Reply #176: uh, it has to be "highest" somewhere, doesn't it? [View All]

[iverglas]

From the article you cite:

There were 45.3 violent offences involving guns for every 100,000 people in Metro Vancouver, slightly higher than Toronto at 40.4 but far above the national average of 27.5, says the report, which is based on police-reported data from 2006.

But gun violence in Vancouver was far behind that in Toronto and Montreal when population size wasn’t considered. A total of 1,993 people in Toronto were victims of a violent firearm-related crime in 2006, about one-quarter of the national total. Montreal was second with 1,291 and Vancouver was third with 455.

Essentially, what you're saying is that in a city of 1,000,000, there were 455 "violent offences involving firearms" in 2006.

Can you name a city of 1,000,000 in the US in which there were 455 violent crimes involving firearms in the 2006???

http://www.examiner.com/x-16503-LA-County-Foreign-Policy-Examiner~y2009m7d29-Guns-from-the-United-States-Fuel-Crime-in-Canada-and-Mexico

The rate of gun homicide in Canada is statistically low and falling, yet public perception is that gun crime is rising. When Toronto, a city with 2.8 million people hit 52 gun homicides in 2005, it became "the year of the gun" in spite of the fact that the city had one of the lowest murder rates on the continent for a city of its size. Rates of homicide with guns are 6.7 times higher in the US than in Canada, and the US has 5.1 times Canada's rate per 100,000 of gun robberies.

That's a quick cite of a secondary source, but I know the numbers, and those are accurate.


html fixed