4 dead after shootings in Saskatchewan

Canada needs more gun control. . . .

@Texas sick sarcastic attempt at humour. Unless your point was a gun was used again to kill innocent people. Canada's mass shootings are a rarity as opposed to the US. Speaking of the US, how are the armed white Mormon and other Christian extremist terrorists doing in Oregon? Are you still backing them and the other 'come and take it' hee-hawdists? Maybe you should be more concerned about problems in your own country.

And how about this from the US state of Washington:

"He told some people he'd taken the gun out because he was concerned about the possibility of mass shootings there," said Det. Robert Onishi with Renton Police. The suspect did have a legal concealed weapons permit, police said.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/Woman-critically-injured-in-Renton-theater-6776237.php

Texas: You can probably count Canada's mass shootings (and school shootings to boot) in all of the nation's history on one hand, whereas one hand wouldn't be enough for a single day in the US. So really all you're doing is pointing out why this is front page news in Canada, and big news worldwide, whereas south of the border it would be in or next to the comics in the back. And heck, there's even a pretty good chance the gun is illegal and was brought in from the US. So, probably not wise to go there, sarcastic and tasteless or not.

RIP to those lost. I can't even begin to imagine what Janvier is going through.

Just in the news recently in the US a pawn shop was robbed of 30 guns. Doesn't matter how much gun control one has, the criminal element will just take what they want. I wonder where the gunman in Canada got his weapon? Probably wasn't through "legal" methods as usual.

Canada needs more gun control. . . .

And DUI laws do not stop all DUIs, therefore we must get rid of all DUI laws. Gotcha.

You can probably count Canada's mass shootings (and school shootings to boot) in all of the nation's history on one hand, whereas one hand wouldn't be enough for a single day in the US.

@Smith - On a per capita basis Canada has a higher homicide rate at its schools than the US does, so what is your point? You really honestly think the US has over 11+ mass shooting incidents a day? Lets say it does, at that rate it would take over 200 years for it to inflict a one percent casualty rate on the USA population.

Doesn't matter how much gun control one has, the criminal element will just take what they want

If guns are readily available in a pawn shop, there can't be much gun control going on, can there?

On a per capita basis Canada has a higher homicide rate at its schools than the US does

Can you provide stats for that? Cos I've tried googling, and not come up with anything reliable.

With respect to all homicides, Canada has a count of 505 (1.4 per 100,000 of population) while the US has a count of 12,253 (3.8) (latest figures, from 2013)

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

Can you provide stats for that? Cos I've tried googling, and not come up with anything reliable.

Yes, Canada has ~7 Million students, grade school and university level combined. The USA has ~70 combined. With two of these killed at school that would be the equivalent of 20 deaths murdered in the USA at school. So already this year they are leading the USA, in fact on a per capita basis that would beat USA homicide rate of 2015 as well which had 19 murders either at or near school and university grounds during and after school hours. At the end of the day the average homicide rate at American schools is around <=0.03 per 100,000. In fact the UK and the USA basically have the same homicide rate as well. The UK averages around 2 maybe three grade school homicides a year. Claiming you have a lower school homicide rate than the USA isn't really something to get all high and mighty about because the difference is hundreds of thousandths of one percent.

With respect to all homicides, Canada has a count of 505 (1.4 per 100,000 of population) while the US has a count of 12,253 (3.8) (latest figures, from 2013)

So in other words it is a two thousandths four hundredths of one percent difference in gun homicide rates.....Not exactly impressive.

Canada has has a handful of mass shootings in the past few decades. America has has more than one each day this year. Anyone who is trying to use this shooting as an argument that gun control doesn't work is just showing themselves to not be intelligent enough to accurately read into statistics.

So in other words it is a two thousandths four hundredths of one percent difference in gun homicide rates

Or over two and a half times as many.

So already this year they are leading the USA, in fact on a per capita basis that would beat USA homicide rate of 2015 as well which had 19 murders either at or near school and university grounds during and after school hours

Canada is unlikely to have another school shooting this year, or for several years to come, for that matter. Wiki lists only 6 school shootings in total for Canada, from 1975 to the present, with 30 fatalities.

The US on the other hand, has a list of 105 school shootings with 101 fatalities just since 2010 (life is too short to spend counting the number of shootings from 1975).

If you look at the number of dead per incident then yes Canada takes the cup, and if there were any likelihood of Canada going on to have as many school shooting incidents this year as America has every year, then Canada might well beat the US homicide rate. But we all know that isn't going to happen, and crowing already this year they are leading the USA when we aren't even out of January yet smacks of desperation on your part. This is another contest that the US is set to win.

@smithinjapan

And heck, there's even a pretty good chance the gun is illegal and was brought in from the US. So, probably not wise to go there, sarcastic and tasteless or not.

An illegal shotgun? In Northern Sask? I'd say the chances are almost zero that's the case. That town is overwhelmingly Dene and Metis, it's pretty rare to find a home that doesn't have a gun for hunting.

Or over two and a half times as many.

2 and half times of an incredibly small base value is not anywhere near close to being impressive. Its like bragging you increased your savings for the entire year from one penny to three pennies. In fact the values are even smaller then pennies here.

For example you are five times+ more likely to die from alcohol in the UK than you are to be murdered by a firearm in the USA, you are over 2 times more likely to die from Alcohol in the USA than you are to die from a firearm(suicide,accidents,homicide). Would you say oh my god Alcohol is so dangerous that you are going to stop drinking or change your drinking habits or would you say the base value is so small that the difference is just pathetically trivial.

Canada is unlikely to have another school shooting this year, or for several years to come, for that matter.

So? On a per capita basis they will most likely have a higher school homicide rate for this year when compared to the USA. Canada for basically the past 8 years has about 1 homicide on school grounds or near school grounds at any hour by any weapon type. When I'm saying homicide rates I'm talking all weapon types as well for the USA. UK grade school homicide rate is the same as the USA on a per capita basis each year.

But we all know that isn't going to happen, and crowing already this year they are leading the USA when we aren't even out of January yet smacks of desperation on your part.

No it doesn't smack of desperation, It is just merely pointing out that the USA has basically 20 or less school homicides a year or a less than 0.03 per 100,000 homicide rate each year on or near school grounds either during after school hours. You are betting on that the USA is going to have more than 20 homicides this year either on or near school grounds during and after school hours. The truth of the matter is that claiming you have a 0.01 or 0.02 per 100,000 less in terms of mortality rates at a school is just nothing to brag about.

This is another contest that the US is set to win.

For this year it is unlikely, they already have a per capita death rate for this year that is higher than last years per capita homicide rate for the USA.

Canada has has a handful of mass shootings in the past few decades. America has has more than one each day this year. Anyone who is trying to use this shooting as an argument that gun control doesn't work is just showing themselves to not be intelligent enough to accurately read into statistics.

@Stranger - Which then gets to the question of diminishing returns. You are using the 3 shot in a single incident to get that one per day and it really isn't that much higher than one per day, it is for the most part just one per day. At that rate it would take over 2,500 years to inflict a 1% casualty rate(death and wounding) on the USA population.

Also Canada has had more than a handful of mass shootings.

Apples and bananas.

Apples and Bananas are both fruit......and no it isn't comparing apples and bananas for the point that is being made: it is your position that in general when something is two or three times or however many times it is more likely to occur regardless of the base value that it is not a trivial difference, correct? I'm saying the base value matters, because large percentage gains from incredibly small base values are not impressive at all, again it is like saying you increased your savings account from one penny to three pennies, but in this case we are dealing with a base value that is hundreds of times if not even thousands of times smaller than that. Hence the comparison, of base values, If you have a base value of four thousandths of one percent versus a value of two hundredths of one percent would you say 200 hundredths of one percent was a lot or would you say the two hundredths of one percent is so low to begin with that it doesn't matter how many times more it is than the four or five thousandths of one percent?

I'm saying it doesn't matter because the base value is so low to begin with.

Someone else drinking isn't going to hurt me or my family (unless it's a drunk driver) and if i drink myself into an early grave it's my own decision, while some fool walking around with a loaded firearm is beyond the control of the individual and a homicide waiting to happen.

So what you are saying is that a 20+ per 100,000 is so low that you don't even bother to consider the risk, correct?

The CDC estimates that nearly 40% of those convicted of homicide were intoxicated at the time of murdering someone.

According to the CDC nearly half of all violent crimes are perpetrated by people who are intoxicated. This is basically true in all countries.

I'm sure the German women would disagree that people intoxicated can't hurt them.

You're going to have to back that up with a credible link if you expect anyone to believe it.

Well lets see here the average homicide rate at American grade schools is less than 0.03 per 100,000. The UK has around 10 million grade level students, which means every homicide is 0.01 per 100k In 2014 you had the teacher stabbed to death, so now you have a homicide rate of 0.01 vs a value less than 0.03 per 100,000. 2015 you had two students stabbed to death on or near school grounds, for example the Aberdeen homicide and you had a teacher stabbed to death this past summer in the UK as well on school grounds. That is a 0.02 per 100,000 homicide rate vs a less than 0.03 per 100k homicide rate and if you include the teachers death that means the UK had a grade school homicide rate of 0.03 per 100,000.

it is like saying you increased your savings account from one penny to three pennies

If my savings total one penny, then a rise to three pennies is huge. I'm suddenly three times richer. Of course if you have a whole pound (or dollar) in the bank, my savings probably appear insignificant. It's a matter of perspective.

nearly half of all violent crimes are perpetrated by people who are intoxicated.

Meaning that over half of all violent crimes are perpetrated by people who are stone cold sober. 100% of all violent crimes are perpetrated by people who breathe air. Maybe we should ban that, too.

Well lets see here the average homicide rate at American grade schools.....

I see you spouting numbers, which anyone can do. Where is the credible link to back up your numbers?

Here's a credible link showing that the number of schoolchildren in the UK (including nursery schools, state-funded primary schools, state-funded secondary schools, special schools, pupil referral units and independent schools, i.e. all schoolchildren, not just kids in grade school, which my dictionary tell me is a US term for elementary school; I'm assuming you're using it to include secondary school too); it states that there were 8.2 million kids in school in 2012, the latest date for which there are data. Which means that your figure for 'around 10 million' in grade school is way wide of the mark, and also puts a question mark against all your other numbers.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/number-of-schools-teachers-and-students-in-england/number-of-schools-teachers-and-students-in-england

If my savings total one penny, then a rise to three pennies is huge. I'm suddenly three times richer. Of course if you have a whole pound (or dollar) in the bank, my savings probably appear insignificant. It's a matter of perspective.

Great! Now tell us what you can do on a practical level with those three pennies that you couldn't do before. I'm betting nothing.

Meaning that over half of all violent crimes are perpetrated by people who are stone cold sober. 100% of all violent crimes are perpetrated by people who breathe air. Maybe we should ban that, too

Right, the number of people intoxicated is a lot less than the number of people who are stone cold sober at anyone point in time. Meaning Alcohol disproportionately is involved in crime.

So if you don't agree with a ban then that means you believe that the lives that could have been saved by banning alcohol is an acceptable cost, correct?

So we agree that banning a product or service over a mortality rate of the population that is the equivalent of two hundredths of one percent is an overreaction or in other words is a disproportionate response, correct?

Here's a credible link showing that the number of schoolchildren in the UK (including nursery schools, state-funded primary schools, state-funded secondary schools, special schools, pupil referral units and independent schools, i.e. all schoolchildren, not just kids in grade school, which my dictionary tell me is a US term for elementary school; I'm assuming you're using it to include secondary school too); it states that there were 8.2 million kids in school in 2012, the latest date for which there are data. Which means that your figure for 'around 10 million' in grade school is way wide of the mark, and also puts a question mark against all your other numbers.

Well this certainty is a first Cleo, a non UK citizen having to point out that England is not all of the UK to a UK citizen. Your figures don't include the kingdoms of Wales and Scotland; Nor does it include Northern Ireland.

But lets use your numbers, at 8.2 million kids that would mean every homicide on school grounds would only increase the per capita homicide rate, not decrease it.

You seriously doubt that a teacher was murdered last year? Or that a teacher was murdered on school grounds in 2014? You seriously doubt that a student was murdered in Aberdeen this past year in Scotland?

Well this certainty is a first Cleo, a non UK citizen having to point out that England is not all of the UK to a UK citizen.

(Blushes) Well, no it isn't; we englanders are constantly being reprimanded, rightly of course, by other Brits for thinking (unconsciously) that UK=England and England=UK. Mea culpa.

You still haven't produced a single link to back up your claims, though. Instead of picking out single years when something happened, let's look at the bigger picture; school killings in the US, Canada and UK over the last, say, 20 years. Now what happens to your averages?

You still haven't produced a single link to back up your claims, though. Instead of picking out single years when something happened, let's look at the bigger picture; school killings in the US, Canada and UK over the last, say, 20 years. Now what happens to your averages?

You haven't answered any of my questions.

I fail to see what the point is by going back 20 years, the violent crime rate that occurred in any nations 20 years ago is not relevant to the situation that exists now, wouldn't you agree?

It shows over the past 20 years the homicide rate differences are around 0.04-0.08 100,000 at most on average between the nations, which is a trivial difference. Anything suggesting other wise is just hyperbole. It shows that the averages pretty much all rise for all countries as well.

It would also show that the overall violent crime rate at American schools have decreased by more than 50%.

As for my picking out single years, well I was only picking out the most recent years which are the most relevant years as they are the ones that will give the most accurate representation of what is currently going on in terms of violence, not what occurred 20 years or 10 years ago.

But here is a link showing you from 1992 to 2010 the number of school homicides during the school day for each year:

http://curry.virginia.edu/research/projects/violence-in-schools/national-statistics