The two alleged smugglers -- both senior citizens with clean previous records -- had about a half dozen firearms. Now, I totally understand why one might want to bring guns through Canada in such a manner. Canada's procedure for legally declaring firearms other than certain hunting-type long arms in incredibly onerous. It takes literally months of previous preparation, and there is no guarantee that you'll get permission at all. Even declaring a firearm at the border -- while totally legit, say, a hunting shotgun -- is risky because it may increase the risk that you'll suffer the inconvenience of having your vehicle torn apart in a search for something.
Meanwhile, Canadian gun control is a farcical failure. 72% of Canadians feel that their registry is useless, and similar majorities of front-line cops feel the same way. There are serious privacy concerns because the registry system is not secure. The $2 million system has ended up costing over a billion dollars. Non-compliance is huge -- large double digit percentages of both citizens (probably well over 50%) and Canadian law enforcement organizations have failed to register their firearms. Several provinces refuse to enforce the laws. Their own auditor general states:
The performance report focuses on activities such as issuing licences and registering firearms. The Centre does not show how these activities help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms.Pretty much the only people that the laws seem to apply to are Americans traveling across the border.
Meanwhile, the Gun Control Act of 1968 can make it difficult to ship firearms ahead. Long arms are ok -- you can ship them via USPS and send to yourself to pick them up upon arrival. Handguns are a lot harder though as they have to be shipped via contract carrier. UPS and FEDEX have restrictive corporate policies that pretty much require them to go to a FFL, and the FFL can't or won't transfer your own gun to you if you aren't in your home state. The best work around I've found is using a C&R FFL03 with FEDEX to have them ship the pistol to you just like you would with a rifle and USPS.
This is what "reasonable gun control" looks like, folks. The purpose is not to be effective at reducing crime. The purpose is to apply arbitrary and capricious law enforcement action against people who had no intent to ever commit a violent crime and to suppress lawful ownership of inanimate objects.
As a note, when I had to drive through Canada, I brought my own gas. I didn't want to spend an extra nickle in their country. It really is too bad that we gave them the ALCAN for free. Given that we built it and American dollars continue to support it, I think that Americans should have free passage on the ALCAN highway -- at least the stretch to Haines, so that you can get on the ferry free of Canada's onerous and useless import laws.
I welcome most American visitors to my country. However you sir are NOT welcome and neither is any other American who can't respect our laws or get it through your tiny American brain that Canada is a sovereign nation. We do things differently up here and we like it that way.
ReplyDeleteAs for your gas, LOL, where do you think the oil comes from to make it?
This is why I won't visit Canada. I hate arguing with polite people. ;)
ReplyDelete(Timmeehh: I promise not to tell Canadians how their country ought to be run but I personally prefer the way we do the gun thing in U. S. states like Indiana and Vermont).
Timmeeehh,
ReplyDeleteI did respect your laws. I didn't bring any firearms through. I did bring in ammunition which I declared properly in accordance with the regulations and laws. Totally valid and legal.
I do think that there should be a customs-free land route that Americans can use to access the primary northern terminus of the ferry system in Haines. Specifically, the ALCAN, which was a joint US-Canadian project. Alternatively, for goods that will be in the country less than 48 hours, it would be nice if Canada allowed sealed pouches to be used like they did in the old days, apparently.
However, you're absolutely right. It is sovereign Canadian soil. We gave the road away. Canada makes the rules. But that doesn't mean I have to help the local economy at all. And while I obey the laws, I do feel totally free to point out that your country will arresst geriatrics as "evil violent smugglers" while you let actual violent criminals roam the streets and deny women the right to carry mace -- we wouldn't want a rapist to get sprayed, now! Good show!
Is it the fault of individual Canadians that your government holds these policies? Probably not. But I don't vote in Canada, other than with my wallet. It probably isn't fair that hunting outfitters and rural storekeepers in areas that thrive on tourism get punished for Canada's absolutely ineffective policies. However, THEY can vote, and they can influence the policies of your government and try to abolish the useless long gun registry to start with.
By the way, it isn't just Canada I apply this policy to. I also minimize my travel and expenditures in US states that don't respect civil rights.
Regarding gas; if you've driven the ALCAN I think you'd realize that it is a smart idea to have at least an extra jerry can of fuel for the road. The stations are few and far between.
Note that even if the US hadn't given away the Alcan, it wouldn't have done you any good, it just joins Alaska to Northern BC. The rest of the route to the lower 48 is on Highway 97, a purely Canadian-built route south from Dawson Creek which predates the Alcan by a fair amount. Also the US didn't give the road away, the turnover to Canada of the Canadian portions 6 months after the end of WW2 was specified in the initial agreement for the highway.
ReplyDeleteLast I looked (out my window), you can board the ferry in Bellingham, WA and bypass the customs.
ReplyDeleteThe Bellingham ferry, until recently, mostly stopped at Haines, which requires travel through Canada to access the rest of Alaska. Occasionally you could get another ferry to Whittier, but those were few and far between until this summer, and upon releasing the ferry schedule were immediately booked full for the next six months.
ReplyDeleteTimmeehh: By far the worst offenders in behaving like the laws back home apply here in Florida are Canadians.
ReplyDeleteAlmost as if they don't understand that the United States is a whole different sovereign nation and that each of its states also have their own laws.
Please, climb down from your high-horse.
Timmeehh does not speak for all Canadians.
ReplyDeleteI am a Canadian living in the US and I have a fondness for both countries. I also have a profound dislike for the border laws, customs laws and border enforcement of both countries. Both countries have a guilty until proven innocent attitude at the border, and both countries make trivial matters into marathons. I've had the experience of importing a car from Canada to the USA, and I must say that because the rules are so confusing, and spread across so many agencies, most border workers cannot figure them out. They will charge you duty when none is due, and vice versa. Canadian customs officials are typically very unfriendly and will harass you if you fit a certain profile. They will detain you to search your bags if they think you may have half a bottle of wine over the limit for your stay in the USA. Don't even get me started about US airport security and the TSA, who treat foreigners like cattle.
This is a border problem, and when entering either country, it can be a difficult experience.
scf - If it makes you feel any better, the TSA treats Americans like cattle to.
ReplyDeleteActually, I take that back.
Cattle don't get molested as a matter of policy.
Just for the record I have never been to Canada. I also hate going anywhere where I am restricted from being a free man. I rarely go into my nearest city of Philadelphia for fear of their laws and ordinances.
ReplyDeleteYou can take your handguns by flying to Alaska. I pack a hard gun case and it gets examined and placed in my stowed luggage. But then you have the added expense of a rental car. But that will work!
"As a note, when I had to drive through Canada, I brought my own gas. I didn't want to spend an extra nickle in their country."
ReplyDeleteScrew you, d*ckweed! It's not like trying to get into the US with a gun is a walk in the park for us either.
In fact it's a guarantee that if you're a Canadian and declare you have a gun in your trunk, you're getting the rubber glove treatment by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
And just because you're such an ass, the next time I visit my niece in Ohio I'm going to bring my own gas, so I don't have to spend an extra nickle in your over-regulated, nanny state country.
Heh, anyway where do you think the gas you buy in the states originally comes from?
What you have to remember is that Canada is the US's attic. A lot of stuff gets put up there that no one wants or cares about. Canadians for the most part understand that and try to compensate for being refuse by acting morally superior.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't work.
Oh, that raised the intellectual level of the discussion!
ReplyDeleteIt's a furrin country. You're better off Lautenberging your guns across IL.
I actually agree that the border problem goes two ways. As I understand it, both countries simultaneously took steps to make transporting many things across the border a pain about a decade ago. The Long Gun Registry kicked in for Canada in 2001, and 9/11 happened that same year for US CBP.
ReplyDeleteStarboar -- your comments are welcome, your profanity is not, although it is telling.
If you read my most recent post, I have plenty of frustration for the American GCA 1968 as well. Both laws are stupid and pointless, although I must say that Canada's are even more arbitrary, expensive, and useless. Given that a large number of Canadian law enforcement agencies have failed to register THEIR long arms, and a large majority of Canadian civilians scoff the registry as well, I'm not the only one...
Hopefully the cross-gulf ferry service makes it moot. Even better, it'd be great for Canada to start by repealing the long gun registry. If that were gone I'd consider a hunting trip to Canada -- there are some beautiful areas up there where I'd love to spend my money. I kind of doubt that the conservatives will actually follow through with repeal though.
I'm sorry, but my country, Canada, is a sovereign nation with the right to control guns as our citizens have until now deemed fit. For my part, I note that the US has not only far higher crime rates, including fatalities involving guns, than Canada, but *proportionately* far more such crimes and fatalities. Our laws have emerged from our history and culture, and I for one am very happy with them vis-a-vis the US on this issue.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't about being anti-American; it's simply about asserting sovereignty on our own lands. As for bringing guns to Alaska, there are US ships and US planes quite capable of transporting such weapons, and there is no need to use Canadian roads to do so.
It is worth noting that America's total crime rate is 80 per 1000 people, while Canada's is "only" 75.5 per 1000 people.
ReplyDeleteYours may be lower, but calling ours "far higher" is just ignorant.
Well, I should have phrased my comment more carefully, for I was thinking of violent crimes. For example, the murder rate in the US is about 5 per 100,000; in Canada, it's only about 1.8. So "far higher" does work for me as a descriptor of violent crimes. I'd rather have my car stolen than my head blown off. ;-)
ReplyDeleteI'd rather be able to defend myself against a rapist. :)
ReplyDeleteExcept, of course, for how the majority of tragic, senseless firearm deaths in the usa are male suicides -- 50.13+% over 1981-2007.
ReplyDeleteThat data hasn't been cherried, either; that's the entire range the CDC has available online through WISQARS, over all four categories -- suicides, homicides, accidents, and legal interventions.
Which, alas, makes your comments insensitive, ignorant, chauvanistic bigotry.
I haven't checked CanStats for suicide rates up there in our national neighbor, but I strongly suspect that you yourself are more likely to commit suicide than an american -- let alone a tourist here -- is to be murdered. The 2007 comparative suicide-homicide rate here is about 1.7 to 1, IIRC, and I suspect that if anything it's even more skewed there.
As for your 'sovereign nation' bit, no. Only individuals have sovereignty. Everything else is just a polite fiction papering over gang thuggery, and thus justifies nothing.
Finally, our homicide rates are skewed by the deranged diminishment of fathering by our welfare and court system over the past 2+ years. Too many NAM mothers in particular aren't capable of training boys in the adult appropriateness of violence simply because they lack the experience necessary, with tragic results.
Did you fail to account for that in your comments because you're racially bigoted, too?
Sure, let us talk about exclusively violent crimes then... While I have little regard for the site, all of my following information came from Wikipedia, simply because I am too lazy to source it from the appropriate countries' agencies (although that site apparently pulled from Statistics Canada and the US Bureau of Justice Statistics).
ReplyDeleteIn 2006, Canada as a whole had a "crimes of violence" rate of 951 per 100,000 people.
I do not have numbers for 2006 in the US, but averaging 2005 and 2007 gives us a violent crime rate of 470.5 per 100,000 people.
Not to belabor the obvious, but 951 > 470... by over two times, in fact.
To be fair, Canada categorizes "homicide, attempted murder, assaults (level 1 to 3), sexual assault, other sexual offenses, robbery, and other crimes of violence" as "crimes of violence", while in the States, we confine ourselves to "homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and assault", so if we discard "attempted murder" (even though we probably lump that under "assault"), "other sexual offenses", and even "other crimes of violence" from the Canadian statistics, the end number comes out to be 898.4 per 100,000.
Still higher than America's.
So, no, "far higher" actually fails completely when you are referring exclusively to "violent crimes". In fact, it would be fair to say that Canada's violent crime rate is "far higher" than America's. Interestingly, looking at the pretty charts (and I do so love pretty charts), it seems as though Canada's violent crime rate has been higher than America's for the past 50 years or so, and, more recently, ours has been decreasing "far faster" than yours. Also, it is worth noting these numbers contradict the numbers presented in Nation Master (my previous source), but that could be a matter of different years or different countings.
Huh.
I will certainly grant you that America's murder rate is "far higher" than Canada's... but using that one statistic to compare the two countries laws not only seems contrived, I also have to question whether you would rather be raped than murdered. Or, rather, I have to question whether you would prefer two people raped than one person murdered... but that is one of those icky "putting value on a human life" questions that I typically avoid.
Instead, I rather focus on the importance of countries recognizing and respecting a human being's right to self-defense (which Canada, largely, does not), and point out when other people get their numbers wrong :).
Linoge, as you yourself admit, your statistics are different, and therefore require greater care when interpreting them. I will look at them more closely. But I think no unbiased person would really claim that the US has more violent crime than Canada.
ReplyDeleteI have already shown how the murder rate in the US is far higher than that in Canada. Now, let's do sexual assault. And the numbers of recorded sexual assaults from 2009 (from Wikipedia, which I'm fine with as you are) are:
Canada: 1.5 per 100,000, and
US: 28.6.
I would also like to note that in Canada, it is mostly men who support gun ownership, and mostly women who support gun control, so the comments of other commenters here reveal a US-centric view of how the genders perceive this issue.
Sorry--a typo! The third sentence should read "...would really claim that Canada has more violent crime than the US".
ReplyDelete". . .the comments of other commenters here reveal a US-centric view of how the genders perceive this issue."
ReplyDeleteWhich comments, and how?
Linoge, I'm a bit curious about your sources. I found, for example, on this Wikipedia page the following information:
ReplyDelete"Historically, the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the U.S. and this continues to be the case. For example, in 2000 the United States' rate for robberies was 65 percent higher, its rate for aggravated assault was more than double and its murder rate was triple that of Canada. However, the rate of some property crime types is lower in the U.S. than in Canada. For example, in 2006, the rates of vehicle theft were 22% higher in Canada than in the US. Since violent crimes are a smaller fraction of all crimes, the difference between the two countries is less than the homicide rate might make it seem, and the overall rates are generally close."
I interpret the closing sentence to mean "overall crime rates"--not overall violent crime rates, which would contradict the beginning of the quotation.
As the quoted paragraph indicates, the US is regarded as having a generally lower rate of some property crimes, and I also acknowledge the recent strides made south of the 49th parallel in reducing violent crimes. The rate of reduction does indeed better trends in Canada, but that is mostly because the US violent crime rates were so out of control to begin with.
Here in Canada, we generally see the US as having an abnormally-high rate of violent crime for an industrialized country. There are US-philes who would like to see gun ownership become less restrictive, but in general, I think most Canadians have been happy until now with the present gun controls.
And again, for other comenters, my pointing out with pride the significantly lower violent crime rates of Canada vis-a-vis the US is not anti-Americanism. Overall, I would *far* rather live in Canada than the US, but the US is indeed a great nation. The US dwarfs Canada in terms of customer service, the quality and prices of online retailers, the research and development done by the government and by private companies, and in the amount of foreign aid given to other countries. It also seems to be easier to gain wealth in the US. But I still prefer my social safety net, the sense of moderation in politics, and the gentler culture we have here in Canada.
And again, which comments, and how?
ReplyDeletePlus now, why are you evading those questions?
If an "unbiased person" actually claims that the US has a higher violent crime rate than Canada, then they are speaking contrary to the facts on the matter, and is, through their own actions, far from "unbiased".
ReplyDelete1. Canada's violent crime rate is documented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada
Scroll down to "Crime statistics by province and territory", and then just a bit farther to the chart below and the "Crimes of violence" row, then follow that line over to the "Canada" column, where you will clearly see 951 crimes per 100,000 people.
2. America's violent crime rate is documented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
Scroll down to "1990s Decline", then a bit farther to the chart below and find the "Violent Crime Rate" row, and follow that line across to 2005 and 2007 (as I said, I had to average those two years). As you can see, the numbers are 469 and 472 per 100,000.
3. Since Wikipedia seems to be an insufficient source for you (except when it is convenient for it to be a sufficient source), the original data for Canada is available here: http://tinyurl.com/3jd4fhe (the page may take a moment to load, since Statistics Canada does not seem to keep historical data), while the original data for America is available here: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html. As you can see, my "averaging the two years" was actually wrong, and the violent crime rate in America was 480 that year, but the violent cime rate in Canada remains 951.2.
4. I attempted to control for the differences in each country's accounting of crimes, and if you have a problem with that attempt, it would do you well to point out exactly where you disagree, rather than discarding the entire thing out of hand. Honestly, I simply cannot see how you are going to explain away a violent crime rate that is damned near twice as large as America's.
5. Again, I am simply not interested in comparing individual crime rates against individual crime rates... that obfuscates the larger picture, minimalizes the salutory affect that firearms can have on society, and places greater value on some human lives than other human lives, none of which I have the slightest desire to do. I simply am not willing to trade one crime for two more other crimes. I am solely interested in whether or not a country respects and preserves a human being's right to self-defense and self-preservation, and Canada does not... apparently, to its detriment.
6. If you have specific data to present that contradicts both Statistics Canada and the US DOJ, please present it. But, hoenstly, right now it looks like you are frantically scrambling, trying to deny the facts from a purely emotional perspective, and I hardly have the patience for that.
I still fail to understand how the regulations that Canada imposed on me made anybody any safer. I was in the country less than 12 hours driving directly from one border crossing to the next. The odds of my vehicle being chosen for a random search -- while probably higher as I declared both ammo and booze -- were still low. If I had been intent on mayhem in Haines Junction I really, really doubt that the rules would have stopped me. The geriatric tourists mentioned in my original post were caught, but for every person who is caught I would wager that there are many more who are not. Of course, there are all ready hundreds of thousands of unregistered Canadian firearms washing around your country in the hands of actual Canadians (including many of your law enforcement departments, who are either above the law or also ignore the law) so I can't see how it makes much difference if the unregistered guns are in the hands of Canucks or Americans.
ReplyDeleteHeck, it would be easy to comply with the law and still cause mayhem. For example, an individual could have legally declared and registered, say, a 12 gauge pump shotgun and a "sniper rifle" (i.e., my 308 hunting bolt action rifle) at the border and then go on a rampage. Obviously such an act would be criminal and evil but the point is that the laws you have wouldn't stop someone from doing it.
Maybe your gun control laws make you feel safer. Good for you. They also inconvenience Alaskans who are trying to access the ferry system for no good reason.
The better solution is for both countries to find a way to solve the border quandry. There is no reason for Canadians to treat Americans crossing a sliver of your country like potential felons. Likewise, there is no reason for US CBP to treat Canadians like probable drug mules or terrorists. The firearms issue is one highly visible (to me) subset of a broader problem about how crossing the border is more of a pain than it should be.
Linoge, as you admitted, your stats were measuring different things, and they hinge on the meaning of the word "violent," a word that is interpreted legally in different ways.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, your murder rate is more than double Canada's. Your rape rate is greater than ours by a factor of many, many times. These are both 2009 statistics. I cited Wikipedia entries for these because they are sourced. I did not mean to say that you could not cite sourced Wikipedia entries yourself; I just found your interpretation of the statistics very interesting.
The 2009 rape and murder statistics for our two countries are stats that you can't dismiss--and they are recent. It would me highly unlikely that other violent statistics would not fit this pattern, and beyond one or two commenters here, I have never before seen anyone try to argue that the US has a lower violent crime rate than Canada--it just won't wash.
And yet again, which comments, and how?
ReplyDeletePlus again, why are you still evading those questions?
I personally find direct comparisons of violent crime rates to be less than persuasive. First, it is devilishly hard to prove any cause and effect in such data. You may be able to extract a correlation, but correlation does not prove causation.
ReplyDeleteNext, if you look at a broad spectrum of industrialized "liberal" countries there is really no correlation between the prevalence of firearms and the murder rate (http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2011/02/11/guns-and-murder-internationally/).
There are a ton of confounding factors that make it hard to draw causative conclusions from the aggregate data. Even once you get past measuring the differences in the data due to the way they're calculated, how do you control for important variables such as the demographics of the two populations (homogeneity, education, income, age, urban vs. rural, etc), the effects of myriad other social and political policies, and so on?
I am not suggesting that comparing between the two countries is impossible. I merely think it is important that we be aware of the significant challenges in trying to do any sort of reasonable statistical comparison, and the even more extensive challenge of conducting any sort of analysis to prove causation.
In any event, the broad spectrum of opinions observed here and elsewhere is interesting. I think I'll be writing a more extensive post on gun free zones in general in the near future that addresses some of these issues.
Thanks for keeping it (largely) civil. Again, on this specific issue, I think there is blame on both sides of the border for border transit issues, and both countries have stupid gun laws (although Canada's are far more draconian, difficult, and dangerous -- at least for the "good guys").
Cheers,
Chris