January 25, 2011 by eyeball

[segnosaur]

I see... you think the evidence will be apparent? You probably think the proportion is small? Those are not the words of a person who actually, you know, has evidence.

Yes I do think this will become more apparent and I certainly think I have enough to begin discussing it. The association between mental illness and gun violence is patently clearer with each and every incidence of mentally incompetent people taking up firearms.

Ok, lets see...

First of all, you have at no point actually offered any useful statistics at all showing the risk. None. Nada. zip. Zilch. And with millions of gun owners and millions of elderly people, if there were a significant risk the data should be available now, without "waiting for the evidence".

Secondly, you pointed to "each and every incidence"... Umm... you know you know pointing to individual cases is basically relying on anecdotes, don't you? And as I've said before, the plural of anecdotes is not 'data'.

Now, since you seem to be incapable of actually discussing real statistics, let me do the honors:

- According to the CDC, guns are used in approximately 50-80% of adult suicides, depending on the age group. In the case of men, the suicide rate rate peaks in their 70s, and in women in their 60s, and then decrease as the average age increases

- Most cases of alzheimer's don't manifest themselves until the person is in their 80s. Other causes of senile dementia don't show up until about the same time (statistics suggest an age range of 71-77 years.).

So, if diseases like Alzheimer's are making people "dangerous", then why isn't the portion of firearms-related suicide increasing as more people loose their mental faculties? Instead, the incidents decreases. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Suicides_by_firearm_1999-2005.png and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alzheimer%27s_disease)

Here's something else to consider:

- For people in their mid-teens to early 40s, the percentage of people killed through accidental discharge of firearms is over 1% (compared to all other causes). For people in their mid-70s and above (you know, when they're most likely to get affected by diseases such as Alzheimer's) the percentage drops to less than 0.2%.

Oh, and I should add... the number of people killed by Alzheimer's in the 85 year+ age range is 41 times higher than those killed by firearms. (See: http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html; note that this is not a mainstream source, but the data comes from government statistics.)

And just in case you're thinking "Well, its just because older people have fewer guns", that might not be the case... In the 2004 firearms survey, 27% of all seniors owned firearms; This was actually higher than the percentage of 25-44 year olds who owned a firearm. So more seniors owned firearms, but were causing fewer accidental deaths with those guns. (See: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/1/15/T1.expansion.html)

Granted, I don't yet have statistics on crime used against others, but so far it looks like a firearm may actually be less likely to result in death than middle age or younger adults.

[Saipan]

Yes I do think this will become more apparent and I certainly think I have enough to begin discussing it. The association between mental illness and gun violence is patently clearer with each and every incidence of mentally incompetent people taking up firearms.

So where's the Stat to support that OPINION?

[Saipan]

CPL. MARTIN GAUDET

In dangerous situations, city police preferred to rely on their own information rather than call the registry office in Miramichi. Cpl. Martin Gaudet said officers responding to a potentially dangerous situation always assume there's a firearm involved. "We don't check with the registry during a gun-related incident," he said.

SOURCE: Fredericton Daily Gleaner, "N.B. gun owners hope registry will be closed", Page A1, May 17, 2006

[Saipan]

LEN GRINNELL, RETIRED RCMP STAFF-SARGEANT

As you have already responded to the position of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) in this regard, I offer my wholehearted agreement. As a retired member of the RCMP, who supervised police officers in Canada's largest Detachments, I have grave concerns about the reliance on the registry for data which could result in death or injury of a police officer. Accepting the premise that criminals will not register guns, one has to wonder how that would affect approaching a residence or premises that had been checked with the registry and found "no firearms present"?

In the case of a "hit" that indicates the residence in question is owned by a lawful firearms owner, what approach would the police take. My experience has told me that the greatest hazard to police officers is complacence and I found it prudent to continually remind my staff of that fact. Relying on a flawed system for officer safety will eventually lead to a tragedy. It is unfortunate that the CACP did not take the time to consider the consequences of their position and the safety of the men and women they represent.

SOURCE: E-Mail to Garry Breitkreuz, MP dated February 1, 2006

[eyeball]

Ok, lets see...

First of all, you have at no point actually offered any useful statistics at all showing the risk. None. Nada. zip. Zilch. And with millions of gun owners and millions of elderly people, if there were a significant risk the data should be available now, without "waiting for the evidence".

I admit I've mostly offered opinions, however knowing the demand for stats, cites and sources etc around here I've tried to reinforce these with opinions of people who have studied it. I guess you didn't notice or care that even the experts admit there isn't a lot of data or stats available and yet their radars are tuned as if they expect there to be.

Secondly, you pointed to "each and every incidence"... Umm... you know you know pointing to individual cases is basically relying on anecdotes, don't you? And as I've said before, the plural of anecdotes is not 'data'.

You're saying in any and every case in which an anecdote is offered as a source for an opinion you'll cry foul?

Now, since you seem to be incapable of actually discussing real statistics, let me do the honors:

- According to the CDC, guns are used in approximately 50-80% of adult suicides, depending on the age group. In the case of men, the suicide rate rate peaks in their 70s, and in women in their 60s, and then decrease as the average age increases

- Most cases of alzheimer's don't manifest themselves until the person is in their 80s. Other causes of senile dementia don't show up until about the same time (statistics suggest an age range of 71-77 years.).

So, if diseases like Alzheimer's are making people "dangerous", then why isn't the portion of firearms-related suicide increasing as more people loose their mental faculties? Instead, the incidents decreases.

Perhaps these elderly cohorts you've mentioned to date are benefiting from having enough family members tuned into their conditions that they've been able to intervene and prevent them. Our population is growing older however and with fewer younger family members in the future to fill the role of conservator the situation you've cited could change.

Here's something else to consider:

- For people in their mid-teens to early 40s, the percentage of people killed through accidental discharge of firearms is over 1% (compared to all other causes). For people in their mid-70s and above (you know, when they're most likely to get affected by diseases such as Alzheimer's) the percentage drops to less than 0.2%.

Oh, and I should add... the number of people killed by Alzheimer's in the 85 year+ age range is 41 times higher than those killed by firearms. (See: http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html; note that this is not a mainstream source, but the data comes from government statistics.)

You might recall that when I first introduced the issue of dementia into this thread I based it on expert medical predictions that Canada could expect a million new cases of dementia in the next 20 years or so.

And just in case you're thinking "Well, its just because older people have fewer guns", that might not be the case... In the 2004 firearms survey, 27% of all seniors owned firearms; This was actually higher than the percentage of 25-44 year olds who owned a firearm. So more seniors owned firearms, but were causing fewer accidental deaths with those guns. (See: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/1/15/T1.expansion.html)

Granted, I don't yet have statistics on crime used against others, but so far it looks like a firearm may actually be less likely to result in death than middle age or younger adults.

That's funny I cited the same firearms survey to bolster my opinion that the high numbers of elderly gun owners, given the coming tsunami of dementia might cause a wee bit of concern but I guess not.

In any case and if it's any consolation I might actually be swayed to reconsider my aversion to guns by arguments that having a gun might be a prudent idea in case the government goes nuts.

[Saipan]

Our population is growing older however and with fewer younger family members in the future to fill the role of conservator the situation you've cited could change.

It does. It's the young black guys most often the shooters. And that's the bare fact.

You might recall that when I first introduced the issue of dementia into this thread I based it on expert medical predictions that Canada could expect a million new cases of dementia in the next 20 years or so.

WHAT exactly it has to do with registration?

[segnosaur]

I admit I've mostly offered opinions...

Ummm, mostly? How about changing that to only offered opinions.

...however knowing the demand for stats, cites and sources etc around here I've tried to reinforce these with opinions of people who have studied it. I guess you didn't notice or care that even the experts admit there isn't a lot of data or stats available and yet their radars are tuned as if they expect there to be.

Well, first of all, relying on 'experts' is not always a valid way to enforce your point, given the fact that many of those 'experts' may have the same 'Guns are bad' bias that you do.

Secondly, I find it rather strange that the experts admit "there isn't a lot of data". Heck, I managed to find references to information showing fewer accidental shootings among the elderly and a decrease in firearm suicides among the elderly in the age category when senile dementia is most prevalent, and that required only a few minutes of searching on google. You'd figure those who are 'expert' would be able to come up with their own data, especially if its a facet of their job.

You're saying in any and every case in which an anecdote is offered as a source for an opinion you'll cry foul?

Depends on the context.

If your method of debate is to say "Look at this particular case... see how tragic it is" as a basis for overriding the desires of a significant portion of the population, then yes, yes I will.

The fact is, there will always be tragic incidents. Shooting deaths will always occur. Children will drown in backyard pools. Innocent people will get killed by drunk drivers. Yet pointing to a single shooting death and saying "We need to remove guns from private individuals hands" is no more valid than saying "We must ban private ownership of cars because a nun got run over by a car on her way to care for orphans".

You made a very specific claim... an increase in the elderly population will lead to more gun deaths. Such a claim can only be proved by examining statistics. Individual stories in that context mean absolutely nothing.

Now, since you seem to be incapable of actually discussing real statistics, let me do the honors:

- According to the CDC, guns are used in approximately 50-80% of adult suicides, depending on the age group. In the case of men, the suicide rate rate peaks in their 70s, and in women in their 60s, and then decrease as the average age increases

- Most cases of alzheimer's don't manifest themselves until the person is in their 80s. Other causes of senile dementia don't show up until about the same time (statistics suggest an age range of 71-77 years.).

So, if diseases like Alzheimer's are making people "dangerous", then why isn't the portion of firearms-related suicide increasing as more people loose their mental faculties? Instead, the incidents decreases.

Perhaps these elderly cohorts you've mentioned to date are benefiting from having enough family members tuned into their conditions that they've been able to intervene and prevent them. Our population is growing older however and with fewer younger family members in the future to fill the role of conservator the situation you've cited could change.

I see... more opinions I assume.

So your argument is that "Well, you need at least 3 or 4 kids to stop adults from killing themselves and that 1 or 2 won't do".

Of course, it ignores the fact that there is a higher incidence of firearm ownership among seniors. If the lower firearm accident rate is due to the kids getting involved, why aren't there fewer seniors with guns rather than more?

You might recall that when I first introduced the issue of dementia into this thread I based it on expert medical predictions that Canada could expect a million new cases of dementia in the next 20 years or so.

Again, irrelevant unless you have proof that those elderly people actually pose a greater risk to themselves or society.

And just in case you're thinking "Well, its just because older people have fewer guns", that might not be the case... In the 2004 firearms survey, 27% of all seniors owned firearms; This was actually higher than the percentage of 25-44 year olds who owned a firearm. So more seniors owned firearms, but were causing fewer accidental deaths with those guns.

That's funny I cited the same firearms survey to bolster my opinion that the high numbers of elderly gun owners, given the coming tsunami of dementia might cause a wee bit of concern but I guess not.

The difference is, you took those numbers out of context and used them to support a conclusion with no real supporting evidence.

I, on the other hand, used those numbers and compared them to, you know, actual risks (such as accidental deaths from fire arms) in order to determine actual real risks.

In any case and if it's any consolation I might actually be swayed to reconsider my aversion to guns by arguments that having a gun might be a prudent idea in case the government goes nuts.

While the whole "we need guns to prevent government oppression" is not a reason I normally give for supporting firearm rights.

What I do believe is that firearms, cars, swimming pools, knives, and a host of other items make the lives of a large number of citizens more enjoyable, even though all of them contain an inherent risk. Any attempt to reduce the risk will ultimately reduce the enjoyment that many get from those items.

If you are so concerned about "saving lives", then where is your call for greater control over private automobile usage? (After all, we don't need people to have their own cars... they can take buses or taxis.) And where is your call for the elimination of private swimming pools? After all, if people really want to swim they can go to the local community pool.

[Oleg Bach]

Oleg, I guess if you people insist on forever making this an issue of the left versus the right I might as well arm myself to the teeth too. Given the polarized tone of the times I really do have to conclude the greatest threat to my well being comes from those on the right.

Probably because of your misperceptions about those on the left.

What a freakin' world stupid we live in eh?

Now to be totally honest - I really don't believe in the left and right polarization of humanity...society in general...or in politics. Once I sat in a pretrial and was representing a relative...speaking to the judge who seemed very amused by my perception of the courts...I was pissed of that we had to participate in some dated "advesarial" system...Wtf? I thought...we should be hear to make peace and resolution..not wage polite war for sport.

[Saipan]

DENIS COTE, PRESIDENT OF THE QUEBEC MUNICIPAL POLICE FEDERATION

A female police officer, gunned down with a weapon powerful enough to kill an elephant while answering a noise complaint, had previously helped arrest her alleged killer for harassing another policewoman. FranAois Pepin was charged yesterday with first-degree murder in the death of Const. Valerie Gignac and possessing a firearm.

Pepin was also charged with breaking a 1999 probation condition by having a gun outside hunting season. Laval police, reeling from Wednesday's death of their colleague, were blunt in their assessment that the justice system let them down. "How come if you have a ban, you're not allowed to possess a firearm for 10 years, how come you can allow it for the hunting season?" asked Denis Cote, president of the Quebec municipal police federation. "If you're a threat for everybody, make sure you're a threat for all 12 months in a year."

SOURCE: New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal, "Officer killed with rifle that could fell an elephant" Page A5, December 16, 2005

[Saipan]

AL KOENIG, PRESIDENT OF THE CALGARY POLICE ASSOCIATION

But the move may not have the desired effect of cutting down crime because criminals will still be armed, said Al Koenig, president of the Calgary Police Association, the union representing about 1,500 local police officers. "Banning handguns simply doesn't work. You want minimum sentencing for possession of handguns or using them in the commission of an offence." "That is a very simple solution to a very complex problem," Mr. Koenig said. "The ironic thing is after spending $2-billion-plus trying to register them, the best the government can come up with is to outright ban them -- it doesn't solve the problem," he said.

SOURCE: National Post: "Liberals to ban handguns" Page A1/Front December 8, 2005

[eyeball]

Ummm, mostly? How about changing that to only offered opinions.

No, I've at least provided some opinions of experts who have provided facts and stats. I also contacted the Canadian Alzheimer's Society.

Hello and thank you for being in contact with the Alzheimer Society of Canada. Supporting individuals with dementia to live as safely as possible with dementia is a focus of our work and we have a number of initiatives underway. Safety around guns and other weapons is not something that has figured prominently in our work here in Canada; however, I do know that this is an issue on the radar of our colleagues at the Alzheimer Association in the United States. They have woven some information into their materials to assist staff who do home visits in making the safest choices when in a home where firearms are kept. I am afraid I do not know much more than this.

However, in Canada we continue to emphasize the importance of remembering that dementia is an illness which ultimately affects every aspect of an individual's ability to function. This ofcourse includes being able to make sound judgements in a consistent manner about what is in their best interests and others. The ability to make informed choices, manage risk, understand the consequences of one's behaviour are all elements of decision making and action which need regular assessment. We encourage individuals and families to have these conversations as early in the disease process as possible. To this end, we are developing a comprehensive slate of materials and interventions for both our own staff as well as for the public that highlight aspects of living as safely with dementia as possible.

As to research around guns and the safety of people with dementia and those around them, I am afraid we have not done work in this area. I therefore would suggest that you search the journals for articles and research that may have been done in this area. Depending on where you live, your local Alzheimer Society may be able to suggest some for your start. If you are living in Canada, you are welcome to visit our website at http://www.alzheimer.ca/english/offices/intro.htm to find your provincial Society. They in turn would connect you with the office closest to your community.

I am sorry that I do not have any further information to share with you.

All the best,

Mary Schulz

Mary E. Schulz

Director, Information, Support Services and Education

Alzheimer Society of Canada

1600-20 Eglinton Ave. West

Toronto, ON M4R 1K8

Direct line: 416-847-2956

1-800-616-8816; ext. 2956

You made a very specific claim... an increase in the elderly population will lead to more gun deaths. Such a claim can only be proved by examining statistics. Individual stories in that context mean absolutely nothing.

Actually I said an increase in the number of people with dementia would. The fact the U.S. Alzheimer's Society is also showing some concern leaves me feeling confident my opinion has a sound basis. As they've said though and as you've discovered there really isn't a lot of data on this so opinions are perfectly legitimate here.

I see... more opinions I assume.

So your argument is that "Well, you need at least 3 or 4 kids to stop adults from killing themselves and that 1 or 2 won't do".

Of course, it ignores the fact that there is a higher incidence of firearm ownership among seniors. If the lower firearm accident rate is due to the kids getting involved, why aren't there fewer seniors with guns rather than more?

Excuse me but, it underscores the fact there is a higher incidence of firearm ownership among seniors. My argument or more accurately, my sense, is that in the future more older people are likely to be on their own than now or in the past. Families are more spread out and on the move across the country. Between this and there being fewer kids around it seems logical to assume that, as I said, there will be more seniors on their own in the future. I just have to look at my own family and circle of friends to see this happening already.

Again, irrelevant unless you have proof that those elderly people actually pose a greater risk to themselves or society.

Then I guess you must think the U.S. Alzheimer's Society is out to lunch for starting to think about this issue.

While the whole "we need guns to prevent government oppression" is not a reason I normally give for supporting firearm rights.

What I do believe is that firearms, cars, swimming pools, knives, and a host of other items make the lives of a large number of citizens more enjoyable, even though all of them contain an inherent risk. Any attempt to reduce the risk will ultimately reduce the enjoyment that many get from those items.

If you are so concerned about "saving lives", then where is your call for greater control over private automobile usage? (After all, we don't need people to have their own cars... they can take buses or taxis.) And where is your call for the elimination of private swimming pools? After all, if people really want to swim they can go to the local community pool.

Like I've said before guns are completely different, you just cannot go postal with a swimming pool. Considering just how much serious input you expect from people in this debate trying to compare swimming pools to guns kind of blows your cover.

[Saipan]

No, I've at least provided some opinions of experts who have provided facts and stats. I also contacted the Canadian Alzheimer's Society.

There are NO such stats. Not even ONE (1) case of Alzheimer patient and firearm problem. Total fabrication.

But you can find LOT of problems of Jamaicans and firearms.

Actually I said an increase in the number of people with dementia would.

Would?

That's in the same categoruy as How Much Wood Would Woodchuck Chuch If Woodchuck Could Chuck Wood.

Like I've said before guns are completely different, you just cannot go postal with a swimming pool.

So why are hundreds times more killed by cars?

And why far more homicide don't involve any guns?

Do you plan to disarm police and military?

Register kitchen knives?

[segnosaur]

No, I've at least provided some opinions of experts who have provided facts and stats. I also contacted the Canadian Alzheimer's Society.

Ummm... "opinion of experts" is still just an opinion.

And lets take a look at what your "expert" said, shall we?

Letter from Alzheimer Society of Canada...

...As to research around guns and the safety of people with dementia and those around them, I am afraid we have not done work in this area.

So even the experts that you've contacted said they haven't done much to look into this issue.

As for the 'facts and stats' you've provided... as I have said before, they are totally irrelevant. It is of no benefit to point to an increase in the number of elderly people unless you can also show those people are causing a greater per person risk. They are not..

Actually I said an increase in the number of people with dementia would. The fact the U.S. Alzheimer's Society is also showing some concern leaves me feeling confident my opinion has a sound basis.

No, what makes you feel confident is maintaining a bias, and finding irrelevant information and taking it out of context.

As they've said though and as you've discovered there really isn't a lot of data on this so opinions are perfectly legitimate here.

First of all, I found data. And the data suggests there is no problem.

Secondly, even if there was a problem (despite the fact that the data points to there being none), you should see evidence of problems now. We've had an aging population for a while.

Why don't you just admit it... you are no better than those who claim "The world is going to end in 2012"?

Excuse me but, it underscores the fact there is a higher incidence of firearm ownership among seniors.

Once again, get this through your skull... The fact that there are more guns among seniors is not a problem if those people are less likely to use those guns violently than younger people.

Got it?

Do you need me to explain what I mean by the term 'less likely'?

My argument or more accurately, my sense, is that in the future more older people are likely to be on their own than now or in the past.

Your 'sense'?

What, do you think that no old people live on their own now?

And as I pointed out before, even if there were more older people living on their own, the proportion of death via firearm decreases as the person ages. This is actual real data. Available now. I provided the references myself. No need to wait for some mythical future data that may or may not come.

Then I guess you must think the U.S. Alzheimer's Society is out to lunch for starting to think about this issue.

If they've given so much thought to the issue, where is their data?

Like I've said before guns are completely different, you just cannot go postal with a swimming pool.

Yet people can die through accidental deaths in swimming pools. Cars can be the cause of deaths too, either accidentally or through malicious intent. If you truly want to save lives, you need to consider these things. (Or do you really think kids who drown in swimming pools, or the nun who gets run over by a drunk driver on the way to help the orphans, is somehow less dead than someone who gets shot.)

The only reason you want to consider them differently is because you don't have the ability to justify why one (guns) must be banned/controlled, but the others (pools/cars) have risks that are somehow acceptable.

Edited January 28, 2011 by segnosaur

[yarg]

I completely understand the desire of people to reduce unnecessary deaths. What doesn't make sense is a fixation with what is statistically an unlikely way to be killed, so is it that some really want to help society or is it simply a disguise for social engineering? Why is it that the same people who are anti gun aren't lobbying the government to ban alcohol? More people are killed in this country as a result of drinking than are killed with firearms, additionally i would be willing to bet there are more multiple death car accidents as a result of drinking than there are multiple homicides from a single use of a firearm. So where is the outrage? Then again prohibition doesn't work, and judging from the increasing rate of handgun homicides neither does a registry, no doubt a ban of those weapons would convince those who didn't register and those bent on murder to turn those guns in. Honestly, the anti gun argument is so tired, you don't like guns, you are afraid of guns, you think hunting is cruel, you think men who like to shoot/hunt are neanderthals or compensating for small penises etc etc etc, who cares, its your right to think silly thoughts, but really, if you want to argue something about guns beyond the emo standards at least try to be rational.

There are and have been for years many seniors who own firearms, and statistically speaking, the haven't been on a rampage, if we were to look at say, immigrant, poc, in our larger cities, who are responsible for a large portion of the handgun crime you would no doubt blame those senior gun owners (mostly white) for treating them badly and forcing them to a life of crime. The leftist charade this country has been suffering through is so played.

[eyeball]

Ummm... "opinion of experts" is still just an opinion.

And lets take a look at what your "expert" said, shall we?

So even the experts that you've contacted said they haven't done much to look into this issue.

And yet, it's on their radar nonetheless.

Safety around guns and other weapons is not something that has figured prominently in our work here in Canada; however, I do know that this is an issue on the radar of our colleagues at the Alzheimer Association in the United States.

Baffling how a non-expert like me could pick out the same blip amongst all the clutter isn't it? Broken clock syndrome perhaps? I get that a lot.

As for the 'facts and stats' you've provided... as I have said before, they are totally irrelevant. It is of no benefit to point to an increase in the number of elderly people unless you can also show those people are causing a greater per person risk. They are not.

Except, and as I said before, I was pointing to numbers of cases of dementia and guns.

Once again, get this through your skull... The fact that there are more guns among seniors is not a problem if those people are less likely to use those guns violently than younger people.

Got it?

Look bozo, young people are far less likely to get dementia than seniors.

Kapeesh?

Your 'sense'?

What, do you think that no old people live on their own now?

And as I pointed out before, even if there were more older people living on their own, the proportion of death via firearm decreases as the person ages. This is actual real data. Available now. I provided the references myself. No need to wait for some mythical future data that may or may not come.

No, apparently the future has arrived.

It is not surprising that research on older homicide offenders is limited, as most homicides are committed by perpetrators younger than 35 years.1 However, the number of older people convicted of crimes has increased over the past decade in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom.2–4 Identifying factors associated with older homicide offenders seems warranted, particularly in view of the continuing expansion of the elderly population in both number and longevity. The importance of clarifying features characteristic of older offenders is heightened by recent U.S. reports that indicate an increase in rates of homicides followed by suicides of older perpetrators.

Most of the homicides (25/27; 93%) took place in the victims’ homes. One offense occurred in a public location, and one took place in another location.

Methods of killing (n cases) were firearm (7), strangulation (8), stabbing (4), blunt instrument (3), hanging (1), carbon monoxide poisoning (1), asphyxiation (1), other (1), and unknown (1).

Domestic Homicide and Homicide-Suicide: The Older Offender

The homicide was frequently followed by the suicide of the perpetrator. Several victims had pre-existing medical illnesses, indicating that the offenses may have been committed by individuals who were caregivers to chronically ill spouses.

With one million cases of dementia coming at us, what chronic illness do you suppose future data will show ranks up near the top of the list associated with homicide suicide? Given the data available now that says we will likely face severe health-care shortfalls in the future not to mention the data available on our present dismal situation with mental health care, I predict the numbers of seniors who reach their wit's ends could easily reach several tens of thousands or more. How many seniors own how many guns again?

I think I'll pass this on to my friends at the Alzheimer's Society.

If they've (Alzheimer's Society) given so much thought to the issue, where is their data?

They have woven some information into their materials to assist staff who do home visits in making the safest choices when in a home where firearms are kept.

Yet people can die through accidental deaths in swimming pools. Cars can be the cause of deaths too, either accidentally or through malicious intent. If you truly want to save lives, you need to consider these things. (Or do you really think kids who drown in swimming pools, or the nun who gets run over by a drunk driver on the way to help the orphans, is somehow less dead than someone who gets shot.)

I have considered them, and I still think guns are in an entirely different class.

The only reason you want to consider them differently is because you don't have the ability to justify why one (guns) must be banned/controlled, but the others (pools/cars) have risks that are somehow acceptable.

Yes, because you can't go postal anywhere near as easily or painlessly with these as you can with a gun.

Edited January 29, 2011 by eyeball

[eyeball]

I completely understand the desire of people to reduce unnecessary deaths. What doesn't make sense is a fixation with what is statistically an unlikely way to be killed, so is it that some really want to help society or is it simply a disguise for social engineering? Why is it that the same people who are anti gun aren't lobbying the government to ban alcohol?

What about the thinly disguised moral engineering of those anti gun-registry advocates who are bound and determined to keep a pointlessly stupid war on drugs going full bore? Prohibition is, bar none, the biggest source of the type of gun violence that's giving the worst gun-nuts all their chest pains and diarrhea and yet they want to crack down harder and get tougher than ever.

...The leftist charade this country has been suffering through is so played.

I admit my initial interest in gun controls was a charade. It was piqued by the fact it was a right-wing button that seemed to just cry out to be pushed. The more I push it though, like so many others, the more I conclude that just about any prescription the right has for society is the wrong one, above all else their moral one's.

Edited January 29, 2011 by eyeball

[Saipan]

What about the thinly disguised moral engineering of those anti gun-registry advocates who are bound and determined to keep a pointlessly stupid war on drugs going full bore?

What about them?

Like saying, what about the hoplophobes who eat pork thus straining our almost banrupt health care. Try to focus.

Sometimes people who eat shit do support our Useless Long Gun registration.

[Saipan]

A facts liberal spinners would like to avoid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[segnosaur]

Ummm... "opinion of experts" is still just an opinion.

And lets take a look at what your "expert" said, shall we?

So even the experts that you've contacted said they haven't done much to look into this issue.

And yet, it's on their radar nonetheless.

You keep chanting "on their radar" over and over like a brained-damaged parrot without ever, you know, justifying it or explaining its significance.

Here's a suggestion: why don't you actually find some facts to justify your opinions? Yeah, I know... radical concept.

As for the 'facts and stats' you've provided... as I have said before, they are totally irrelevant. It is of no benefit to point to an increase in the number of elderly people unless you can also show those people are causing a greater per person risk. They are not.

Except, and as I said before, I was pointing to numbers of cases of dementia and guns.

Ummmm... do you even understand the difference between "total number of cases" and "relative number"?

The population of both Canada and the U.S. is increasing. Even if there were fewer problems per capita you might still see an increase in overall numbers. That does not mean that there's a problem.

Look bozo, young people are far less likely to get dementia than seniors.

Yet they're more likely to die in firearm fatalities on a per capita basis.

Perhaps you might actually want to look up the concept of "per capita". I suspect you might not quite understand what it means.

No, apparently the future has arrived.

The importance of clarifying features characteristic of older offenders is heightened by recent U.S. reports that indicate an increase in rates of homicides followed by suicides of older perpetrators.

Ummm... that's a pretty thin statement to basis your claims on. "increase"? Over what time period? "rates of homicide"? Are they talking per capita or overall numbers? Skimmed through the article, and couldn't find any area that addressed those issues.

What I suspect is that they're looking at an increase in total numbers, which (as I said) would increase not because there's actually a problem, but because the population itself is increasing. Of course, that's assuming that numbers are actually statistically significant... the article was looking at homicides numbering in the dozens... not exactly enough to really draw any statistical conclusions.

...I predict the numbers of seniors who reach their wit's ends could easily reach several tens of thousands or more.

I can also predict that we'll find bigfit hanging out with Elvis somewhere in B.C. But strangely enough, wild baseless claims don't exactly constitute any sort of evidence.

Once again, since you seem to ignore anything which debunks your claims... if there is a risk of increased per-capita firearms related deaths among seniors why do we not see evidence of it now. Our population has been aging demographically for decades now. (Heck, the proportion that are seniors has almost doubled between 1946 and 2006. Why aren't you seeing per-capita homicide rates skyrocket?

Yet people can die through accidental deaths in swimming pools. Cars can be the cause of deaths too, either accidentally or through malicious intent. If you truly want to save lives, you need to consider these things. (Or do you really think kids who drown in swimming pools, or the nun who gets run over by a drunk driver on the way to help the orphans, is somehow less dead than someone who gets shot.)

I have considered them, and I still think guns are in an entirely different class.

I see...

So, you are not so interested in actually saving lives as you are in instituting rules that you might agree with, and the heck if it actually helps society.

The only reason you want to consider them differently is because you don't have the ability to justify why one (guns) must be banned/controlled, but the others (pools/cars) have risks that are somehow acceptable.

Yes, because you can't go postal anywhere near as easily or painlessly with these as you can with a gun.

Yet people die needlessly from pools/cars/etc.

Nice to see you have so little empathy that you will ignore the thousands of deaths on our roadways in favor of stopping some senior who is statistically unlikely to use their firearm to kill someone from owning one.