Re: Guns
 

Sorry, then we are in agreement regarding better controls. Others posting are proposing bans.

Re: Guns
 

Then of course theee is this mans outright misogyny fed by websites and fora.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...rums?CMP=fb_us

Re: Guns
 

I think the real problem when something like this happens is the public get defensive if the probable cause of the tragedy can be linked to them or someone they know (indirectly of course). Some will blame guns, so gun enthusiasts will get defensive & find something else to blame like mental health, people with (or who know someone with) mental will then get defensive & so on. No one steps back & takes themselves out of the equation to look at it objectively.

Someone on Fox news the other day got chastised for suggesting Rodgers might have been gay & struggling with feelings that he considered wrong (after reading his manifesto I was actually thinking the same). Now that is not a dig a gay people or anyone suggesting all gay men have the tendency to go on a killing spree, so why get so defensive?

I think it's important to recognise these underlying factors & learn from them as a society. If guns were part of the problem, be brave enough to admit it & say well what can be done about it, even if it's something simple like noticing a kid down your gun range who looks like they're having a bad day & talking to them.
Walking around with your head in the sand & thinking I'm alright Jack is not helpful. It's probably why this sort of thing is a bigger problem in the US where the main attitude seems to be more about looking after No.1 & having a weird obsession with being successful, branding anyone a bit different as an outcast

Re: Guns
 

Oh right, introduce tractors just to muddle the argument! I suppose you know that, in Canada, farm equipment kills many more people, especially children, than guns.

Re: Guns
 

I do.

We were testing the potential of using a front bale spear as a shooting platform and she suffered an injury when, as she slide off, she didn't push away hard enough and scraped the back of her leg along one of the two smaller spikes. Fortunately, she didn't have her rifle with her at the time, as I dread to think how many gophers she would have shot:p

As a result, she only shoots from the bucket now. Thank heavens for quick attach!

Re: Guns
 

That's a gateway weapon you know. The beer can plinker shown above tells me that she now has access to a semi-automatic and, indeed, is often kept awake by the sound of machine guns and grenades. A slippery slope that began with that .22

Re: Guns
 

I have no doubt about that.

The girl pictured is a very good shot and, in the time that we have lived where we do now, has "progressed" from a BB gun to her "youth" .22. She only popped cans with her BB.

Once we zeroed her sights she found that she could shoot quite well and, when the gophers emerged from their winter retreats, she decided that she would try shooting them rather than using other methods to kill them.

Her sister doesn't like guns and decided to purchase a recurve bow instead. She now takes great pleasure in shooting the shit out of targets on spare round bales with arrows. Over their respective ranges, they are equally deadly.

I don't know if our property could cope with being landscaped by grenades.

Re: Guns
 

Fortunately, that war torn landscape is not here but in Africa.

Re: Guns
 

Just adding to the car deaths vs. gun deaths issue.

A quick Google tells me that there are reportedly 22,278,252 drivers on the Canadian roads. Another quick Google tells me there are 34,880,000 living in Canada. 63% Drive.

Number of registered gun owners = 1,960,380. 5% registered Gun owners.

How many journeys per year do you make in your car I would estimate I drive at least twice a day. Which would make it ~700 journeys a year, If you assume this for all drivers then Canada drives 15,594,776,400 times per year.

# of deaths per usage is very minimal.

You can't say that cars kill more people because there are infinitely more people engaging in the activity in comparison to guns.

Re: Guns
 

Of course you can say cars kill more people, 35000 is more than 20000! or if you prefer Canadian numbers 500 homicides is less than 2000 road related deaths.

If you are going to go to all that trouble then you might as well calculate firearms related deaths on a "per bullet fired" basis, after all its really the bullets that do the damage... each bullet analogous to a road trip or Km traveled.

There are about 500 homicides a year in Canada, 25 deaths per 100000 registered owners, but how many are commiteed by illegal users I wonder?

Then factor in that many of the homicides are not gun related and the stats become further watered down. It seems 27% of 598 homicies were gun related, so 161 gun related murders, or 8.2 per 100000 registered users. Less than the 9.5 deaths per vehicle and as you point out only 5% of the population are registered. Ive fired a gun this year (I think, maybe it was last year now), and im not a registered user. I could be wrong, but I doubt many gang members bother with getting a permit.


I suspect that the core of the argument was lost on you in any case as it was more about whether the rights of the responsible majority should be eroded because of the already illegal acts of a tiny minority. Also, the whole thing was more to do with the US than Canada in any case.

Re: Guns
 

Weird. The dark side of the internet.

Re: Guns
 

Looking at the statistics and usage is probably the best way to rationalise with some one, like yourself, who doesn't seem to understand that a gun is designed to kill and destroy and the other objects you keep referring too have other prime purposes.

By actually doing statistical analysis like this it paints a clear picture that guns and people owning guns is a dangerous thing that should be taken seriously.

Lastly do we have to persist with this "analogous" word. :o

Re: Guns
 

You were suggesting that if we ban guns (which is not my stance) then we should ban cars because they kill more people.

Your point was not lost on me but if you want to regulate or ban something then you need to justify it better than 'this kills more than this' (very scientific response), You would have to quantify and justify it in a little more detail.

Re: Guns
 

I am guessing that you have never gone shooting?

Me neither until a couple of years ago, and up to that point I too was of the opinion that guns must be for killing and destroying. Thats not really the case though, the vast majority are never used near a live target and certainly the whole aim of the handling procedures is to ensure that human life is never in danger.

Stats seem to show that gun ownership is no more dangerous than car ownership. It is taken seriously, there are many rules and regulations, and they seem to work here in Canada pretty well.

The prime purpose is not at all important, its the end results that matter. I'd paint an analogy for you, but I wouldnt know what else to call it:p

Re: Guns
 

That wasnt my stance at all.

My position is that guns are not the root of the problem. They are a part of the problem, but ultimately its a disturbed person who pulls the trigger.

I think we should look at the real root cause of why people go on a rampage and commit mass murders and put preventative measures in place that deal with the people, rather than focusing all our attention on the guns and painting all gun owners with the same brush, just as we would never paint all car owners as irresponsible street racers or drunk drivers. Certainly guns should be well regulated, but like automobiles, the ones owned by law abiding responsible, educated owners are not the ones you need to worry about. Its the others that legislation needs to be focused on.

The whole car thing was simply to illustrate how stupid it is to focus on the gun as the problem rather than the shooter, who could just as easily achieve notoriety by intentionally mowing through a school bus lineup in a truck.