Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:

@ EasySauce

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...

http://www.police.london.ca/d.aspx?s=/About_Us/CrimeStatistics.htm

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.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:

@ EasySauce

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...

http://www.police.london.ca/d.aspx?s=/About_Us/CrimeStatistics.htm

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.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:

@ EasySauce

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...

http://www.police.london.ca/d.aspx?s=/About_Us/CrimeStatistics.htm

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.

EDIT: because

 greatbigtree wrote:

@ EasySauce

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)

here are two examples


http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/man-faces-jail-after-protecting-home-from-masked-attackers

http://www.lfpress.com/2015/01/13/defending-self-defence

(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...

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11561-eng.htm

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?

According to the RCMP...

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/facts-faits/index-eng.htm

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.