Gun control

Dr. Dwayne said:
A good start, provided that they use a proper definition of an assault weapon and don't go around banning everything with a pistol grip or thumbhole stock.

Still, what will they do about existing magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds?
Click to expand...

That means I will have to buy another magazine for my Sig? That sucks!!!
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
Those graphs use offical data to deduce ownership rates I reckon.

Problem is that it is widely known that Canadian data based on the prohibited/restricted and non-restricted registries is way off the mark. While prohibited and restricted class firearm data is very accurate, it is widely accepted that only half of the existing non-restricted firearms ever made it onto the registry. 7 million non-restricted firearms were registered but estimates based on import documentation suggest another 7-14 million of this class of firearms are out there. You can dispute this if you like but being on the ground so to speak I can firmly attest that 7 million is a low figure. Plenty of people exercised a bit of civil disobedience and never registered thier guns. Bear in mind that guns last for at least a hundred years before they approach complete uselessness so it is unlikely that they were disposed of because they don't work anymore.

I think it is safe to say that there is at least one gun for every two people in Canada and the ratio is likely higher than that.
Click to expand...

That would put Canada on the correlation line, right?
 
Grinner said:
I'm surprised we haven't heard more from the police. Surely they want less of these weapons on the streets?
Click to expand...

Street weapons have one major prequisite, that they are concealable. Most assault type weapons are not. It's why gang bangers carry little pistols and not AK-47s, although rap music would have you believe otherwise.
 
Mockney said:
This guy on CNN is an idiot.

"Obama didn't address the real problem, he blamed it on guns when we've been calling for background checks for years"

- So are you in favour of his universal background checks then?

"No"

- Why not? A mentally unstable man can buy a gun without checks from a gunshow?

"Well that hasn't happened yet"

- Well why not stop it from happening?

"It hasn't happened. Show me when it's happened?"

How do these people become politicians?
Click to expand...

run as a Republican. dead easy.

..mind you most would not be able to hold a job selling shoes...
 
senorgregster said:
That would put Canada on the correlation line, right?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your question. We are on that correlation line in both graphs, as a nation and individual provinces.

But I think it puts us lower? As the number of guns increases and the number of deaths remain the same we should appear lower on the correlation line.

Anyway, we all know the answer, Canadians are nice people.
 
A-ha! So the Fox angle on this is to go after O for 'using' children to advance his commie agenda on gun control.
 
I just saw that NRA ad...."Obama's daughters have armed protection but he won't support allowing it for everybody's else's kids!"

Are they seriously that idiotic?
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
I'm not sure I understand your question. We are on that correlation line in both graphs, as a nation and individual provinces.

But I think it puts us lower? As the number of guns increases and the number of deaths remain the same we should appear lower on the correlation line.

Anyway, we all know the answer, Canadians are nice people.
Click to expand...

From lots of experience that last part is very true. Had some strange run ins in Quebec though.

On the country plot Canada is on the left of the correlation line. If the gun ownership was corrected (it sounded close to 2-fold higher) Canada would be slap bang on the correlation line. I bet the US (slight outlier) is underestimated too. The other outlier, is Argentina who knows about them.
 
545124_4477320764075_496268925_n.jpg
 
senorgregster said:
From lots of experience that last part is very true. Had some strange run ins in Quebec though.

On the country plot Canada is on the left of the correlation line. If the gun ownership was corrected (it sounded close to 2-fold higher) Canada would be slap bang on the correlation line. I bet the US (slight outlier) is underestimated too. The other outlier, is Argentina who knows about them.
Click to expand...

I see, thanks for the clarification. What's the significance of a point's distance from the correlation line? (graphs are not my strongpoint).

Cheeers.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
Those graphs use offical data to deduce ownership rates I reckon.

Problem is that it is widely known that Canadian data based on the prohibited/restricted and non-restricted registries is way off the mark. While prohibited and restricted class firearm data is very accurate, it is widely accepted that only half of the existing non-restricted firearms ever made it onto the registry. 7 million non-restricted firearms were registered but estimates based on import documentation suggest another 7-14 million of this class of firearms are out there. You can dispute this if you like but being on the ground so to speak I can firmly attest that 7 million is a low figure. Plenty of people exercised a bit of civil disobedience and never registered thier guns. Bear in mind that guns last for at least a hundred years before they approach complete uselessness so it is unlikely that they were disposed of because they don't work anymore.

I think it is safe to say that there is at least one gun for every two people in Canada and the ratio is likely higher than that.
Click to expand...

If that is true the data for Canada will be almost exactly on the line of best fit.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
I'm not sure I understand your question. We are on that correlation line in both graphs, as a nation and individual provinces.

But I think it puts us lower? As the number of guns increases and the number of deaths remain the same we should appear lower on the correlation line.

Anyway, we all know the answer, Canadians are nice people.
Click to expand...

Doubling the number of guns would halve the death rate which puts Canada's data point almost exactly on the line of best fit through the data (which of course will actually have moved slightly because the Canadian data has changed). It actually makes the overall correlation between gun ownership and stronger. The first graph shows the individual provinces and assuming the pattern is the same in all provinces, the line of best fit would become less steep and the only real change in pattern would be that the US data point would be further off the line of best fit.

The Yukon/Northwest territories data is interesting.
 
Wibble said:
Doubling the number of guns would halve the death rate which puts Canada's data point almost exactly on the line of best fit through the data (which of course will actually have moved slightly because the Canadian data has changed). It actually makes the overall correlation between gun ownership and stronger. The first graph shows the individual provinces and assuming the pattern is the same in all provinces, the line of best fit would become less steep and the only real change in pattern would be that the US data point would be further off the line of best fit.

The Yukon/Northwest territories data is interesting.
Click to expand...

It sure is interesting. Are the laws/controls identical in each province/territory?
 
Count Orduck said:


If you try to take away his guns, he's gonna start killing people.

A ringing endorsement for assault rifles if I ever heard one.
Click to expand...

That douchebag got in a lot of trouble for that video. He owns some kind of place that teaches people how to be soldiers and killers or something. The gubment took away his carry license and started investigating his business. He put out another video that was supposed to be some kind of retraction/apology and ended up saying the same thing, but he wasn't as furious the second time.

Wibble said:
guns-and-death-rates.jpg
Click to expand...
Like Dwayne said about Canada, there is no way to know how many guns are in the US but I'd put the numbers higher than what's in the graph. Doesn't change anything for me though, something still needs to be done. I own a few guns that aren't considered 'guns' anymore for gun counts because they are so old but there is absolutely nothing wrong with them and they still work as good as new. There has never been any kind of gun registry in the US so any kind of number is at best a guess.

Dr. Dwayne said:
Those graphs use offical data to deduce ownership rates I reckon.

Problem is that it is widely known that Canadian data based on the prohibited/restricted and non-restricted registries is way off the mark. While prohibited and restricted class firearm data is very accurate, it is widely accepted that only half of the existing non-restricted firearms ever made it onto the registry. 7 million non-restricted firearms were registered but estimates based on import documentation suggest another 7-14 million of this class of firearms are out there. You can dispute this if you like but being on the ground so to speak I can firmly attest that 7 million is a low figure. Plenty of people exercised a bit of civil disobedience and never registered thier guns. Bear in mind that guns last for at least a hundred years before they approach complete uselessness so it is unlikely that they were disposed of because they don't work anymore.

I think it is safe to say that there is at least one gun for every two people in Canada and the ratio is likely higher than that.
Click to expand...

Same with the US numbers I'd wager but the numbers of people killed per 100,000 is still there for the US. Gun related deaths and obesity - two categories we're number one in. America, feck yeah!

Poxbo said:
545124_4477320764075_496268925_n.jpg
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Grinner said:
Obama speaking now on what he will be doing.

23 Executive Actions.

Universal background checks
Assault weapons ban and 10-round limit magazines.
Click to expand...
Good start that. Seems something is actually being done over there at last.

Do those that own mag greater than 10 rounds or banned guns have to return them, or is it a case of just banning the sales of them from now on
 
Been seeing this nugget on the FB feeds last night. An officer friend of mine, a major, shared it last night. I have lost any respect I had left for him. Comparing his commander in chief to Hitler. Well done, sir.

75031_275104119282687_2080969896_n.jpg
 
senorgregster said:
It sure is interesting. Are the laws/controls identical in each province/territory?
Click to expand...

Wibble said:
No idea. I'm guessing that Yukon/NW are a bit frontier/wild west in nature.
Click to expand...

There are not a lot of people there, those who are there tend to engage in a lot of hunting with firearms. They'll shoot whales (probably), seals, caribou, polar bears, fox maybe even a musk ox. They are a neessary tool up there because grocery items are prohibitively expensive, plus the Inuit maintain a very traditional diet.

Now, the posession and acquisition rules are more lax for a lot of the residents up there because of their legal status as First Nations/Inuit peoples. As they are engaging in traditional hunting practices they are not subject to the same licencing requirements, this is part of our current firearms law and is applicable to all first nations/inuit peoples across Canada, provided they live and hunt on native lands.

The high number of deaths by firearm in those parts is likely attributable to suicide as the combination of isolation, lack of opportunity and lack of daylight often leads people into erious despair. There are occasionally other kinds of shootings but suicide is probably the biggest killer up there.
 
It infuriated me when that lunatic female on Piers claimed the founding fathers would have limited rounds (when dealing about clips/mags) had they felt it was necessary.

Earth to stupid right-wing bitch... they had muskets and revolvers in 1776!
 
MrMarcello said:
It infuriated me when that lunatic female on Piers claimed the founding fathers would have limited rounds (when dealing about clips/mags) had they felt it was necessary.

Earth to stupid right-wing bitch... they had muskets and revolvers in 1776!
Click to expand...

The best response to those two women who believed in strict interpretation of the constitution was to ask whether we should therefore repeal the 19th Amendment. The FF's never included it so we must abide by their wishes.
 
My aunts and cousins are now buying into the Aurora and Sandy Hooks conspiracies to enforce gun laws. (insert Picard faceplam)

For some reason they never bought into the Bush/911 conspiracies to enter the US into two wars and enforce restrictive laws.

I can't put my finger on it. Hmm. Oh, that's right. They voted for Bush and not for Obama.
 
Local sheriff in my area. Big bad man. Looking to win the next election fo sho.

http://www.facebook.com/pam.fuller....story_fbid=408542552558532&id=392874540792000

"As Sheriff of Houston county it is my job to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens. The second amendment is a right, not a privilege and shall not be infringed upon. As long as I am Sheriff of Houston County, I will not allow anyone to seize any firearms from law abiding citizens within this county."

Sheriff Andy R. Hughes
January 17, 2013.

Need something like this in response.

"Sheriff Hughes,

If you ignore or interfere with an executive decision or legislative act as an elected official, you will be removed from your position. Have a nice day, tough guy.

<signed> Pres Obama"
 
I posted the following...

--So much paranoia. And so much tough guy syndrome in here. Especially the guy calling people wimps and gutless (learn to spell).--

... and was blocked and my post deleted.

The irony...

So that's a sheriff condoning censorship to opposing views and denial of my first amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.