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.
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.
Thousand Sons: 3850pts / Space Marines Deathwatch 5000pts / Dark Eldar Webway Corsairs 2000pts / Scrapheap Challenged Orks 1500pts / Black Death 1500pts
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
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/25 19:27:06
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.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/26 12:18:43
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.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/26 13:08:14
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.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/26 14:02:46
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/26 18:44:29
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
Spoiler:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/26 21:45:53
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"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/27 01:20:00
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?
Thousand Sons: 3850pts / 
Space Marines Deathwatch 5000pts / 
Dark Eldar Webway Corsairs 2000pts / 
Scrapheap Challenged Orks 1500pts / 
Black Death 1500pts
] You know, defences?
