Gun control and violence in CanadaThe issue of gun control and violence, both in Canada and the United States, is a question that just won't go away. If history is to be any guide, whatever the outcome of the gun control debate, it's likely that the arguments for and against will be much the same as they always have been. In 1977, the Canadian Parliament first passed legislation regulating long guns, restructuring the availability of firearms and increasing various penalties. Canadian firearms law is primarily federal, and “thus national in scope, while the bulk of firearms regulation in the United States is at the state level; attempts to introduce stricter legislation at the federal level are often rejected.” The importance of this issue lies in the fact that not all North Americans necessarily support strict gun control as a feasible alternative to controlling urban violence. Opponents of gun control worry that the professional criminal who wants a gun can get one and leaves the average law-abiding citizen powerless to defend himself against the perils of urban life. Is it our right to bear arms as North Americans? Or is it a privilege? And what are the benefits of having strong gun control laws? Through the analysis of writings and reports from academics and experts on gun control and urban violence, it will be possible to examine the issues and theories of the social impact of this problem.Part II: Literature Review A) Summary In an article that examined gun control and gun violence in North America, Robert J. Mundt, of the University of North Carolina, points out that “ crime in America is generally seen [in Canada] as something to be expected in a society that has less respect for the rule of law than Canadian society...". In 1977, the Canadian government took the initiative of legislate for stricter gun control Among the provisions legislated by the Canadian government was a "firearms acquisition certificate" for the purchase of any firearm and strengthened "registration requirements." handguns and other restricted weapons…”. The goal of the 1977 law was to reduce the availability of firearms, based on the assumption that there is a "positive relationship between availability and use." In Robert J. Mundt's study, compared to that of the United States, trends in Canada over the past ten years regarding various types of violent crimes, suicides and accidental deaths show no dramatic results. and little suggestion of discernible effects of the 1977 Canadian policy.” gun control legislation". The only positive effect, according to Mundt, found in the study was the decrease in the use of firearms in robberies compared to trends in the United States. In Canada, as In the United States, knowledgeable law enforcement officials believe that "restricting access to firearms is more likely to impact violent incidents that would not have occurred if a weapon had been used." been within reach” (152) In an article by Gary A. Mauser of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, he places particular emphasis on the attitudes of Canadians and Americans toward guns. According to Mauser, a large majority of the general public in both countries "supports gun control legislation while at the same time they have the right."right to own firearms” (Mauser 1990: 573). Despite the similarities, there are apparent differences between the general audiences of the two countries. As Mauser points out, "Canadians are more respectful of authority and do not support the use of handguns for self-defense to the same extent as Americans." As Mauser points out: "It has been argued that cultural differences explain why Canada has more controlling legislation than that of the United States" (575). Surprisingly, national surveys conducted in Canada and the United States "show a similarity remarkable in public attitudes toward guns and gun control” (586). Canada and the United States were originally English colonies, and both have historically had role models. In addition, Canadians are exposed to American television (entertainment and news programming) and Canadians and Americans read many of the same books and magazines. As a result, the Canadian public has adopted "a. part of American culture." In an article by Catherine F. Sproule and Deborah J. Kennett of Trent University, they examined the use of firearms in homicides in Canada between 1972 and 1982. Their results support strongly concludes that gun control is beneficial. According to Sproule and Kennett, gun control “may encourage some suspects to kill by other methods. but it is less likely that these suspects will kill multiple victims. » According to the study by Sproule and Kennett, the rate of violent crime was five times higher in the United States than in Canada, and "nearly double the rate of gun use in the United States." United than in Canada. homicides” (32-33). In short, the use of firearms “in homicides in Canada has declined since gun control legislative changes in 1977.” As mentioned in the lectures, Canadian cities have traditionally been safer and less vulnerable to "crime waves" than our American neighbors due to our extensive policing and gun control laws. One factor to consider, however, is our national heritage or culture which has traditions of passivity and peace in contrast to the heritage of the American frontier. In our Why Nothing Works textbook, Marvin Harris points out that "the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizens the right to bear arms, which has made it easier for American criminals to obtain firearms than their counterparts in countries like Japan." ..” . Marvin Harris states that "the high homicide rate in the United States undoubtedly reflects, to some extent, the estimated 50 million handguns and rifles legally and illegally owned by the American people" (122 ). As shown in the film Cops, Guns and Drugs, the problem with controlling urban violence in the United States is that it is disproportionate to the available police force. In his book The Saturday Night Special, Robert Sherrill explains the cheap, usually illegal, and easily concealed handgun that plays a role in so many crimes in the United States. It reviews the role of guns in American life, from the shootings of the Wild West to today's street violence. According to Sherrill, “most murders take place in rundown neighborhoods; of the 690 murders committed in Detroit in 1971, for example, 575 occurred in black slums, primarily with handguns.” As a Detroit sociologist added to this alarming figure: “Living every day of your life in a frustrating and stress-producing environment like the United States leaves many people walking in tinderboxes” (38).Consistent with this assertion, Sherrill suggests that the hardest-hit U.S. urban centers are the interurban areas of Los Angeles, New York, Detroit, and Washington. These cities are largely made up of visible minorities who are frustrated with the hand dealt to them and who simply resort to “drugs, guns and violence” as a way of life. As discussed in the lecture and seen in the film: Cops, Guns and Drugs, many underclass youth who become involved in this lifestyle "are considered old if they live past the age of 20." In another article by Catherine F. Sproule and Deborah J. Kennett, they compared the incidence of murder committed with handguns, non-handgun firearms, and no-shoot methods across the United States and Canada for the years 1977 to 1983. In their study, they found that "In Canada, there were 443 handgun murders per 100,000 people, compared to 4,108 in the United States during the period 1977 -1983". They also noted that "handgun murder rates in the United States are higher than the total homicide rate in Canada" (249). According to Sproule and Kennett, "Canada's favorable murder situation relative to the United States is largely the result of Canadian gun control, and Canadians must be vigilant against any erosion of our gun control provisions." gun control” (250). B) Comparison: The works cited above are based on research by experts and academics in the field of gun control and violence. Examining the above documents helps identify similarities and differences found in the various sources cited, such as the arguments for and against gun control policy in North America. Obviously, opponents of strict gun control will have similar arguments. First, they generally defend each other against their opponents on the issue, and they consider the advantages to be far greater than the setbacks. The introduction of the 1977 legislation by the Canadian government strongly suggests that the country will benefit from a safer society and a reduction in crime. According to Robert J. Mundt, one of the benefits of this legislation has been "a trend away from the use of firearms in robbery, noticeable since the adoption of the gun control provisions of Bill C-51, 1977 (Criminal Law Amendment Act). )". Mauser mentions that Canadians "are more supportive than Americans of stricter controls on handguns... Additionally, Canadians appear less supportive than Americans of the idea of ​​homeowners using handguns. firearms for self-defense” (Mauser: 587) This assessment by Mauser suggests that Canadians have confidence in gun control and in law enforcement to control their safety and well-being. can also be cited in the works of Harris and Sherrill which discuss the effects of "gun rights" in the United States. According to Marvin Harris in Why Nothing Works, "there has been a steady increase." in the availability of guns since 1945, which could explain much of the increase in the homicide rate" in the United States. Harris also suggests that America has "developed a permanent and unique racial underclass. ” which provides the conditions conducive and conducive to violent criminal behavior (123). In Sherrill's book, The Saturday Night Special, a major area of ​​concern is the status structure of the street gang in which "success in turf defense brings.