Liberal Firearm Committee Announced

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's very frequently pointed out by firearms advocates that the overwhelming majority of gun deaths are suicides; that's because suicides are usually included by gun control advocates in a general "X number of gun deaths" because most people picture murders and get conned.

Suicide rates have been declining pretty steadily since the early 1980s and overall are very similar to rates in the 1950s.

If the premise that firearms availability significantly increases the likelihood of suicide was true, we would not have seen it decline as rates of firearms ownership increased over the last decade. And if gun control legislation helped, we'd have seen a drop after 1995 instead of a spike.

Whatever may have happened in Australia, we have not seen that result here. And I would argue that even the claim about Australia is highly suspect: their current suicide rate is higher than it's been in years. If, as the article claims, taking guns away reduces gun suicides without increasing other types, therefore generating a net reduction in suicides, why are they now at a ten year high?

https://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/201...peaked-to-a-terrifying-new-height_a_21480647/
 
GLG said:
I must have missed the link you provided on the suicide by guns. I can only say that those numbers do seem correct to me based on other sources that I have checked. It is a topic that is not brought up when we are talking about gun deaths and it never seems to be included when I read most of the pro gun information. Perhaps it falls into the mental health part that advocates would like to have increase in spending. If you have another source on gun deaths that include the suicide numbers I would be interested to look at it.
Here is what the numbers seem to work out over the years. some years less some years more (plus or minus 5%)
1000 gun deaths
800 suicide
200 murder
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-624-x/2012001/article/11696-eng.htm
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/54879-eng.htm
Click to expand...
Did you notice suicide by firearms was a distant third place in suicide stats to hanging (3:1) and poisoning in your stats Canada link? Do you think they remove gang violence from the gun murders and shootings stats? If not is it a valid comparator? Do you not agree we have a major gang and drug problem that is boosting many of the firearms related stats that perhaps other countries ar dealing with better than us?

Not saying you can’t commit suicide with a gun, but as your own link points out it is far from the method of choice.

Also from your Stats Canada link
  • In 2016, 54% of firearm‑related homicides were also related to gang activity compared to 43% in the previous year, representing the greatest proportion since 2009.Note The largest increases in the number of gang‑related homicides committed with a firearm were reported in Ontario (+22) and British Columbia (+12), with these largely occurring in Toronto and Vancouver. With a total of 30, Toronto saw 18 more gang‑related homicides committed with a firearm than in 2015. Vancouver saw six more, reporting a total of 16.
 
Last edited:
I have given up trying any reason on anti gun pers, they do not see the ownership of firearms as I do, and even twist and lie to help their secret agenda. Its the same merry go round as the Liberals, target legal pers and tell all ignorant voters it will stop the violence. Bet it does not. Lets do our part, now that we must remove the fools and our local robin hood keeps taking from the working people I have stopped donations, did just pledge $$$$ to a certain political party, lets hope Nog is correct. Come on 2019, I will still respond on here if it comes true or not. Unlike the defenders of Sunny Days who have "gone silent".

HM
 
JoPUyY1.jpg


When even the CBC's polling analyst can't hide the fact that the wheels are coming off.



Actually, although I'm pretty sure he's changed his weighting algorithm a bit, Eric Grenier is a very good poll analyst and I have been following his stuff for years, since the very first days of threehundredeight.com. He uses a weighted averaging system to compile polls, and takes an average that's usually pretty accurate although depending on how you weight certain metrics, you can introduce bias into the numbers. Some firms consistently poll high for opposition parties, some for left and a very small number poll high for right; some firms use different polling methodologies and depending on how you treat the validity of different methods it's possible to have a consistent, theoretically measurable slant to your results. Grenier always had a really good feel for what numbers could be trusted and why, although five years ago I think he was more neutral. Since the CBC snapped him up, I think he's been a lot more coy about the overall tendency of polling to favour left wing candidates; this probably suits the CBC editorial board who don't like the idea that some of their preferred firms, who always have good news about their preferred party, are actually less accurate than the people with bad news.

Still, he makes his methodology public and he is the best analyst I have seen who consistently tries to bring a pure numbers approach to the topic.

Anyway, if he's saying an election today would result in a Liberal defeat, they have MASSIVE problems. Not that this is a surprise in a way...for about a year I have been saying that based on the consistent trends in the numbers, I would rather be working for the CPC than the LPC. The LPC started off with a flash, but the trouble with promising everything to everyone and staring earnestly into the camera while spouting ghandi-esque bumper sticker quotes is that now everyone expects a bunch of stuff you never had a clue how to deliver.

In fact, the day after the election, my comment was that CPC voters only declined by about 400,000. Trudeau benefited from a massive swing towards the LPC by NDP voters, and pulled in all kinds of people who for whatever reason hated Harper and bought into the idea of Trudeau as a new leaf candidate. But that shine is long gone, and I don't think he'll get the unified left-wing drive to remove Harper benefit twice.

CPC support is very stable. If the LPC can't pull a serious turnaround in the next year or so, there's a whole lot of middle ground people who may not see themselves as right wing, but DEFINITELY don't see themselves as people for whom priority one is making sure everybody is using the correct gender pronoun. If the Ontario PCs don't screw up too much over the next 18 months, I think the LPC is in for a real uphill battle to hang on to power at all.
 
ziggy said:
Did you notice suicide by firearms was a distant third place in suicide stats to hanging (3:1) and poisoning in your stats Canada link? Do you think they remove gang violence from the gun murders and shootings stats? If not is it a valid comparator? Do you not agree we have a major gang and drug problem that is boosting many of the firearms related stats that perhaps other countries ar dealing with better than us?

Not saying you can’t commit suicide with a gun, but as your own link points out it is far from the method of choice.

Also from your Stats Canada link
  • In 2016, 54% of firearm‑related homicides were also related to gang activity compared to 43% in the previous year, representing the greatest proportion since 2009.Note The largest increases in the number of gang‑related homicides committed with a firearm were reported in Ontario (+22) and British Columbia (+12), with these largely occurring in Toronto and Vancouver. With a total of 30, Toronto saw 18 more gang‑related homicides committed with a firearm than in 2015. Vancouver saw six more, reporting a total of 16.
Click to expand...

Fair enough Ziggy but the point I was trying to make was that suicide was a bigger problem then those other problems.
I'll put it another way and I'll round the numbers just for ease of the math.

Suicide in Canada is on average approximately 4000 per year, minus the 800 per year by guns = 3200
Population of Canada less PAL is 33,000,000 divided by 3,200 = 10,312
PAL Licences for Canada is 2,000,000 divided by 800 = 2,500
So in other words in the general population 1 out of 10,000 commit suicide.
In the gun owning population it's 1 out of 2,500 that commit suicide.
That's four times more than the general population and that's the problem I'm trying to point out.
So the question is how are we going to fix that?

As for the 100 or so gang on gang murders, let me see if I have some empathy ........... sorry can't find any. sarc/off
I care alot more about the innocent victims of crime and our fishing/hunting community.
 
halimark said:
I have given up trying any reason on anti gun pers, they do not see the ownership of firearms as I do, and even twist and lie to help their secret agenda.

HM
Click to expand...
I'm sure your not directing this at me, right? Would not others thinking I lie for the illuminati or want to **** off some angry gun owner.
 
GLG said:
Fair enough Ziggy but the point I was trying to make was that suicide was a bigger problem then those other problems.
I'll put it another way and I'll round the numbers just for ease of the math.

Suicide in Canada is on average approximately 4000 per year, minus the 800 per year by guns = 3200
Population of Canada less PAL is 33,000,000 divided by 3,200 = 10,312
PAL Licences for Canada is 2,000,000 divided by 800 = 2,500
So in other words in the general population 1 out of 10,000 commit suicide.
In the gun owning population it's 1 out of 2,500 that commit suicide.
That's four times more than the general population and that's the problem I'm trying to point out.
So the question is how are we going to fix that?

As for the 100 or so gang on gang murders, let me see if I have some empathy ........... sorry can't find any. sarc/off
I care alot more about the innocent victims of crime and our fishing/hunting community.
Click to expand...
Missed the part where they said all people who committed suicide with a gun had a PAL. In fact I find that amazing! But if you are claiming all gun suicides were committed by legal gun owners , as per your equation,clearly hunters and competitive shooters pose a much bigger problem to themselves than to the general population. At any rate I find this is becoming a “Dead Cat” argument, unless of course you truly believe the governments new regulations are simply to prevent gun suicides? Personally I don’t.

As for empathy for gang bangers,I’m not looking for empathy, just pointing out 54% of gun homicides were carried out by them! Nothing to scoff at! But oddly enough when people dig out facts to justify further restrictions they seem to leave out this little gem. I think we can all agree none of these guys worry about a PAL or ATT or even whether a firearm is restricted or prohibited. A fact that is conviently overlooked by the nanny staters.
 
california said:
I don't know if these regulations will decrease gun deaths, and since I dont plan on buying a gun will not be personally affected. While canadian gun deaths are 1/5 that if the US, they are still 2x what they are in Australia, Germany and several other European countries. And homicide rates are 3x more. So obviously more could be done. Of course Canada suffers from illegal gun importation from a neighbor awash in guns, while Austalia as an island has more control, but also has very restrictive gun laws enacted after mass shootings, which included amnesties to hand in newly prohibited weapons.
Click to expand...

Maybe check this out.

https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

Many other research articles point to the same conclusion. There is zero correlation between gun control and homicide rates.

"Feel good" legislation is arguably the most counter productive action to take in regards to any given issue as resources are spent going in the wrong direction.
 
Only comment I quoted was California, we could never agree on the gun/violence problem, seams smart but our views are far separated. All numbers and specifics can be twisted to gain strength in a point. Does not mean its true? eg. I am not sure about now but at one time the RCMP published stats about gun related incidences, when this was investigated by the NFA it was discovered that if a firearm was registered in the residence, or anyone involved owned a firearm they added it to the stats. This included the fact it was locked in a safe, or in another place and never used during the event. Helped the RCMP gun stats, so now I am very hesitant to believe some stats. What perimeters does Stats Canada use to get suicide numbers=I do not know but if's like the RCMP its agenda driven BS.

What I do know is the Liberals continue their ATTACK on legal gun owners knowing full well it does nothing to diminish gun violence, at least their merry go round last few attempts have not, I fail to think they are all that STUPID so an undermining agenda must be the real reason. They do not want private gun ownership in Canada. There is a very, very true statement, outlaw guns and only outlaws WILL own guns. Me included.

HM
 
Am I missing something? In both countries drugs are a problem. They affect people from all societies. From before you are born by your parents using them to being sold illegally in schools. They cause death and mayhem every where they are found. Many innocent people are killed in robberies to support such habits. I could go on and on about the large amount of deaths caused by this. Yet all this has been decreed illegal by all countries. What I would really like to know what is the success ratio of these laws and the fight against drugs?
I would tend to think that any gun control initiated by a government should have about the same success as the drug laws.
I have owned and safely kept firearms for more than fifty years without any incident, yet I always feel the finger pointed at me by the "Anti-gun" promoters.
 
Well, if the Liberals were hoping for a bump in the polls off of this, I have good news!

The good news being that they must be feeling pretty disappointed, since the current numbers now favour a conservative majority by an even wider margin.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2018-03-27-14-46-22.png
    Screenshot_2018-03-27-14-46-22.png
    176.6 KB · Views: 8
cracked_ribs said:
Well, if the Liberals were hoping for a bump in the polls off of this, I have good news!

The good news being that they must be feeling pretty disappointed, since the current numbers now favour a conservative majority by an even wider margin.
Click to expand...

Bitter sweet.

Sweet because right now, the silent majority is showing themselves, as they have tended to do over the last few years. Against all odds.

Bitter because this emboldens the Left to ramp up the indoctrination game and the dependency on Mother Government tactics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

IronNoggin
Thumbs up Nathalie Provost has quit the federal firearms advisory committee
Replies
5
Views
933
agentaqua
A
Little Hawk
BC-RAIL DEAL: this will make you sick...
Replies
3
Views
923
SpringFever552
SpringFever552
M
Feds are looking for your guns
Replies
15
Views
3K
the runt
T
Back
Top