While it is true that mass shootings are less frequent in Canada, its folly to think that more gun control will eliminate this kind of thing.
---------------------------
(CNN)Four people were killed and an alleged shooter was arrested Friday after gunfire erupted at a school in a small town in northern Saskatchewan, Chief Superintendent Maureen Levy of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police said Friday night.
Levy said authorities received a call about 1 p.m. Friday saying a weapon had been discharged at La Loche Community School in La Loche. Officers went to the school and at 1:47 p.m. arrested a suspect and seized his weapon.
Earlier reports said five people had been killed and two wounded.
Police were investigating at two sites, the school and a residence in the town, Levy said. The injured were taken to University Hospital in Saskatoon, she said.
Levy revealed few details and wouldn't give the names of the suspect or victims, whether the shooter and victims were students and what kind of weapon was used, saying the integrity of the investigation had to be protected.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau earlier addressed the nation, saying, "Obviously this is every parent's worst nightmare" and calling it "a terrible, tragic day."
'Run, bro, run!'
The Star Phoenix newspaper quoted a student who said he was returning from lunch when shots were fired at the school. He said friends ran past him urging him to get out.
"Run, bro, run!" Noel Desjarlais-Thomas, 16, said his friends told him as they fled. "There's a shotgun! There's a shotgun! They were just yelling to me. And then I was hearing those shots, too, so of course I started running."
School coordinator Norma Janvier told the Star Phoenix she was in her office when she heard shots.
"I didn't know what was going on," she said. "I thought the kids were just playing around or something, like a locker slamming and stuff."
She said another teacher stopped her from leaving the office so she waited until someone said it was safe.
"All I heard was cops running around in the school," she said.
This isn't about "thought police", this is about being respectful towards murdered people and not IMMEDIATELY turning this into a political topic from the get-go.
Yeah. Obviously gun control will not eliminate shootings. As long as weapons are available someway or another, there is always going to be people with access to them who can decide to use them.
But I do not think that it is a coincidence that school shootings are so very much rarer in Canada or Europe than in the US.
lets see america has a school shooting weekly and has no gun control worth mentioning.
Canada has 1 every 5 years on average and has much more strict gun laws.
conclusion, gun laws don't work?
And unlike in america they caught the suspect and he's still alive.
The town’s acting mayor, Kevin Janvier, told The Associated Press his daughter Marie, a teacher, was shot dead by the gunman. The assailant first shot two of his own siblings, police told Janvier, before laying siege on the school.
“He shot two of his brothers at his home and made his way to the school,” he said. “I’m just so sad.”
the shooter then tweeted.
“Just killed 2 people,” wrote the young male. “Bout to shoot ip the school.”
“Why?” asked a friend. “Why?”
he shoots his two brothers, then heads to the school, even canada has some seriously unstable people.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah. Obviously gun control will not eliminate shootings. As long as weapons are available someway or another, there is always going to be people with access to them who can decide to use them.
But I do not think that it is a coincidence that school shootings are so very much rarer in Canada or Europe than in the US.
This. Also, it looks like the community is mostly First Nations, meaning that there are a gakton more issues than the average part of Canada.
I am not even going to post my usual points in what is likely going to turn into a locked gun debate thread.
I am interested in what the common mental thread is in these people who kill children. Were they bullied themselves as kids, chemical imbalance, just an ass hole, or some combination?
Relapse wrote: I am not even going to post my usual points in what is likely going to turn into a locked gun debate thread.
I am interested in what the common mental thread is in these people who kill children. Were they bullied themselves as kids, chemical imbalance, just an ass hole, or some combination?
Don't blame me for the thread title.
But on to the other points...one of the posters suggested that it was Canada gun control policies which is responsible for the reduced number of incidents. I can partially buy that, in that usually any kind of prohibition will reduce usage and access, and therefore less incidents. But was there a larger incident of Canadian shootings, before they introduced massive gun bans which we can truly point to and say...yeah...we had this many mass shootings before, and now we have less than before.
What does the data say ?
Its entirely possible that Canada has always had less of a mass shooting issue, and one thing didn't necessarily influence the other.(significantly)
However, I think it's a Post hoc ergo propter hoc problem....
I wonder if it's something else, that contributes to the problem in America.. Do Canadians get more mental health access....or are they less stressed out ?
I am interested in what the common mental thread is in these people who kill children. Were they bullied themselves as kids, chemical imbalance, just an ass hole, or some combination?
Same as it ever was. It's easy and makes the biggest impact for shock value. Kill an adult male, get a little response; kill an adult woman, more response; kill children, the biggest response.
Ancient tribes threw babies on to spears. This type of terror is nothing new, and I'm loathe to connect it to the more common child abusers (pedos, molesters, serial child killers etc.) as I don't think it's connected. It's a pissed off (commonly substance abusing) male that wants to punish those around him and shock the world. Kids are really easy to accomplish that goal with.
I wonder if it's something else, that contributes to the problem in America.. Do Canadians get more mental health access....or are they less stressed out ?
GG
No, I don't think they do. But they do have very limited access to handguns. America has very accessible handguns, and they are by far the most common weapon used in these scenarios.
And that is why the gun control debate fails, because most legislatures have attacked rifles, which are almost never used, your obvious political bias notwithstanding. But hey, at least you didn't say an American would have shot the perp, that's a start in the right direction.
Relapse wrote: I am not even going to post my usual points in what is likely going to turn into a locked gun debate thread.
I am interested in what the common mental thread is in these people who kill children. Were they bullied themselves as kids, chemical imbalance, just an ass hole, or some combination?
Don't blame me for the thread title.
But on to the other points...one of the posters suggested that it was Canada gun control policies which is responsible for the reduced number of incidents. I can partially buy that, in that usually any kind of prohibition will reduce usage and access, and therefore less incidents. But was there a larger incident of Canadian shootings, before they introduced massive gun bans which we can truly point to and say...yeah...we had this many mass shootings before, and now we have less than before.
What does the data say ?
Its entirely possible that Canada has always had less of a mass shooting issue, and one thing didn't necessarily influence the other.(significantly)
However, I think it's a Post hoc ergo propter hoc problem....
I wonder if it's something else, that contributes to the problem in America.. Do Canadians get more mental health access....or are they less stressed out ?
GG
Don't blame you for the thread title?! So you're not responsible for what your fingers type?! Wow. I need this super power like right now.
On topic, tragic for any loss of life. And the fact that it's children who didn't even get to really experience life. :(
I wonder if it's something else, that contributes to the problem in America.. Do Canadians get more mental health access....or are they less stressed out ?
GG
No, I don't think they do. But they do have very limited access to handguns. America has very accessible handguns, and they are by far the most common weapon used in these scenarios.
And that is why the gun control debate fails, because most legislatures have attacked rifles, which are almost never used, your obvious political bias notwithstanding. But hey, at least you didn't say an American would have shot the perp, that's a start in the right direction.
It's not so much that we have any kind of limited access to hand guns or other types of fire arms up here, rather, the amount of government red tape & licencing hoops you have to jump through just to legally purchase them.
It's expensive, time consuming, and at times seems ass backwards.
From what a number of my friends who are gun owners have mentioned to me, legal gun ownership up here is just a giant headache. Some of 'em have just let their permits run out and gotten rid of certain firearms because it's way more hassle than it's worth for them to legally keep them.
I really do wish the mental health access was better in the usa. I think it would help significantly. Hopefully we can agree on that. Someone with mental problems would kill with whatever they have. A gun is just sort of a modifier. I mean if somebody makes an improvised bomb that's illegal but it still happened.
flamingkillamajig wrote: I really do wish the mental health access was better in the usa. I think it would help significantly. Hopefully we can agree on that. Someone with mental problems would kill with whatever they have. A gun is just sort of a modifier. I mean if somebody makes an improvised bomb that's illegal but it still happened.
It isn't really an issue with mental health access, it's an issue with people actively seeking help for mental health issues.
There is a HUGE stigma associated with someone seeking serious mental health treatment on a regular basis.
flamingkillamajig wrote: I really do wish the mental health access was better in the usa. I think it would help significantly. Hopefully we can agree on that. Someone with mental problems would kill with whatever they have. A gun is just sort of a modifier. I mean if somebody makes an improvised bomb that's illegal but it still happened.
I seriously doubt that Canadian access to mental healthcare is any better than in the US. Our system is equally lagging behind and is currently incapable of copping with the number of potential patients who are need of those types of services.
Perhaps General Grog is right about stress levels. I feel like the usa is incredibly stressed out. Then again places in asia should be much worse (china or japan). Japan has gun control in effect to my knowledge though.
flamingkillamajig wrote: I really do wish the mental health access was better in the usa. I think it would help significantly. Hopefully we can agree on that. Someone with mental problems would kill with whatever they have. A gun is just sort of a modifier. I mean if somebody makes an improvised bomb that's illegal but it still happened.
I seriously doubt that Canadian access to mental healthcare is any better than in the US. Our system is equally lagging behind and is currently incapable of copping with the number of potential patients who are need of those types of services.
And we barley have a system at all. A lot of our seriously mentally ill end up on the streets or in jail.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flamingkillamajig wrote: Perhaps General Grog is right about stress levels. I feel like the usa is incredibly stressed out. Then again places in asia should be much worse (china or japan). Japan has gun control in effect to my knowledge though.
Japanese gun control is pretty strict IIRC (I think you are allowed to have guns stored at a shooting range ad that's it or somthing).
Japan does have very high stress levels, and is 17th for suicide rates.
I am interested in what the common mental thread is in these people who kill children. Were they bullied themselves as kids, chemical imbalance, just an ass hole, or some combination?
Same as it ever was. It's easy and makes the biggest impact for shock value. Kill an adult male, get a little response; kill an adult woman, more response; kill children, the biggest response.
Ancient tribes threw babies on to spears. This type of terror is nothing new, and I'm loathe to connect it to the more common child abusers (pedos, molesters, serial child killers etc.) as I don't think it's connected. It's a pissed off (commonly substance abusing) male that wants to punish those around him and shock the world. Kids are really easy to accomplish that goal with.
It is more than just being pissed off though. There is lots of pissed off people, but the vast majority wouldn't even think of killing kids. People who do that are not just pissed off, they have severe mental issues and virtually always have many signs of psychopathy as well. It would be interesting to see if someone has done research into mental disorders that school shooters and such might have in common.
I am going to hold back for the sake of not having this deleted.
Firearms aren't banned in Canada. We have non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. Certain laws allow certain individuals to possess prohibited firearms.
Suggesting that our gun control laws don't entirely stop gun violence is bs. Per this article in the Wall Street Journal...
Between 2000 and 2014, the US had 133 Mass Shootings. Canada had... 3. Our population is about 1/9 of the US, so all things being equal, we would expect 14 or 15 mass shootings. Such a shooting is 1/5 as likely as the numbers would suggest. You might also note, that of the Canadian Mass shootings, I can only think of one shooting that had more than the "minimum" 4, which was at a French College in the 80's.
Compared to dozens killed in a single rampage in the US, which is happening at a rate of approximately 9 or 10 per year. The US has 3 times as many shootings in a YEAR as we've had in the last 14.
All loss of life to violence is tragic.
Pointing at these murders and saying, "See, you guys aren't perfect, so we should do nothing!" is an indication of the callous that seems to have grown on some advocates. We might not be able to prevent all tragedies, but I have a feeling that if you suddenly had an 80% drop in gun related fatalities, those restrictions would be pretty easy to swallow.
You know what the "hoops" are that you need to jump through to get a firearm permit, in Canada? To get your "Possession and Acquisition License" you need to pass a two-day safety course, which also doubles as a hunting safety course. You have to try to fail, or act unsafely. If you try to fail, you deserve to not be given a firearm. You aren't responsible enough. If you act unsafely, you're unsafe with a firearm and the public safety is more important, so you don't get a firearm. Want to own a semi-automatic rifle? Take another day-course and you can then own those firearms. Want a prohibited weapon? Only way I'm aware of is to become a Police officer or Military personel... at which point you require them for your livelihood, and are given appropriate training to ensure you don't use them against the people you protect. [There are other legal ways as well, but they're quite rare]
That's it. That's the restriction. You have to give up a weekend, to prove you aren't a danger to yourself or others. So yeah, when our mass shooting fatalities are 1/15th, or 7% of the US per capita rate, I hope you can see how sickening it is to your Northern neighbour to see how little it would take to reduce the number and scale of tragedies. Do you need more than 5 rounds per magazine when hunting? I hope not. But if you have 20 rounds in a magazine, it's so sadly easy to go and kill a classroom full of children. There are simple, painless ways to reduce the fatalities. It may not happen in one generation, or two, but at some point things would improve substantially.
Well, your possession and acquisition license is government issued, so yes, you register through gaining the license. No additional registration is required, though you must renew your license every 5 years, and if you change your address that also needs to be updated.
Only restricted and prohibited firearms need to be registered. Non-Restricted firearms, such as most rifles and shotguns [with a magazine of 5 cartridges or less] do not need to be registered.
For the sake of putting it out there, most pistols are Restricted firearms, and can only be used for target practice and sport purposes [competitive target shooting]. You can't hunt with a pistol, to the best of my knowledge, and you can't carry a loaded firearm anywhere other than for the purpose of hunting, so there is no notion of "personal defense" associated with owning a pistol. With the exception of Law Enforcement, Military, and certain Security personel. Probably obvious.
So not all firearms need to be registered, only those whose design is deemed... overkill... for lack of a better term, in regards to hunting. Or whose purpose is specifically killing people, like pistols or "assault" weapons. [Assault being a loose term not personally defined by any particular attribute.]
Personally, I understand "small capacity" semi-automatic weapons for hunting. You might come upon a group of prey, particularly when hunting fowl. You could conceivably kill multiple game in a single event. I'm personally against the general public being able to own pistols [outside of Law, Military, and Security] and think they should all fall into the Canadian category of prohibited, but that's me. Hell, I'm for tighter firearm control in Canada, and much more for our neighbour to the South.
I agree. Why would you even want to hunt with a pistol in the first place? The only thing a pistol is good for is killing people or shooting at stuff for fun (in which case the weapon could just stay at the firing range) If there is any kind of weapon in need of restrictions, it would be pistols. There is a reason they are used in most murders and crimes involving firearms. The same goes for other weapons you don't normally use for hunting. IMO, hunting weapons should be the only unrestricted weapons you are allowed to have at home. If you want other weapons for sport or fun, you can keep those at a firing range. That would be a great solution. You get to have as much weapons and shoot as much as you want, while still greatly reducing the amount of weapons around in normal society. What problem could anyone have with that?
Witzkatz wrote: Making political points about a tragedy in the first post already, dakka is getting faster!
Dude. Give credit where credit is due. He got in the first line.
The title already. Faster is literally not possible, unless posting in a different thread a political point about a thread one is going to make in the future.
Lots of people hunt with pistols for the same reasons they hunt with bows or muzzleloaders; the challenge, or because it's their preferred firearm, or both.
There's also the reason of taking a pistol on your hunt in case you encounter hostile wildlife. If you're out in muzzleloading season hunting deer, and a bear comes along, you might appreciate a large revolver on your person.
Nostromodamus wrote: Lots of people hunt with pistols for the same reasons they hunt with bows or muzzleloaders; the challenge, or because it's their preferred firearm, or both.
Then I suppose you can add on the fun and challenge of getting the paperwork so you can own them
There's also the reason of taking a pistol on your hunt in case you encounter hostile wildlife. If you're out in muzzleloading season hunting deer, and a bear comes along, you might appreciate a large revolver on your person.
Nostromodamus wrote: Lots of people hunt with pistols for the same reasons they hunt with bows or muzzleloaders; the challenge, or because it's their preferred firearm, or both.
Then I suppose you can add on the fun and challenge of getting the paperwork so you can own them
There's also the reason of taking a pistol on your hunt in case you encounter hostile wildlife. If you're out in muzzleloading season hunting deer, and a bear comes along, you might appreciate a large revolver on your person.
Or, you know, bear mace?
Hey, if that's what someone would like to carry for handling bears, that's up to them. I'd rather have a large caliber revolver. To each their own.
Anyway I think the merits of taking a pistol on a hunt are a bit off topic, I just wanted to answer Iron Captain's question, so I'll go back to lurk mode.
Nostromodamus wrote: Lots of people hunt with pistols for the same reasons they hunt with bows or muzzleloaders; the challenge, or because it's their preferred firearm, or both.
There's also the reason of taking a pistol on your hunt in case you encounter hostile wildlife. If you're out in muzzleloading season hunting deer, and a bear comes along, you might appreciate a large revolver on your person.
Seriously? Hunting with a pistol? Hunting with bows or antique rifles I understand, but pistols? No sorry. I am afraid I just can't get that. For challenge, you should take the bear spear!
The defense against bears is an argument I can get behind, altough I would like to argue that people in other countries (even in those where bears are far more common than in the US) do not need to have revolvers for that. Such situations are extremely rare, and you probably should have noticed that bear earlier. Always maintain situational awareness! At least, that is what they told me when I went along on a hunt once.
Iron_Captain wrote: and you probably should have noticed that bear earlier. Always maintain situational awareness! At least, that is what they told me when I went along on a hunt once.
Stay out of the woods. You have no idea what you're talking about. You could be 10' away from a bear (or her cub) or other large mammal and not fething know it.
If the countries laws state people can have firearms, it's to be expected that this sort of crime will occur.
I personally have no interest in changing laws in other countries as I don't live there. This sort of crime comes in line with the availability of weapons and opportunity to commit the crime - it's up to the inhabitants to decide if they want to change the law or move country.
What I have noticed is the utter amount of venom from some people in the US when you ask a question about *why* owning guns means so much and what the point is - they assume you're some 'lefty-communist' and start posting songs stating 'feth-you' for not sharing their views and supporting their God-given right to make holes in things with over-the-top weapons - when all you ask is why is it appealing because you have no real reference or understanding of the culture.
Iron_Captain wrote: and you probably should have noticed that bear earlier. Always maintain situational awareness! At least, that is what they told me when I went along on a hunt once.
Stay out of the woods. You have no idea what you're talking about. You could be 10' away from a bear (or her cub) or other large mammal and not fething know it.
What I have noticed is the utter amount of venom from some people in the US when you ask a question about *why* owning guns means so much and what the point is - they assume you're some 'lefty-communist' and start posting songs stating 'feth-you' for not sharing their views and supporting their God-given right to make holes in things with over-the-top weapons - when all you ask is why is it appealing because you have no real reference or understanding of the culture.
Because some people are donkey-caves. Nothing you can do to change them. Just ignore them and go on with your life. It's like when I was in London and I asked a ManU fan what was wrong with Liverpool...
Iron_Captain wrote: and you probably should have noticed that bear earlier. Always maintain situational awareness! At least, that is what they told me when I went along on a hunt once.
Stay out of the woods. You have no idea what you're talking about. You could be 10' away from a bear (or her cub) or other large mammal and not fething know it.
Bears have outflank.
It would take some kind of tactical ge... YOOOOOOGGGGGIIIIIIII!
yellowfever wrote: Well at least you picked the right thread to post your opinion on
Indeed I have now, only one person was truly civil with their response and they did a great job explaining, as for the rest of you... pfft. Do nothing for stereotyping.
What I have noticed is the utter amount of venom from some people in the US when you ask a question about *why* owning guns means so much and what the point is - they assume you're some 'lefty-communist' and start posting songs stating 'feth-you' for not sharing their views and supporting their God-given right to make holes in things with over-the-top weapons - when all you ask is why is it appealing because you have no real reference or understanding of the culture.
I think because most of the time gun owners are asked this question, it's in the context of anti-gun proponents trying to make some sort of arguement as to why guns need to be banned, and we grow tired of it.
Rarely is it from someone with an open mind on the topic who is genuinely interested in the answer.
Take your post here, it uses phrases like "what the point is" and "over the top". Those kinds of triggers will indicate that, yet again, we're probably dealing with someone who sees no value in our activities and thinks our possessions are capable of more than we should have access to. Whether that is genuinely the case or not, and whether you genuinely want to learn our culture, I don't know. But the impression given is one that is in opposition to us, and that might be why you seem to generate hostile responses.
Rarely is it from someone with an open mind on the topic who is genuinely interested in the answer.
This. And not just on Gun Control. It's any controversial topic. It's rare that a person with an "Honest question" doesn't actually have strong opinions or an axe to grind.
Anyhow, stay warm folks. It's still cold out there and those sneaky Canadian Ambush Bears are everywhere!
I really wouldn't cosider bears that much of a threat if you take basic precautions. They want about as much to do with you and you want to do with them. I'd certainly not consider a need to bring a pistol with you to defend against them anywhere near valid. Moose are far more dangerous than bears, especially if you aren't an idiot about basic safety.
My perception isn't coloured by some political ideology, it's coloured by:
Hours of lying prone in icy mud while a bootneck in love with his own voice rattles off instructions followed by looking at groupings and analysis.
Spending hours in the same room firing and getting a sore shoulder, with the only variation being kneeling, laying or standing.
The constant banging noise (and associated defender discomfort).
As I said in the other thread though, this was in the Naval Reserves. So it is a question of - what's fun about it.
as for the 'over the top' comment on guns - I'm referring to the idea that many people say defence or target practice, but I don't see how owning a minigun or many of the rifles/guns designed for warfare can be considered practical for defence (unless defending against a swarm of zombies) or for target practice (unless you truly suck at hitting the target and need to go full-auto to stand a chance of hitting it with hundreds of rounds.
Collecting some of the antiques makes sense to me though, some of the old duelling pistols are gorgeous with the metal sculpting - but that's just as a show piece rather than a functioning tool
Nostromodamus wrote: If you can't understand that, even after having the reasons explained to you, that's your problem. I'm just answering your question is all.
Anyway, as I said, it's OT.
Well then, you failed to convince me. Pistols are not at all neccessary nor effective tools for hunting, and "I think hunting with pistols is fun" is not a good argument for allowing the civilian population free access to pistols. The small increase of fun a tiny group of people gets from hunting with pistols instead of other weapons does not weigh up against the easy access to easily concealed and deadly weapons for civilians. Again, it is pistols that are used in most gun-related violence.
Iron_Captain wrote: and you probably should have noticed that bear earlier. Always maintain situational awareness! At least, that is what they told me when I went along on a hunt once.
Stay out of the woods. You have no idea what you're talking about. You could be 10' away from a bear (or her cub) or other large mammal and not fething know it.
Sure, mista know-it-all. Well, as the wise Kronk knows, I am not an experienced hunter of any kind, so I can only speak from what I was taught on the survival courses and rare hunting trips I attended, which is that while of course it is possible to be surprised by a bear, if you are well aware of your surroundings and bear behaviour, look for tracks, trails, marks, poop or other things that indicate bears might be present in the area and leave no food or meat that could attract bears to you, it should be possible to avoid most bears. Again I am not an experienced hunter, so if you are, I will yield to your superior knowledge.
But regardless, carrying firearms for bear defense is a pretty poor argument. If you should stumble upon a bear with cub only 3 metres away, a revolver isn't going to do you any good anymore, I think. Even if you manage to get your revolver out in time, You will be startled, which will negatively affect your aim, and a single revolver shot is more likely to make a bear angry than it is to kill the bear in time to prevent her from killing you.
Co'tor Shas wrote:I really wouldn't cosider bears that much of a threat if you take basic precautions. They want about as much to do with you and you want to do with them. I'd certainly not consider a need to bring a pistol with you to defend against them anywhere near valid. Moose are far more dangerous than bears, especially if you aren't an idiot about basic safety.
Well I just used bears as an example of potentially hostile wildlife, and hopefully even the most basic-minded people can understand that some folks might want to carry a sidearm to defend themselves against any wildlife that may attack them while out on a hunt.
Wulfmar wrote:So it is a question of - what's fun about it.
Honing my shooting skills, appreciating construction and operation of machinery, even the smell of powder and the loud noises are all enjoyable for me. That's what I find fun about it.
Wulfmar wrote:as for the 'over the top' comment on guns - I'm referring to the idea that many people say defence or target practice, but I don't see how owning a minigun or many of the rifles/guns designed for warfare can be considered practical for defence (unless defending against a swarm of zombies) or for target practice (unless you truly suck at hitting the target and need to go full-auto to stand a chance of hitting it with hundreds of rounds.
Well not many people in the US own any guns designed for warfare or that are capable of full-auto. The only guns I own that were designed for warfare are my Lee-Enfields, my Webley, my SKS and my 1860 New Army revolver. I use none of them for self defense.
Wulfmar wrote:Collecting some of the antiques makes sense to me though, some of the old duelling pistols are gorgeous with the metal sculpting - but that's just as a show piece rather than a functioning tool
Many people consider modern firearms show pieces too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: "I think hunting with pistols is fun" is not a good argument for allowing the civilian population free access to pistols.
Well I never made that arguement. I just answered your question as to why people take pistols on hunting trips. There are far better arguements for allowing the general public access to pistols, which have been said time and time again on every gun thread in OT.
yellowfever wrote: Well at least you picked the right thread to post your opinion on
Indeed I have now, only one person was truly civil with their response and they did a great job explaining, as for the rest of you... pfft. Do nothing for stereotyping.
Imagine the gall of not wanting a productive thread to be locked because someone misunderstood it's purpose.
Wulfmar wrote: What I have noticed is the utter amount of venom from some people in the US when you ask a question about *why* owning guns means so much and what the point is - they assume you're some 'lefty-communist' and start posting songs stating 'feth-you' for not sharing their views and supporting their God-given right to make holes in things with over-the-top weapons - when all you ask is why is it appealing because you have no real reference or understanding of the culture.
yellowfever wrote: Well at least you picked the right thread to post your opinion on
Indeed I have now, only one person was truly civil with their response and they did a great job explaining, as for the rest of you... pfft. Do nothing for stereotyping.
That thread has been running for nearly 3 years now continuously, despite the very best efforts of posters routinely popping up in it every couple of weeks and starting a huge row with "why you guys need all them guns for ", which starts off a big poop fling and then warnings. If you come into a long established thread disrupting it with a chip on your shoulder, maybe you're the rude one.
What I have noticed is the utter amount of venom from some people in the US when you ask a question about *why* owning guns means so much and what the point is - they assume you're some 'lefty-communist' and start posting songs stating 'feth-you' for not sharing their views and supporting their God-given right to make holes in things with over-the-top weapons - when all you ask is why is it appealing because you have no real reference or understanding of the culture.
The same guy wrote a couple paragraphs explaining his personal reasons ( and was assuming your question genuine), before he then stated he does not feel required to justify exercising a constitutionally protected right. And that particular song is VERY appropriate when asked repeatedly to justify exercising a constitutionally protected right, as he and others have been.
Wulfmar wrote: What I have noticed is the utter amount of venom from some people in the US when you ask a question about *why* owning guns means so much and what the point is - they assume you're some 'lefty-communist' and start posting songs stating 'feth-you' for not sharing their views and supporting their God-given right to make holes in things with over-the-top weapons - when all you ask is why is it appealing because you have no real reference or understanding of the culture.
Whenever someone is continually called upon to explain, and justify, why they enjoy something doing something entirely legal that is not a burden to anyone else, and is a not a threat to anyone else, by people who often exemplify the maxim "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" I'm sure you can imagine that wears a little thin.
If you want to start an honest conversation that;s fine. But when many of these conversations start with assumptions and incorrect information to lead to the preformed conclusion that "I don't need one, therefore neither do you" then most people will give the respect that those comments deserve.
Wulfmar wrote: You guys are so touchy about your guns, twitchy even...
Remember that comment that I just made about starting an honest discussion?
This will be my last post on the topic - I had originally tried to start a discussion, but all I was met with with bile so no, I frankly can't be bothered as you can possible tell from my tone.
Wulfmar wrote: This will be my last post on the topic - I had originally tried to start a discussion, but all I was met with with bile so no, I frankly can't be bothered as you can possible tell from my tone.
And had you started a discussion without a preformed conclusion, belittling others, and generally being antagonistic then there may have been a conversation. But sadly the tone was set from the get go.
Thank you for your time. Please enjoy the rest of your day
Wulfmar wrote: ....Collecting some of the antiques makes sense to me though, some of the old duelling pistols are gorgeous with the metal sculpting - but that's just as a show piece rather than a functioning tool
"Things I think are cool are cool. Things I don't think are cool are uncool and only owned by twitchy, venomous bootnecks exercising their "God-given" rights to tell "lefty communists" to "feth off".
greatbigtree wrote: I am going to hold back for the sake of not having this deleted.
Firearms aren't banned in Canada. We have non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. Certain laws allow certain individuals to possess prohibited firearms.
Suggesting that our gun control laws don't entirely stop gun violence is bs. Per this article in the Wall Street Journal...
Between 2000 and 2014, the US had 133 Mass Shootings. Canada had... 3. Our population is about 1/9 of the US, so all things being equal, we would expect 14 or 15 mass shootings. Such a shooting is 1/5 as likely as the numbers would suggest. You might also note, that of the Canadian Mass shootings, I can only think of one shooting that had more than the "minimum" 4, which was at a French College in the 80's.
Compared to dozens killed in a single rampage in the US, which is happening at a rate of approximately 9 or 10 per year. The US has 3 times as many shootings in a YEAR as we've had in the last 14.
All loss of life to violence is tragic.
Pointing at these murders and saying, "See, you guys aren't perfect, so we should do nothing!" is an indication of the callous that seems to have grown on some advocates. We might not be able to prevent all tragedies, but I have a feeling that if you suddenly had an 80% drop in gun related fatalities, those restrictions would be pretty easy to swallow.
You know what the "hoops" are that you need to jump through to get a firearm permit, in Canada? To get your "Possession and Acquisition License" you need to pass a two-day safety course, which also doubles as a hunting safety course. You have to try to fail, or act unsafely. If you try to fail, you deserve to not be given a firearm. You aren't responsible enough. If you act unsafely, you're unsafe with a firearm and the public safety is more important, so you don't get a firearm. Want to own a semi-automatic rifle? Take another day-course and you can then own those firearms. Want a prohibited weapon? Only way I'm aware of is to become a Police officer or Military personel... at which point you require them for your livelihood, and are given appropriate training to ensure you don't use them against the people you protect. [There are other legal ways as well, but they're quite rare]
That's it. That's the restriction. You have to give up a weekend, to prove you aren't a danger to yourself or others. So yeah, when our mass shooting fatalities are 1/15th, or 7% of the US per capita rate, I hope you can see how sickening it is to your Northern neighbour to see how little it would take to reduce the number and scale of tragedies. Do you need more than 5 rounds per magazine when hunting? I hope not. But if you have 20 rounds in a magazine, it's so sadly easy to go and kill a classroom full of children. There are simple, painless ways to reduce the fatalities. It may not happen in one generation, or two, but at some point things would improve substantially.
The big thing this poster leaves out in his Canadian Gun utopia, is the fact that Canadians are required by law to store the restricted and unrestricted firearms , with trigger locks, and unloaded, and in a "lock box'.
We aren't required to store our firearms in a lockbox. We need to be able to "lock out" our firearm with a locking trigger guard, or a cable lock [cable goes through barrel and / or receiver and locks, preventing the loading of ammunition] or in a "Gun Safe". Ammunition must be stored in a separate, locked container as well. The idea being that an untrained user [child] would need to overcome several locked obstacles in order to be able to live load, much less fire, a firearm.
I have a trigger guard, lock on my gun case, and a lock on my ammunition box. 3 locks to get through, and stored well out of reach to ensure my children never - NEVER - have the ability or opportunity to get their hands on a literal death-machine. You need to store your ammunition separate from your firearms, and locked, so that you don't have an accidental discharge. What in the blue feth did you think my whole point about not needing "home defence" which involved killing PEOPLE are you not getting? Hunting good, murdering people bad.
You can't defend yourself with a firearm. You can only offend with a firearm. Notice how firearms have no shielding, or protective devices attached to them? Do your best to deflect a shotgun discharge with a pistol. Tell me how it works out, if you live through it. That's because you kill things with firearms. If you want to defend yourself, you need armour, or shields. Locks on your doors, bullet proof glass, a moat. [ ] You know, defences?
If you want to protect yourself, invest in defences. Not offences. Are you going to stop an intruder that gets into your house, into your bedroom, and disables you before you can grab your gun? Probably not. Is there a much higher chance that instead, someone will either accidentally or intentionally kill a family member with it?
Survey says?!? *points to board* You're nearly 3 times more likely to kill yourself or a family member, than an intruder with your gun. I don't think that includes other people in your home intentionally or accidentally killing a family member with it. Home defence that kills more people from your home than intruders is a pretty poor excuse.
So, yes, my Canadian gun Utopia manages to make mass shootings so rare that they're heartfelt tragedies instead of "statistically insignificant" numbers of deaths. My Canadian gun Utopia allows hunters to hunt safely and with minimal risk to the public safety. It ensures that weapons of war are kept on the battlefield, not in neighbourhoods. We make it so that interpersonal squabbles might lead to a punch or two, instead of a bullet or two. We may not be perfect, but we aren't killing each other so often that we're numb to it, either.
greatbigtree wrote: We aren't required to store our firearms in a lockbox. We need to be able to "lock out" our firearm with a locking trigger guard, or a cable lock [cable goes through barrel and / or receiver and locks, preventing the loading of ammunition] or in a "Gun Safe". Ammunition must be stored in a separate, locked container as well. The idea being that an untrained user [child] would need to overcome several locked obstacles in order to be able to live load, much less fire, a firearm.
I have a trigger guard, lock on my gun case, and a lock on my ammunition box. 3 locks to get through, and stored well out of reach to ensure my children never - NEVER - have the ability or opportunity to get their hands on a literal death-machine. You need to store your ammunition separate from your firearms, and locked, so that you don't have an accidental discharge. What in the blue feth did you think my whole point about not needing "home defence" which involved killing PEOPLE are you not getting? Hunting good, murdering people bad.
You can't defend yourself with a firearm. You can only offend with a firearm. Notice how firearms have no shielding, or protective devices attached to them? Do your best to deflect a shotgun discharge with a pistol. Tell me how it works out, if you live through it. That's because you kill things with firearms. If you want to defend yourself, you need armour, or shields. Locks on your doors, bullet proof glass, a moat. [ ] You know, defences?
If you want to protect yourself, invest in defences. Not offences. Are you going to stop an intruder that gets into your house, into your bedroom, and disables you before you can grab your gun? Probably not. Is there a much higher chance that instead, someone will either accidentally or intentionally kill a family member with it?
Survey says?!? *points to board* You're nearly 3 times more likely to kill yourself or a family member, than an intruder with your gun. I don't think that includes other people in your home intentionally or accidentally killing a family member with it. Home defence that kills more people from your home than intruders is a pretty poor excuse.
So, yes, my Canadian gun Utopia manages to make mass shootings so rare that they're heartfelt tragedies instead of "statistically insignificant" numbers of deaths. My Canadian gun Utopia allows hunters to hunt safely and with minimal risk to the public safety. It ensures that weapons of war are kept on the battlefield, not in neighbourhoods. We make it so that interpersonal squabbles might lead to a punch or two, instead of a bullet or two. We may not be perfect, but we aren't killing each other so often that we're numb to it, either.
Sorry, your post was just missing the finishing touch. It started playing in my head while reading the last paragraph
On a more serious note, the US has no proper rules for gun storage? That is really shocking. Looks like one more item to add to the list of things to be done in order to further reduce those rather shocking violence statistics.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah. Obviously gun control will not eliminate shootings. As long as weapons are available someway or another, there is always going to be people with access to them who can decide to use them.
But I do not think that it is a coincidence that school shootings are so very much rarer in Canada or Europe than in the US.
I'd guess it's less to do with the fact that we have guns, and rather our culture itself. IIRC don't the Swiss have an absolutely ridiculous number of guns per capita, but have a drastically lower crime rate than the 'States?
It's not so much the issue that people have a lot of guns, but that crazy people have guns. Which is quite the problem in the US because of our awful treatment of mental illness.
Iron_Captain wrote: and you probably should have noticed that bear earlier. Always maintain situational awareness! At least, that is what they told me when I went along on a hunt once.
Stay out of the woods. You have no idea what you're talking about. You could be 10' away from a bear (or her cub) or other large mammal and not fething know it.
This right here. I was fishing on a lake and had a bear walk right up within 15' of me making hardly a sound. When I looked over my shoulder at it, the critter did a somersault and ran into the bushes with no more sound than a whisper.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah. Obviously gun control will not eliminate shootings. As long as weapons are available someway or another, there is always going to be people with access to them who can decide to use them.
But I do not think that it is a coincidence that school shootings are so very much rarer in Canada or Europe than in the US.
I'd guess it's less to do with the fact that we have guns, and rather our culture itself. IIRC don't the Swiss have an absolutely ridiculous number of guns per capita, but have a drastically lower crime rate than the 'States?
It's not so much the issue that people have a lot of guns, but that crazy people have guns. Which is quite the problem in the US because of our awful treatment of mental illness.
so along with background checks, anyone wanting to buy a gun should also get a psyc eval and see a shrink for at least a year prior to being allowed to get a gun
I'm sure that would have kept the bundy militia from ever being allowed to get one.
and speaking of bears, my uncle and my dad hunted for a bear when I was a kid. they brought a pistol along just in case it wasn't dead when they got to it.
Mandatory safety training prior to getting a gun licence would so a lot to reduce gun accidents, but it would be unconstitutional.
Switzerland has a high rate of gun ownership because of their citizen militia army, but naturally the troops have proper training and also the ammo is stored separately.
Sorry, your post was just missing the finishing touch. It started playing in my head while reading the last paragraph
So long as you stand and sing proudly, no harm done.
I do think we do it almost right. If I someday manage to make it into politics, I can push to see it tightened further. When the restrictions are that you need to take a safety course and then, you know, be safe about things afterwards, that's just personal responsibility being enforced around firearms. If you can't evince the proper responsibility, due to whatever factors, we deny you access to firearms.
We make you prove safety competence instead of assuming it. That's the major difference, I think. That and the laws regarding safe storage of firearms. And not allowing people to carry them around, loaded, just for the shiggles of things. We let people hunt animals, and do our best to prevent the killing of people. Seems like a reasonable trade. Canada has a lot of wilderness area, with supplies being flown in at great cost. By comparison, you can hunt a Deer, say, for an initial investment in a rifle and some ammunition, for the same price as a quarter of Beef. [The cost in those areas, that is. Expensive to fly it in.] After the initial investment, ammunition is chump change to compare. I believe that hunting is still an important means of providing for your family in remote areas.
For the rest of us, it's doomsday preparation, I guess. I like knowing that I could provide, if somehow things came to that. And I like the taste.
But unlike similar situations that have occurred in the US, where the coverage quickly turns to conversations about gun control and extreme ideologies, the response here was markedly different. There seems to be an acknowledgment that there are larger systemic issues at play.
Those working on the ground say the underlying reason for the two outbursts, and an overarching problem with violence in indigenous communities, is poverty. They're not surprised by what happened in La Loche. And judging by the relatively muted reaction coming from the public, Canadians aren't either.
...
Members of the community are comprised of residential school survivors, many of whom experienced physical, sexual, and verbal abuse at the hands of the government. Suicide rates in the general area are three times the province's average—43.4 deaths per 100,000 people compared to 12.7 deaths per 100,000 people, respectively—according to the Keewatin Yatthe Regional Health Authority .
It seems Canadians are smart enough not to blame the tool used, but instead to look at root causes.
It seems Canadians are smart enough not to blame the tool used, but instead to look at root causes.
Oh please. Canadians are able to "look at root causes" because they don't have people immediately leaping to score political points(on either side of the gun control debate) and a very vocal lobby that tries to pretend like these kinds of things could be stopped by a good guy with a gun or strictly mental health programs. They also don't have anywhere near the same number of mass shootings despite, as Canadian posters have shown in this thread, guns being fairly widespread.
To pretend these situations are comparable or Canadians are somehow "doing it better" is delusional.
It seems Canadians are smart enough not to blame the tool used, but instead to look at root causes.
Oh please. Canadians are able to "look at root causes" because they don't have people immediately leaping to score political points(on either side of the gun control debate) and a very vocal lobby that tries to pretend like these kinds of things could be stopped by a good guy with a gun or strictly mental health programs. They also don't have anywhere near the same number of mass shootings despite, as Canadian posters have shown in this thread, guns being fairly widespread.
To pretend these situations are comparable or Canadians are somehow "doing it better" is delusional.
So in other words, Canadians are smart enough to look at the root cause, and not go all political and blame the tool (or defend the tool if it makes you feel better).
I didn't compare the situation, nor am I saying they are 'doing it better'. I'm merely attempting to point out, that according to the article, they are looking at poverty and other issues as the cause of violent acts like this. To me, that is smart.
It seems Canadians are smart enough not to blame the tool used, but instead to look at root causes.
Oh please. Canadians are able to "look at root causes" because they don't have people immediately leaping to score political points(on either side of the gun control debate) and a very vocal lobby that tries to pretend like these kinds of things could be stopped by a good guy with a gun or strictly mental health programs. They also don't have anywhere near the same number of mass shootings despite, as Canadian posters have shown in this thread, guns being fairly widespread.
To pretend these situations are comparable or Canadians are somehow "doing it better" is delusional.
So in other words, Canadians are smart enough to look at the root cause, and not go all political and blame the tool (or defend the tool if it makes you feel better).
I didn't compare the situation, nor am I saying they are 'doing it better'.
Your post of "It seems Canadians are smart enough not to blame the tool used, but instead to look at root causes." coupled with selective quoting of an article begs to differ.
Additionally, while tools are used by people to commit actions--tools are designed for people to use them to commit actions.
I'm merely attempting to point out, that according to the article, they are looking at poverty and other issues as the cause of violent acts like this. To me, that is smart.
But that's the rub now isn't it?
They are looking at the other causes in this instance because the other causes are things that are known to them. The article you linked to had another article linked within it that talked about the high youth suicide rates coupled with depression, substance abuse, and poverty in La Loche.
Right now there is not an exceeding amount of evidence that the shooter was doing anything beyond targeting people who bullied him for his ears. What this shooting did do however was bring a spotlight onto a community that is usually shrugged off whenever concerns are raised about things like high suicide rates among their youths.
And putting it rather bluntly? Whenever people bring up those other topics when we're talking about shootings here in the US, it gets drowned out by the back and forth about gun control.
greatbigtree wrote: We aren't required to store our firearms in a lockbox. We need to be able to "lock out" our firearm with a locking trigger guard, or a cable lock [cable goes through barrel and / or receiver and locks, preventing the loading of ammunition] or in a "Gun Safe". Ammunition must be stored in a separate, locked container as well. The idea being that an untrained user [child] would need to overcome several locked obstacles in order to be able to live load, much less fire, a firearm.
I have a trigger guard, lock on my gun case, and a lock on my ammunition box. 3 locks to get through, and stored well out of reach to ensure my children never - NEVER - have the ability or opportunity to get their hands on a literal death-machine. You need to store your ammunition separate from your firearms, and locked, so that you don't have an accidental discharge. What in the blue feth did you think my whole point about not needing "home defence" which involved killing PEOPLE are you not getting? Hunting good, murdering people bad.
You can't defend yourself with a firearm. You can only offend with a firearm. Notice how firearms have no shielding, or protective devices attached to them? Do your best to deflect a shotgun discharge with a pistol. Tell me how it works out, if you live through it. That's because you kill things with firearms. If you want to defend yourself, you need armour, or shields. Locks on your doors, bullet proof glass, a moat. [ ] You know, defences?
If you want to protect yourself, invest in defences. Not offences. Are you going to stop an intruder that gets into your house, into your bedroom, and disables you before you can grab your gun? Probably not. Is there a much higher chance that instead, someone will either accidentally or intentionally kill a family member with it?
Survey says?!? *points to board* You're nearly 3 times more likely to kill yourself or a family member, than an intruder with your gun. I don't think that includes other people in your home intentionally or accidentally killing a family member with it. Home defence that kills more people from your home than intruders is a pretty poor excuse.
So, yes, my Canadian gun Utopia manages to make mass shootings so rare that they're heartfelt tragedies instead of "statistically insignificant" numbers of deaths. My Canadian gun Utopia allows hunters to hunt safely and with minimal risk to the public safety. It ensures that weapons of war are kept on the battlefield, not in neighbourhoods. We make it so that interpersonal squabbles might lead to a punch or two, instead of a bullet or two. We may not be perfect, but we aren't killing each other so often that we're numb to it, either.
So yeah I was 1/2 right. Canadian unrestricted guns don't require both. It's either. However restricted does require both trigger locks and be locked in a vault or locked room. Both are required by law to be kept unloaded in Canada.
I'm still not buying the argument that Canada's laws have made them safer than the USA. I would argue that they already were safer, before the stricter gun laws. It's a cultural thing that we need to address as a society not through legislation. In my opinion.
Also I wouldn't be carrying s hand gun for " Shiggles" as you put it. You really need to stop using words like that because it shows a negative and quite ignorant viewpoint. If I were to carry it would be because I feel like I might need to defend my self, family or someone else's family.
It is partly a cultural thing, and partly an availability thing.
There is no doubt that there would be fewer gun accidents if there was mandatory safety training and separate storage of weapon and ammunition, as in most modern countries.
Iron_Captain wrote: and you probably should have noticed that bear earlier. Always maintain situational awareness! At least, that is what they told me when I went along on a hunt once.
Stay out of the woods. You have no idea what you're talking about. You could be 10' away from a bear (or her cub) or other large mammal and not fething know it.
This right here. I was fishing on a lake and had a bear walk right up within 15' of me making hardly a sound. When I looked over my shoulder at it, the critter did a somersault and ran into the bushes with no more sound than a whisper.
Your roll on the random encounters table resulted in a ninja bear!
Joking aside, that is pretty scary. I haven't encountered a bear in the wild, and just sorta assumed something that large would make a decent amount of noise. Yikes!
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Joking aside, that is pretty scary. I haven't encountered a bear in the wild, and just sorta assumed something that large would make a decent amount of noise. Yikes!
You'd be surprised just how quiet massive animals can be.
Iron_Captain wrote: and you probably should have noticed that bear earlier. Always maintain situational awareness! At least, that is what they told me when I went along on a hunt once.
Stay out of the woods. You have no idea what you're talking about. You could be 10' away from a bear (or her cub) or other large mammal and not fething know it.
This right here. I was fishing on a lake and had a bear walk right up within 15' of me making hardly a sound. When I looked over my shoulder at it, the critter did a somersault and ran into the bushes with no more sound than a whisper.
Your roll on the random encounters table resulted in a ninja bear!
Joking aside, that is pretty scary. I haven't encountered a bear in the wild, and just sorta assumed something that large would make a decent amount of noise. Yikes!
Since it is a little off-topic, we need a bear stories thread.
The relatively low rates of gun crime in Canada has zero to do with our gun laws.
Canada had an already low rate of gun crime, a rate that was *already* decreasing prior to the various gun control laws passed in the late 90's. Prior to the late 90's you could buy full autos ect with very little regulation yet there was still a very low rate of gun crime in Canada.
Of course laws passed after the fact must have gone back in time to prevent deaths.... because gun control is *that* effective.
But of course, when we are shown plainly that our laws did nothing to prevent this instance of gun crime, the solution must be more gun control.
Not only is attributing low/declining rate of gun crime up here to the laws past an objective lie, it wastes precious resources that could otherwise be spent of *effective* ways to prevent/mitigate gun crime.
You know, like going after criminals, who still use illegal guns that they didnt get licenses for, who still compromise the majority of perpetrators of gun crimes.
Im sure that will not stop the current politicians from using this tragedy to enact more wasteful, feel good do nothing laws of appeasement.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Joking aside, that is pretty scary. I haven't encountered a bear in the wild, and just sorta assumed something that large would make a decent amount of noise. Yikes!
You'd be surprised just how quiet massive animals can be.
The best available Canadian research indicates that firearms used in self-defence by law-abiding Canadians exceeds the total number of gun-related deaths by a ratio of forty to one, saving more lives each year than are lost through the misuse of guns. In Canada, a civilian uses a firearm in defence of self, family or property (excluding police, military and security guard duties) an average of once every nine minutes, and half of these incidents involve defence against human threats. Firearms are used over twice as often in self-defence as they are in criminal violence, and save at least 3,300 lives every year.
This is the average level of discourse I get from anti gun types up here, many more examples of this level of hate and calls to violence from those with hoplophobic tendencies NSFW
I am not sure I accept that every year 58,400 canadians use a gun in self defence unless you are including "they are coming right for us!" to allow shooting endangered/out of season animals
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Joking aside, that is pretty scary. I haven't encountered a bear in the wild, and just sorta assumed something that large would make a decent amount of noise. Yikes!
You'd be surprised just how quiet massive animals can be.
The best available Canadian research indicates that firearms used in self-defence by law-abiding Canadians exceeds the total number of gun-related deaths by a ratio of forty to one, saving more lives each year than are lost through the misuse of guns. In Canada, a civilian uses a firearm in defence of self, family or property (excluding police, military and security guard duties) an average of once every nine minutes, and half of these incidents involve defence against human threats. Firearms are used over twice as often in self-defence as they are in criminal violence, and save at least 3,300 lives every year.
This is the average level of discourse I get from anti gun types up here, many more examples of this level of hate and calls to violence from those with hoplophobic tendencies NSFW
Spoiler:
Did you mean to quote our conversation about the audible volume of bears? The response doesn't seem to gel...
SilverMK2 wrote: I am not sure I accept that every year 58,400 canadians use a gun in self defence unless you are including "they are coming right for us!" to allow shooting endangered/out of season animals
Do you have a link to your figures?
Institute of Canadian Urban Research Studies and
Faculty of Business Administration
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C. CANADA
V5A 1S6
The numbers that you have presented would indicate that, with a population of approximately 35 million, one in 600 Canadians uses a firearm to protect themselves, every year. Your statistics are based on "expectations" with little to no basis in hard numbers. They've extrapolated 1500 or so "Phone calls" to cover 35 million Canadians.
The numbers presented are garbage. In my town of 12,000 , that would suggest that approximately 20 people used a gun to defend themselves last year. That number was, unsurprisingly, actually 0. In London, population 366 000, one would expect that number to be 610 cases of self defence involving a firearm. The actual number? I'm pretty sure that was also 0. Let's take a look at London's crime report for the last 10 years...
If we look at 2014, and we assume that cases of murder, attempted murder, abduction and sexual assault are all added up [instances in which lethal force might be justified] we'd find that number to be 291 cases. So less than half of the "expected" number. Did each of these instances involve a firearm used in self defence? I can tell you that number was 0.
You've presented bs, plain and simple. The reason people probably talk to you like this, is because you're using numbers that are, at a simple glance, ridiculous. Do the math yourself. Figure out your closest population centre, figure out how many expected uses of "self defence" there should be, and see if there were, in fact, any. All "proof" must pass the plausible test, and that fails to have any semblance of reality about it.
Edited by RiTides - Rule #1 of Dakka is "Be Polite"
The numbers that you have presented would indicate that, with a population of approximately 35 million, one in 600 Canadians uses a firearm to protect themselves, every year. Your statistics are based on "expectations" with little to no basis in hard numbers. They've extrapolated 1500 or so "Phone calls" to cover 35 million Canadians. .
The report also mentions that around two thirds of those cases of self defence are against animals. Which makes me wonder if the figures are being skewed significantly by rural areas.
This happened on a indian reserve, which is why it is so low key.
There is an amzing ammount of child rape abuse, women rape and abuse. Tons of native women go missing every year, but there is nothing that can be done. The resevers are kept white people free and our cops cant go to investigate. So when a high member ends someones life or rapes a child unless he allows them to investigate nothing can be done.
They do not want cops in their land but want things to change, it has become a tribe culture where the top guys do what ever they want freely and no one wants a change.
We cant help them because the only help we can give them they refuse, they want their culture but their culture is failing them. Hell a couple years ago they government granted a reserve a couple million to build school and such and they fought with the government until it was used to give them all money. Then they complained their kids where not getting a proper education. It is a real issue no politcs want to touch with a 30foot pool so we pretend it doesn't happen.
The numbers that you have presented would indicate that, with a population of approximately 35 million, one in 600 Canadians uses a firearm to protect themselves, every year. Your statistics are based on "expectations" with little to no basis in hard numbers. They've extrapolated 1500 or so "Phone calls" to cover 35 million Canadians.
The numbers presented are garbage. In my town of 12,000 , that would suggest that approximately 20 people used a gun to defend themselves last year. That number was, unsurprisingly, actually 0. In London, population 366 000, one would expect that number to be 610 cases of self defence involving a firearm. The actual number? I'm pretty sure that was also 0. Let's take a look at London's crime report for the last 10 years...
If we look at 2014, and we assume that cases of murder, attempted murder, abduction and sexual assault are all added up [instances in which lethal force might be justified] we'd find that number to be 291 cases. So less than half of the "expected" number. Did each of these instances involve a firearm used in self defence? I can tell you that number was 0.
You've presented bs, plain and simple. The reason people probably talk to you like you're an idiot, is because you're using numbers that are, at a simple glance, ridiculous. Do the math yourself. Figure out your closest population centre, figure out how many expected uses of "self defence" there should be, and see if there were, in fact, any. All "proof" must pass the plausible test, and that fails to have any semblance of reality about it.
Aren't most guns banned in London/UK? Kinda hard to defend yourself with a pistol when you aren't allowed to own one.
So why are you using it as an example?
Also I doubt all incidents of self defense with a firearm would be reported. If you foil a mugger/someone breaking into your vehicle by flashing a gun, who is going to report that?
The numbers that you have presented would indicate that, with a population of approximately 35 million, one in 600 Canadians uses a firearm to protect themselves, every year. Your statistics are based on "expectations" with little to no basis in hard numbers. They've extrapolated 1500 or so "Phone calls" to cover 35 million Canadians.
The numbers presented are garbage. In my town of 12,000 , that would suggest that approximately 20 people used a gun to defend themselves last year. That number was, unsurprisingly, actually 0. In London, population 366 000, one would expect that number to be 610 cases of self defence involving a firearm. The actual number? I'm pretty sure that was also 0. Let's take a look at London's crime report for the last 10 years...
If we look at 2014, and we assume that cases of murder, attempted murder, abduction and sexual assault are all added up [instances in which lethal force might be justified] we'd find that number to be 291 cases. So less than half of the "expected" number. Did each of these instances involve a firearm used in self defence? I can tell you that number was 0.
You've presented bs, plain and simple. The reason people probably talk to you like you're an idiot, is because you're using numbers that are, at a simple glance, ridiculous. Do the math yourself. Figure out your closest population centre, figure out how many expected uses of "self defence" there should be, and see if there were, in fact, any. All "proof" must pass the plausible test, and that fails to have any semblance of reality about it.
Aren't most guns banned in London/UK? Kinda hard to defend yourself with a pistol when you aren't allowed to own one.
So why are you using it as an example?
Also I doubt all incidents of self defense with a firearm would be reported. If you foil a mugger/someone breaking into your vehicle by flashing a gun, who is going to report that?
he's talking london, ontario, that's in canada, not the london in the UK.
People just like bring their old place names with them, there's even a thames river in the canadian london.
The numbers that you have presented would indicate that, with a population of approximately 35 million, one in 600 Canadians uses a firearm to protect themselves, every year. Your statistics are based on "expectations" with little to no basis in hard numbers. They've extrapolated 1500 or so "Phone calls" to cover 35 million Canadians.
The numbers presented are garbage. In my town of 12,000 , that would suggest that approximately 20 people used a gun to defend themselves last year. That number was, unsurprisingly, actually 0. In London, population 366 000, one would expect that number to be 610 cases of self defence involving a firearm. The actual number? I'm pretty sure that was also 0. Let's take a look at London's crime report for the last 10 years...
If we look at 2014, and we assume that cases of murder, attempted murder, abduction and sexual assault are all added up [instances in which lethal force might be justified] we'd find that number to be 291 cases. So less than half of the "expected" number. Did each of these instances involve a firearm used in self defence? I can tell you that number was 0.
You've presented bs, plain and simple. The reason people probably talk to you like you're an idiot, is because you're using numbers that are, at a simple glance, ridiculous. Do the math yourself. Figure out your closest population centre, figure out how many expected uses of "self defence" there should be, and see if there were, in fact, any. All "proof" must pass the plausible test, and that fails to have any semblance of reality about it.
Aren't most guns banned in London/UK? Kinda hard to defend yourself with a pistol when you aren't allowed to own one.
So why are you using it as an example?
Also I doubt all incidents of self defense with a firearm would be reported. If you foil a mugger/someone breaking into your vehicle by flashing a gun, who is going to report that?
he's talking london, ontario, that's in canada, not the london in the UK.
People just like bring their old place names with them, there's even a thames river in the canadian london.
Ah, gotcha. I'll rescind that statement then.
We've got a Paris, TN and various other borrowed names around this way too.
The numbers that you have presented would indicate that, with a population of approximately 35 million, one in 600 Canadians uses a firearm to protect themselves, every year. Your statistics are based on "expectations" with little to no basis in hard numbers. They've extrapolated 1500 or so "Phone calls" to cover 35 million Canadians.
The numbers presented are garbage. In my town of 12,000 , that would suggest that approximately 20 people used a gun to defend themselves last year. That number was, unsurprisingly, actually 0. In London, population 366 000, one would expect that number to be 610 cases of self defence involving a firearm. The actual number? I'm pretty sure that was also 0. Let's take a look at London's crime report for the last 10 years...
If we look at 2014, and we assume that cases of murder, attempted murder, abduction and sexual assault are all added up [instances in which lethal force might be justified] we'd find that number to be 291 cases. So less than half of the "expected" number. Did each of these instances involve a firearm used in self defence? I can tell you that number was 0.
You've presented bs, plain and simple. The reason people probably talk to you like you're an idiot, is because you're using numbers that are, at a simple glance, ridiculous. Do the math yourself. Figure out your closest population centre, figure out how many expected uses of "self defence" there should be, and see if there were, in fact, any. All "proof" must pass the plausible test, and that fails to have any semblance of reality about it.
Aren't most guns banned in London/UK? Kinda hard to defend yourself with a pistol when you aren't allowed to own one.
So why are you using it as an example?
Also I doubt all incidents of self defense with a firearm would be reported. If you foil a mugger/someone breaking into your vehicle by flashing a gun, who is going to report that?
Unless your rich as hell handguns are not the best self defense in close quarters, a knife or a short stabling tool would be better. So for home self defense a pair of scissors would probably kill more intruders and have less family murders.
you're an idiot, is because you're using numbers that are, at a simple glance, ridiculous. .
Wow... glad that our mods dont care if you use ad hominim attacks in such a direct way, dont worry im sure the general thread will be warned and you wont be held accountable to what is an obvious infraction.
Your own link isnt even on the topic of self defensive use of firearms, you claim it "proves" there were exactly zero self defense incidents, when that is not even in the link at all. When you cite a source that doesn't even talk about self defensive uses *at all* let alone quantize them as *proof* that zero cases of self defense happened that is the quintessence of a bad faith argument based on anything but logic/facts.
You have simply hand waived away factual and cited references from numerous respected and fair source.
Phone surveys may not be 100%, but its a legitimate form of collecting information, one that is used quite often with other issues and if anything under reports the defensive use of firearms. Its also much more research then you have done as well as much more credible then your mere opinion on the matter.
That Canadians do in fact protect themselves, defensively, with guns is a simple fact and it is only the actual #'s are up for debate.
Post a *relevant* link/source that has different #'s that contradict what I presented with citations on how those #'s were arrived at and post it without resorting to ad hominim attacks.
Also, your assertion that *no one* has defended themselves with guns because you live in an small town in ontario, is irrelevant, and an outright lie... people have been taken to court precisely because they did use a firearm for self defense... even in small towns in ontario (and canada)
(note that this is precisely why the #'s are even higher then I claim, because you are prosecuted as a criminal by default for using a firearm in self defense, its not small wonder people do not report every single case)
*note*
Yes, those #'s do include defense against animals, a life/limb saved is a life/limb saved after all.
In terms of how gun control laws, lowered homicide rates, and timelines interact...
From Wikipedia... I know, using a wiki...
Gun politics in Canada is largely about registration. Handgun registration became law in 1934, and automatic firearms were added in 1951. In 1969, laws classified firearms as "non-restricted", "restricted" and "prohibited". Since 1977, individuals who wish to acquire firearms legally are required to pass a criminal background check. From 1995 on, all firearms were required to be registered, but in April 2012 the requirement to register non-restricted firearms was dropped in every province and territory, except for Quebec. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against Quebec, thus the non-restricted registry records were destroyed in their entirety. From the 1990s up until September 1, 2015, there were two kinds of individual licences for firearms owners: possession-only and possession-and-acquisition. On September 2, 2015, all possession-only licences were automatically converted to possession-and-acquisition.
We can see that a push was made, from the late sixties to late seventies, to classify firearms based on their destructive capabilities, and to ensure that, at the very least, criminals couldn't walk off the street and buy a gun.
If we now go to the Canadian Gov't's webpage for Stats Canada...
and look at charts 1 and 6, we can see that period prior to the push for tighter registration was a period of increasing homicides. After the background check laws were enacted, we can see a steady decline in homicide rates [chart 1], and also a decline in firearm related homicide [chart 6].
further...
Despite a small increase in 2010 (from 30 to 36 victims), recent rates of homicide involving a rifle or shotgun are about one-fifth of those seen 30 years ago (Chart 7).
30 years ago, meaning the period during which the tightening of gun control laws were taken in earnest.
The numbers. REAL numbers, don't lie.
EDIT:
I'll not go so far as to say that no firearms are used in self defence in Canada. However, those firearms need to be unlocked, the ammunition needs to be unlocked, the firearm needs to be loaded, and the courts would need to judge that you've acted within reason for it to be legal.
That happens, what, a couple times a year? Maybe? Compared to the 50 000 or more instances you claimed, I think we can assert that if a life is "saved" by a firearm less than the 500 + times that a life is taken. Honestly.
@EasySauce That's some selective quoting you've got there. I said, "The reason that people speak to you like you're an..." I did not say that you were, just that people might speak to you that way, on the basis that your "facts" are easily shown to be false.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and that once every nine minutes thing?
there are approximately 1,989,181 registered gun owners in Canada. If those gun owners are using them in self defence every 9 minutes, then 58400 instances of self defence occur each year. That means, that 1/34 gun owners use their firearms for self defence, each year. Statistically, if a gun owner owns a gun for 30 years, they'll have a 59% chance to have used that firearm in self defence. That would mean that MOST gun owners would have used their gun in self defence, during their lifetime.
So your entire argument is based on a paper that is so painfully obviously misleading, as to be laughable. Just utter nonsense. Yes, a firearm could be used in self defence, in Canada. But not anywhere near the frequency as you've stated. Not by a long shot. Instead, we have proven numbers of homicides from realistic, reliable sources. We can track real trends since firearms restrictions have started being more heavily enforced. And given how infrequently a LEGAL use of a firearm occurs in a self defence case? Still killing way more innocent people than we are killing home invaders. Such willful blindness.
] You know, defences?
