OCTOBER 2016 AMNESTY - BC - Help spread the information!

[Foxer]

I remember you mentioning that. Repetition is a boon to recall.

True enough

I believe my traditional counters were:
- there are more venues of training these days than in the 1950s. Including youtube. You often imply by omission that you mean the CFSC, whereas what you actually think is training by any means, and are content with CFSC's timing.

Well true enough as far as that goes, and I was never happy in the slightest about the decision to remove the test challenge. I think it doesn't matter how you get the knowledge. But I do think you should have to prove you have the knowledge in some fashion.

- government required training before possession, it's not obvious that's required. Possession does not equal first use.

They still need to know how to store the gun safely, and there is a certain implication that if they buy the gun they may intend to use it

Government required does not equal government provided.

Sure, but today that's the way it is. So aside from having a discussion abou changes we'd like to see it still means today they have to go thru it to get the training and to demonstrate they have. If we get the chance to change things, I'd be just as happy if they recognized other training such as the hunter's safety training for most of the provinces, or jus let people challenge.

Government pre-required does not equal government post-required (e.g. within 3 months after possession). If push comes to shove you say it is, but see the failings; if push comes to shove I say it isn't, but see the failings.

Well for sure I don't like the idea that somehow your training is invalid after an arbitrary license expiry date. As you know I think it should be one time life time.
Training is good.

Not everyone is stupid in the same ways, but everyone is stupid in some way.

True, and not everyone who had knowledge will use it. But at the very least we should be sure they have the knowledge.

 

[sewktbk]

[
Wait - how does that pertain to the situation we're talking about? Nobody went into a gun store, these are firearms that are no longer wanted, so if the person who bought them isn't around, the people who have them now never went in a store to get the background check in the first place. There's no need of an amnesty for people who actually bought the guns, they can just sell them if they don't want them.

Bit of a fail there

You said I couldn't give any example of the systems I was proposing that didn't require government involvement for gun sales. I just did. Try to follow. You obviously have a hard time doing that, but just try.

You misspelled 'pointless'. Again - when was the last time an electrical socket 'went off' by accident and killed someone? They don't. And prescription drugs come in their own child proof 'safe storage' containers when you get them.

You seeing how this works yet? The danger posed by either of those is near zero.

Well we know they aren't, it's demonstrable. Which is why as the level of risk of misuse goes up, so do the requirements and regulation around the item. Gasoline is potentially dangerous, but not that dangerous, so we settle for requiring it to be stored in approved containers. Drugs are dangerous, but not that dangerous except to small children, so we put them in child proof containers.

A car is dangerous when used so we require licenses for use, but generally it's pretty safe just sitting there because you need keys etc to do anything with it and generally it's pretty hard to 'accidentally' find the keys, accidentally turn it on, accidentally put it in gear, and accidentally drive it around till you hit someone. There's a lot of safety features built into a car to prevent accident or injury.

a gun however is pretty easy to have an accident with. If it's loaded, it's extremely easy. If it's unloaded but ammo's handy, it's still pretty easy. And such accidents are very commonly fatal, and often not to the person who had the accident but some innocent person who had nothing to do with it.

LOL right. So a car is safe because you need keys...but in your world guns are just so much more dangerous because they magically load themselves, point towards people, and pull their own triggers....Yeah OK pal. Keep digging that hole.

Well first off, the number of guns is irrelevant. If I have ten loaded guns sitting beside each other a kid can only pick up one at a time anyway.

No its not. Every gun represents one possibility of misuse. You really do have a hard time understanding basic statistical principles, don't you?

And second - there IS quite a bit of manditory training in the states.

Nope, not for mere possession or ownership there isn't. Again, try to follow. This conversation is about the relevance of mandatory training for mere POSSESSION, not for specific USAGE for specific activities. We've been over this (you know that part about not needing a license to own a car, but one to drive it on public roads?). So you either missed it the first time, or you just don't understand this concept. Which would explain a lot of why you're going around in circles...

You see what you did there, right? You took the percentage of GUNS and then tried to apply that to the percentage of PEOPLE who own guns. Are you suggesting that no American owns more than one gun? That's typical sloppy thinking and reasoning.

Further, deaths aren't the only problem. If you get your leg blown off, it may not be fatal but it's DEFINITELY going to ruin your day and if you're just some innocent person walking by you might think that was a pretty crappy thing to have happen.

Grasping at straws. I took the worst case scenario, which is death. Those were the numbers most easily found. The fact I left injuries out doesn't make my point any less relevant.

So - seeing as you went down that rabbit hole, let's do some real numbers.

The estimated number of gun owners in America is about 30% of the population according to the best and latest research. There's about 318 million Americans. So roughly 100 million gun owners.

Let's take your figure of 500 deaths. It's low - most years it's higher, but what the heck.

It's difficult to find hard numbers on accidental firearms injuries specifically,

LOL and thats your idea of how to start working on REAL numbers? ignore the factual figures??

Its not hard to find real numbers on accidental gun deaths. I just did, and you decide to just ignore it and try to throw ALL gun fatalities in the mix, even the intentionnal ones...The very start of your "equation" is flawed, so don't expect anyone to give the rest of it any thought. Newsflash, you can't get to an accurate result when your very first number is wrong....

If thats your idea of doing actual math....no wonder your stance is what it is.

My numbers are sound. I've provided their source. You can go around guesstimating and call it a more accurate approach, but that doesn't make it true.

-It's difficult to find hard numbers on accidental firearms injuries specifically,

- there was about 3 non fatal injuries.

- That's probably lower

- but we'll again be generous and use that.

-So that would give us about 2000 people

- would be about one in every 500 gun owners

-Roughly .2 percent.

-Now - what we don't know and probably won't be able to figure out

-But let's go with 50%.

Ah yes, how could I not notice how precise you've been in your calculations??
Truely a gifted statistician. I'm so sorry I provided hard, verifiable numbers before....I should've known guesstimating was so much more accurate!

yes - and thank you for proving my point so thoroughly. Next time learn how numbers work before attempting to use them

Read previous remark. Rinse. Repeat.

aaaaaannnnnnd bleep.

 

[Foxer]

You said I couldn't give any example of the systems I was proposing that didn't require government involvement for gun sales. I just did

No, you didn't. You gave an example of a system that actually wouldn't work, because it doesn't actually even address the situation we're talking about.

I'm sorry - was i supposed to specifically ask for a system that actually worked? Was that what confused you?

LOL right. So a car is safe because you need keys...but in your world guns are just so much more dangerous because they magically load themselves, point towards people, and pull their own triggers

Uhhh, no, guns are more dangerous because people pull triggers. But i love that you're just making stuff up now

No its not. Every gun represents one possibility of misuse.

Of course it is. If there's 100 guns and only 2 owners, and one of them stores his guns safely and one doesn't, there's only 1 home where the possibility of misuse due to careless storage is real. The number of guns is irrelevant.

Again - learn how numbers work.

Nope,

Yep. It doesn't matter what the mandatory training is a result of - 'mandatory' is mandatory. Again - learn what words mean. People must take the training - therefore they are trained - therefore we're talking about somewhere that has a high percent of it's people trained in safety. How hard is that?

I took the worst case scenario, which is death. Those were the numbers most easily found. The fact I left injuries out doesn't make my point any less relevant.

ROFLMAO - your 'point' was that there weren't enough incidents to worry about - Excluding 3/4's of the incidents doesn't affect that argument? Holy smokes kid.

Its not hard to find real numbers on accidental gun deaths.

True. Unfortunately that's not what i said. I said "accidental gun injuries", not deaths. So... you'd be right if you were actually talking about what i was talking about. But you weren't - and therefore you're wrong

My numbers are sound.

No, they're not, and if you can't see that rather obvious fact i really can't help you.

Truely a gifted statistician. I'm so sorry I provided hard, verifiable numbers before.

That were irrelevant, as we've seen. You confuse the number of guns with the number of people, you exclude figures that would be necessary to calculate the end result, and you might as well be using the figures for today's temperature - they're verifiable too but they're also irrelevant. Learn how numbers work.

Read previous remark. Rinse. Repeat

The previous remark was that you proved that when you say stupid things it comes back to bite you, and to learn how numbers work.

I think you're the one who needs to 'rinse and repeat'

I also think it's time for your cookie and your nap. This stuff is obviously far above your ability to figure out. Next time do more thinking before you do talking.

 

[sewktbk]

No, you didn't. You gave an example of a system that actually wouldn't work, because it doesn't actually even address the situation we're talking about.

I'm sorry - was i supposed to specifically ask for a system that actually worked? Was that what confused you?

I said TRY to follow. But I kind of knew that wouldn't work out...

Uhhh, no, guns are more dangerous because people pull triggers. But i love that you're just making stuff up now

LOL a few posts ago they were more dangerous because they don't "self-secure"...and now you seem to state guns don't just load and go off by themselves, and require the actual will and handling of someone to become unsafe...Much like a car, which you said was safer....because it requires the actual will and handling of someone to become unsafe....

Now would be a good time to realize how nonsensical and contradictory your arguments are.

Of course it is. If there's 100 guns and only 2 owners, and one of them stores his guns safely and one doesn't, there's only 1 home where the possibility of misuse due to careless storage is real. The number of guns is irrelevant.

And here we have hard proof that you don't know anything about the very math you so desperately claim to know.

I'll try it one more time.

You have a finite number of guns. You can't know which ones are specifically more at risk of being misused due to certain non-common and unquantifiable factors, so you have to take all of them into account, because each gun bares one characteristic common to all that makes it a misuse possibility.

You have another finite number of guns that are accidentally misused into causing deaths.

So now you have the 2 numbers you need to calculate what percentage of all guns were misused and caused the total number of accidental deaths. Sorry, did I lose you there?

You then take that result, which was 0.0001%, and go tell people thats a number that justifies (or not) mandatory training if they wish to possess one or more of the objects in question due to the risk they pose. Still follow?

At this point I do hope a math teacher comes around...

The only other way to obtain a more accurate stat would be to come up with some sort of impossible calculation that takes into account how many people in that country own guns and how many each one has, how many are trained, and how many people are exposed to guns (including non-owners) and to what extent...and somehow work in there the odds of each gun being stored carelessly and what not...and if some guns were misused more than once...and another array of unobtainable data...but you don't know these numbers, and you don't just get to make them up.

"Oh but if 100 guns 2 owners 1 house"....yeah no. Lol nice try, but no.

If it wasn't clear why you're so far out in left field, it is now.

Yep. It doesn't matter what the mandatory training is a result of - 'mandatory' is mandatory. Again - learn what words mean. People must take the training - therefore they are trained - therefore we're talking about somewhere that has a high percent of it's people trained in safety. How hard is that?

Ah, I see you're working with unknown numbers again and assuming they are high. Well, when you're done inventing stats that work in your favor (yeah, people can notice when you do that) and can instead use a verifiable, accurate number in your equation, come back and we can take that into account. I know you seem to think that doing "real" numbers is actually inventing them out of thin air, but that doesn't exactly help your case...

ROFLMAO - your 'point' was that there weren't enough incidents to worry about - Excluding 3/4's of the incidents doesn't affect that argument? Holy smokes kid.
True. Unfortunately that's not what i said. I said "accidental gun injuries", not deaths. So... you'd be right if you were actually talking about what i was talking about. But you weren't - and therefore you're wrong

it doesn't affect it if its supressed from the calculations of both examples, because you've then purposely left out an unobtainable factor from the two sets of data that you are comparing. And I assure you, if I could find the number of injuries as well, I'd be more than happy to include them in the equation. But this number is not known so we can't use it. Hopefully you understand that by now, because its getting absurd to have to explain such an obvious fact.

But hey, don't let me change your ways...i suppose you'd rather just invent a number and go from there....don't forget to make it a convenient one...

No, they're not, and if you can't see that rather obvious fact i really can't help you.

You confuse the number of guns with the number of people

No, I really didn't. If you're refering to the part where I offered a scenario of you with a group of 20/100/5000 people and that I said it affected "0.0001% of you" instead of saying "0.0001% of the objects you collectively own and may misuse"...well....lets just say you're missing the point entirely, because even after clarification (which, lets be honest, you didn't really need), my point about it not warranting mandatory training remains valid.

you exclude figures that would be necessary to calculate the end result, and you might as well be using the figures for today's temperature - they're verifiable too but they're also irrelevant. Learn how numbers work.
The previous remark was that you proved that when you say stupid things it comes back to bite you, and to learn how numbers work.

Again. I really do hope a math teacher comes around. Feel free to invite one in.

I also think it's time for your cookie and your nap. This stuff is obviously far above your ability to figure out. Next time do more thinking before you do talking.

kid - cookie - nap - trying to belittle me, huh?
Whats that saying again, about insults being the last refuge of the outargued?...

 

[sewktbk]

LOL lets look at your biggest math fail, Foxer...

The estimated number of gun owners in America is about 30% of the population according to the best and latest research. There's about 318 million Americans. So roughly 100 million gun owners.

Then you went on to say :

Let's take your figure of 500 deaths. It's low - most years it's higher, but what the heck.
It's difficult to find hard numbers on accidental firearms injuries specifically, but we do know that for every fatal firearm injury treated by hospitals there was about 3 non fatal injuries. That's probably lower than accidental alone considering that it includes people who were TRYING to kill others, but we'll again be generous and use that.

So that would give us about 2000 people shot by accident in a year. 1 million divided by 2000 would be about one in every 500 gun owners had one of their guns used in an accidental shooting. Roughly .2 percent. About 10 times more than your numbers suggested.

LOL yeah, except the number you should've been dividing by 2000 was 100 million...not 1 million. Oops.

So the result your own guesstimation math should have given you was one in 50,000 gun owners, not one in 500. Bit of a difference there, isn't it?
What was it you were saying about learning how numbers work??? Because forgetting two zeros isn't exactly what I would call a correct mathematical approach that puts you in a good position to lecture and berate others on the subject...
LOL

Second, your 100 million is simply absurd for this. Why? because if you want to calculate misuse stats based on the number of people,
then you have to include everyone who may come in contact with or have access to a gun, not just gun owners. 100 million is not the number of people who risked misusing a gun...its only the number of people who own them. The former would be a lot higher than the latter. Thats just a statistical fact (hopefully you don't try to deny this, unless you really enjoy embarassing yourself even more). So if the number of people who may misuse a gun is higher than 100 million, then your misuse % result is even lower. In fact there being more guns than citizens, the number of people susceptible of misusing a gun at one point or another in their lives is probably a lot closer to the total population than it is to 100 million.

So next time you want to belittle someone and accuse them of not understanding math in a debate, maybe you should make sure you didn't just make a mistake worthy of kindergarten and forget two zeros in your own equation (did you know zeros were important in math, or do I have to explain that as well?). That tends to make you look very foolish, lose all credibility, get laughed at, and invalidate all the numbers you tried to use as a counter argument....

[insert mic drop emoji]

 

[Foxer]

LOL yeah, except the number you should've been dividing by 2000 was 100 million...not 1 million. Oops.

So the number your own guesstimation math should have given you was one in 50,000 gun owners, not one in 500.
What was it you were saying about learning how numbers work???
LOL

LOL - well fair is fair, and you're right. It should have been 100 million We all make mistakes, especially when doing stuff on the fly. But the main difference between you and I is that when I make a mistake and someone points it out, I say 'gee - that's a mistake'

However - that's just a simple math error, that's not about how numbers work. You still have a problem with that. And let's look at that in your next example.

100,000,000 is absolutely the correct number to use. Again - it's about understanding how numbers work. Here's why:

First it's always important to remember what you're trying to examine. We're looking at the number of accidents in a "trained" vs "untrained" environment. So you have to look at variables that are pertinent to that directly. The over all population is not an indication of who might or might not be in a situation where there is an opportunity to misuse a firearm. To use extremes a new born baby wouldn't be able to misuse a firearm, so they're out. Likewise a geriatric patient in a hospital who cannot get out of bed also wouldn't. There are many who would not be in an position to ever emcounter a firearm.

Let me explain it another way. Let's say there's a home in a small town in the states. They are the ONLY home who has guns in the entire us. Over the course of 20 years, a grand total of 60 people ever go into that home (family, repair people, delivery people, etc) They are the ONLY people in the country who could possibly encounter a gun to be misused.

So it really doesn't matter if the population of the country in total is 1 million, 50 million, or 5000 million. The chances of misuse remain the same regardless of the population at large. 60 people will have a 'chance' to have an accident and that's it, period full stop.

Obviously we cannot calculate that figure for all gun owners in the states. Some may never allow anyone to visit, others may have kids running thru the house every day.

But - and here's the important part - what we CAN calculate is that there is ONE gun owner who is responsible for ensuring that their firearms are stored and used in such a way that there are no accidents. And going back to the original question - THAT is what we're talking about. The ability of gun owners to prevent accidents and whether or not training helps.

And that responsibility remains the same whether they have one gun, 10 guns, or 100 guns.Remember the chances of an accident do not climb exponentially just becasue there are more guns in close proximity - if I put one loaded gun on the table or 10 loaded guns on the table, if a kid walks in he's still only able to pick up one gun and have an accident. It's not like he'll pick up one, accidntally shoot someone, then pick up another, accidentally shoot someone etc etc.

So the number of people in the country is irrelevant. The number of guns in the country is irrelevant. The number of GUN OWNERS in the country is ENTIRELY relevant, because it is that number alone which will determine how many opportunities there are for misuse, and whether or not those opportunities are reduced if they recieve training.The potential for accidents goes up with the number of gun owners - not the number of guns or the general population.

And this is what I mean by understanding how numbers work. Anyone can make a math error, that's easy to fix. But if you don't understand how the numbers work in the first place, all the math in the world won't help.

So you're wrong, the only relevant figure is the 100 million. BUT - the REAL kick in the teeth is you've missed the most important part of that whole exercise - when we get down to the end we discover that no matter what numbers we use we CANNOT draw a conclusion because this is an exercise in examining trained vs untrained, and we know a very large percent of American gun owners ARE trained in safety BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PERCENT IS, AND we don't know whether it's the trained or untrained who are having the accidents.

So at the end of the day your comparison was nonsense anyway because we simply don't have the information to make it relevant. Even if you HAD used the correct variables. Which you did not.

And I didn't belittle you for not understanding math - I belittled you for not understanding how numbers work. And you don't. Which is why you've been wrong from the start But I love that once again you're trying to 'change' what was said to try to squeak out some sort of 'victory".

Sorry - you screwed that up. And all the evidence we have does point strait to the fact that training does reduce accidents. And i notice you weren't able to argue against that and there was no problem with the numbers there.

So let's recap.

You said initially it was all about ownership. Well we've disproved that and you seem to have let that go at least.

Then it was all about posession, which you said should basically be unfettered. I pointed out that some people shoulnd't be allowed guns and you were forced to back down on that idea too.

BUT you claimed, there's other ways to do that. I said it really didn't matter as long as it was done, but what's this 'other way'. you then offered an idea which would have had no effect whatsoever on the kind of situation we're talking about - utter fail.

And we had that whole 'draino is just as dangerous as a gun' incident. Which clearly wasn't true and I hope you're still a little embarrassed about putting forward in the first place.

Then we moved on to safety training. But - you claimed - the us is just as safe with guns. And then offered a logic that as I've demonstrated makes no sense, it uses completely irrelevant variables. And as I've pointed out, Many Americans ARE trained and wherever that happens, accidents are seen to be reduced. In Canada we've seen massive reductions in accidents as well where training is introduced.

So you were wrong there as well. And I further pointed out that because the traiining effort is minimal and the benefit in lives is significant, it's entirely appropriate to require it. You didn't seem to have an argument against that either.

So what does that leave us with?

It is entirely appropriate that if someone doesn't want to do the background checks and take the training required to possess firearms safely that they give them up. Which is what I said in the beginning, I just don't want it to be to the cops - which we both agree on.

Again - you need to understand how numbers work, and if you make idiotic arguments people will call you on them

Thanks for playing

 

[sewktbk]

LOL oh this one is gonna be good. I thought you might have had enough embarassment for one day, but it seems you still want some. So i'll gladly keep playing.

(I didn't read all of your post by the way, I'm already wasting a lot of time trying to explain gradeschool math to someone who forgets a few zeros when calculating stats, So i'm not gonna waste more time reading your nonsensical posts full of mistakes. I actuallyt stopped at where you said 5000 million...theres no such thing as 5000 million Einstein...after 999 million, it jumps to billion.
But hey, I understand those are big numbers, and you're not about to know how those are called when you have trouble differenciating 1 million from 100 million LOL)

Before I start, lets remind ourselves what we are looking to accomplish ; your claim is that mandatory training for gun possession/ownership is known to reduce accidental gun deaths and injuries. Thats what we are trying to prove or disprove. And we are doing that by comparing Canada, which has had mandatory training for posession and ownership of firearms for 2 decades, to the US, which doesn't have mandatory training for possession and ownership of firearms.

So, simple logic dictates that if your claim that mandatory training is effective and benefits lives "significantly" is in fact true, then the accidental gun death +injury rate in Canada should be "significantly" lower than the accidental gun death+injury rate in the US.



So, lets begin. I'll use your exact methodology and numbers.

Your variables are total number of gun owners & total number of accidental gun deaths + injuries.

Your numbers for the US are :

- 100 million gun owners
- 2020 death and injuries (that was based on (505 deaths x4) according to your 3 for 1 hospital claim)
So this gives us a rate of gun accidents per gun owner in the US of 0.002.


Now lets do Canada using the same method.
- 2 million known gun owners (yeah I know you're going to say there are more, and I'll address that in a second)
- 72 gun deaths + injuries (using the same equation (18 deaths x 4) )
This gives us a rate of gun accidents per gun owner in Canada of 0.0036

Now to address the part where there is an estimated 2 more million gun owners that do not hold a license...
Well just redo the math by substituting 2 million for 4 million...and what do you get?
a rate of 0.0018...so virtually the same as the US even for a best case scenario involving a number that can't be verified.

So there it is Foxer...using your own guesstimate "methodology"... the numbers still do not support your claim that mandatory training for possession accomplishes anything.

In fact, stats show that it has pretty much no impact at all.

LOL

Keep preaching you know how numbers work if it makes you feel better, budd.
By now, anyone reading can decide for themselves who has an argument that can withstand the test of actual math.

 

[triq]

What's an amnesty?

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Foxer]

I thought you might have had enough embarassment for one day, but it seems you still want some.

ROFLMAO - I was just thinking the same thing about you

(I didn't read all of your post by the way,

Well that does explain some things. It's no wonder you skimp on your research

Before I start, lets remind ourselves what we are looking to accomplish ; your claim is that mandatory training for gun possession/ownership is known to reduce accidental gun deaths and injuries. Thats what we are trying to prove or disprove.

[/QUOTE]
No, as I have said many times is that firearms safety training reduces accidents, and therefore should be manditory.

See - this is what happens when you don't read.

So, simple logic dictates that if your claim that mandatory training is effective and benefits lives "significantly" is in fact true, then the accidental gun death +injury rate in Canada should be "significantly" lower than the accidental gun death+injury rate in the US.

That might be true if there was no manditory training in the states. But - it IS manditory for a large number of activities that gun owners in the states participate in. So a significant portion of the US gun owners ARE subject to training, which is manditory for their activities. which is why I pointed out that it's not possible to examine a comparison between the us and Canada for evidence of the effect of training.

But let's continue

Your variables are total number of gun owners & total number of accidental gun deaths + injuries.

Your numbers for the US are :

- 100 million gun owners
- 2020 death and injuries (that was based on (505 deaths x4) according to your 3 for 1 hospital claim)
So this gives us a rate of gun accidents per gun owner in the US of 0.002.


Now lets do Canada using the same method.
- 2 million known gun owners (yeah I know you're going to say there are more, and I'll address that in a second)
- 72 gun deaths + injuries (using the same equation (18 deaths x 4) )
This gives us a rate of gun accidents per gun owner in Canada of 0.0036

Now to address the part where there is an estimated 2 more million gun owners that do not hold a license...
Well just redo the math by substituting 2 million for 4 million...and what do you get?
a rate of 0.0018...so virtually the same as the US even for a best case scenario involving a number that can't be verified

Ahh.. There's your problem. You decided to take the number from the United States, and apply it to Canada as if we were the same country. And you do so while trying to look at the DIFFERENCES BETWEEN the two countries.

Seriously. That didn't strike you as kind of stupid? You didn't think maybe it might be better to use Canadian numbers for Canada if you're trying to do a comparison? You figured you could just drop in the American rate for Canada and then you were shocked! That the numbers turned out the same?

See - this is what I mean about you not understanding how numbers work.

The best evidence we have is that the Canadian rate is about 2:1. Not 4:1 as it is in the states.

I won't even get into the fact that 18 is a high number and a lot of years its' more like 12. But - let's continue

So - using your numbers the Canadian death and injury from accident would be closer to 36. Which means if there's 4 million gun owners in Canada the accidental injury/death rate is about 0.000009. Far below the American rate.

And here's the best part - you claimed that your numbers gave a rate of .0018 - but 72 gun deaths and injuries divided by 4 million gun owners is 0.000018 YOU SCREWED UP YOUR MATH!!!! BWAAAHHAHAHAHHAHAA AND BY THE EXACT SAME DECIMAL POINTS I DID!!!11 ROFLMAO!!!!!!! AND YOU GOT IT WRONG FOR THE OTHER NUMBERS AS WELL!!! AHHHAHAHHAHAHA

Now - it's easy to make a simple mistake like that - I did - but to do it after going on about how you're teaching kindergarten... That is PRICELESS . And not just once, you screwed it up 3 times!!!

God, if you're not dying of embarrassment at that i'm amazed seriously - simple number mistakes like that happen but for you to make such a big deal of it and then blow it like that.... I'll be chuckling all day

Anyway. As you say - there you have it. The Canadian numbers are actually considerably lower than the amierican ones based on what we can tell from the numbers.

But as I pointed out - those numbers are really pointless. You can't do a direct comparison, there are too many important factors we cannot accurately identify.

What we can reasonably identify is that training does reduce accidents, and quite significantly. And it doesn't take much training to do that. THerefore - people should be required to have training if they're going to keep guns.

And I'll assume that'll just about be enough complete embarrassment for yourself for the day hehehe - now you don't understand numbers OR math it would seem . .



.

 

[Foxer]

What's an amnesty? ��

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

Disney character from the latest movie I think

 

[sewktbk]

Lol dude, how ignorant are you?? First i had to explain the importance of zeros, rhen I needed to point out that billions come after millions, and now i have to explain how to calculate percentages??lol are you serious??? Here goes more embarassment, since you ask so nicely lol.

When you divide 72 by 4,000,000, the result is 0.000018.
But you still need to multiply that result by 100, since your are looking for a PERCENTAGE. so 0.000018 x 100 is 0.0018%.

Lets use easier numbers for someone at your level. If it was 2 deaths for 200 gun owners, and are looking for a PERCENTAGE, you divide 2 by 200, giving you a result of 0.01. then you do 0.01x100 = 1%. You do agree that 2 out of 200 is 1%, dont you???

Lol keep it up budd, you either really enjoy looking like a fool over and over again, or you're too simple to even realize thats whats happening.

You're at your third strike of utter mathematical ignorance. I should just give up because youre clearly a lost cause, but i'm starting to enjoy handing your ass to you repeatedly.

 

[Foxer]

ROFLMAO

First, even if there is a mistake

There was a mistake sparky, as you know like I said, the difference between you and me is that if I make a.mistake, I admit it And honestly I wouldn't care except you made SUCH a fuss about me making the exact same mistake that' it's just frakkin' hilarious that you'd make the same one yourself It's just a little pathetic So I guess you'll be going back to kindergarten now? (c'mon, you can't eff up that horribly and not expect to get ribbed )

And I love that your defense is "well - at least I made it more often" BWAAHHAHAHAHA

Normally simple mistakes like that are so easy to make that I just say 'oh you made an error, here's the correct stuff' but you had to go on about it Maybe next time don't do that or at least make VERY sure you don't make the same mistake yourself

And in any case you're right, it makes little difference, you're wrong if we use the correct numbers or not

As the CORRECT number shows - accidents as near as we can tell are lower in Canada than the states. So you were wrong there. And that's what happens when you don't read and you don't do your homework . But it really doesn't matter as I said - too many variables to rely on that. Many Americans ARE trained, we don't know who's having the accidents, and the data we're using is a little sketchy. It's pointless to do that comparison

Which brings us back to training.

You would propose that the deaths and injuries spared are small enough that they're not worth bothering about. You try to get there by using decimal places as much as possible But really that's irrelevant. As I said - the way such things are measured is by 'cost benefit'. First let's take the larger view.

For example - lets say the average gun owner is a gun owner for about 45 years of their life, assuming they start around 20 and hang up or sell off their guns around 65. I think you'll agree I'm being generous there.

So given that we're holding fairly steady at about 2 million gun owners, and you only have to take the training once, we're talking about an average of about 45,000 people a year who have to spend a day learning about safety.

Now - we know that prior to the introduction of safety training for most gun owners in the late 60's early 70's, depending on province, we know that accidental deaths from guns reached about 250'ish per year at it's peak. Let's call it 225 to be fair. We don't know what injury rates would have been in those days, but let's use our current average and say that's a total of 450 people killed or seriously injured per year pre-training. That has fallen as training increased till our current level of 12-18.So - if we deduct that we can say that approximately 400 dead or injured every year could reasonably be expected to be prevented by training, based on the evidence that we have on hand. While we could argue details or precise numbers to a degree, really it's not an unreasonable statement.

The cost in money to Canada for those 400 people is huge. Medical costs, burial costs, lost wages and earning potential. We're talking many tens and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars. The emotional costs to the families is also huge. And there's no payment for that.

the cost to the 45000 license takers is about 4.5 million under our current scheme (some more some less). And the burden to their lives is one day. or a few evenings. It's minimal. And of course our current system also takes care of the background check.

training saves lives. It should be manditory. I don't like our current system, but whatever we have it should be a requirement that people have knowledge to keep and use firearms safely if they're going to keep or use firearms.

So - if you 'find' grampa's gun or have guns laying around the house for whatever reason, either get the training etc or turn them in.

I'd rather see them turned in to us instead of the cops tho, but we've agreed there.

 

[sewktbk]

Lol dude read the post just above yours again.

There is no mistake in my numbers. Learn how to calculate percentages, and then come back.

TLDR.

 

[Foxer]

"If there's been a mistake" ROFL - I still can't stop laughing at that

Just a word of advice. Everyone makes mistakes. When you do in the future be a man about it and just own it, and be a little careful of making fun of others when they do least it come back to bite you such as it did here People will respect you more than trying to pretend it didn't happen or making excuses. And you won't lose quite so much credibility.

 

[Foxer]

Lol dude read the post just above yours again.

There is no mistake in my numbers. Learn how to calculate percentages, and then come back.

TLDR.

There is exactly the same mistake in your numbers there was in mine. Decimal shifted by two points The fact that you were wrong in both cases doesn't change anything.

And it was you who got your percentages wrong

I can see how stupid you must feel doing that after making fun of someone else for doing the same thing in the same thread, and I can see how a lesser man might not want to own that and move on. But - seriously - do you want to be that guy? It's bad enough you've been wrong about everything else - do you really want to be known as the guy who can't admit his mistakes as well?

 

[sewktbk]

There is exactly the same mistake in your numbers there was in mine. Decimal shifted by two points The fact that you were wrong in both cases doesn't change anything.

And it was you who got your percentages wrong

I can see how stupid you must feel doing that after making fun of someone else for doing the same thing in the same thread, and I can see how a lesser man might not want to own that and move on. But - seriously - do you want to be that guy? It's bad enough you've been wrong about everything else - do you really want to be known as the guy who can't admit his mistakes as well?

Lol no i mean really, what level and combination of ignorant and stubvorn are you??

My percentage has always been 0.0018%. you read that and though "im going to verify this"..and in the process forgot to multiply by 100...which got you to jump on your high horse and claim there was a mistake, when there wasnt.

72 is 0.0018% of 4 million. Is and always has been.
72 ÷ 4 million= 0.000018 x 100= 0.0018%

Just like 2 is 1% of 200.
2 ÷ 200 = 0.01 x 100= 1%.

( I cant believe you still dont understand that and need to explain it a second time)

There is no mistake where you claim there was.

You just dont know when to give it up do you?? First you couldnt figure out zeros...made a bunch of mistakes for gradeschool level calculations....and now that the numbers prove that accidental gun deaths and injuries are statistically insignificant..AND that the difference mandatory training could make is even more insignificant to the tune of 0.0002%.... You're still here trying to claim that mandatory training is important and makes a big difference. Whats next? The "if it saves just one life" speech?? Lol

We get it. In your world, 0.0002% is huge and worthy of government stepping in with training regulations to save the day.

But for the rest of us who aren't completely dellusional, your stance is absurd, factually unsupported, and easily disproved.

Do yourself a favor and just quit before you get your 4th award for mathematical idiocy.

 

[Foxer]

Lol no i mean really, what level and combination of ignorant and stubvorn are you??

My percentage has always been 0.0018%.

Ahhh, no. That's not what you said. You said

So this gives us a rate of gun accidents per gun owner in the US of 0.002.

a gun rate of .002. That's not a 'percent'. That's very specific. That's the 'rate'. Except it's not the rate.

So now you're going back and trying to come up with the feeble excuse of 'umm... er.... ahhh... I meant percentages all along." Funny you didn't call it a percent, or use a percent sign at the time

You screwed up the math, Plain and simple. Which is why you said "IF there's been a mistake", instead of 'oh no, you misread it...' or the like.

I said i could understand how a lesser man might be horribly embarrassed and be tempted to make some stupid excuse or go into denial. Guess we know what that makes you now.

At any rate, i think we're done here You've already conceded most of my points, and obviously have no argument to counter mine regarding training other than to pout and throw insults. You can't even address the safety argument except to try to throw out as many decimal places as you can as if it's relevant. (although apparently not as many decimal places as you should have ). And are still using american numbers to talk about canada for some reason.

400 fatalities and injuries per year. about 18,000 over the average gun owner cycle.

That's a lot of people. And they can be spared that by the investment of about 12 hours for gun owners. That's about 0.00015 of their life, (or 0.015%, i know you get confused ) a number you consider to be SO small as to be utterly insignificant.

Dress it up, dress it down, safety training saves a lot of lives and at a very minimal cost. Which is why it should be mandatory for those who wish to posses firearms. And no amount of erroneously calculated American stats are going to change that.

Hehehehe - i'm still laughing at the whole "this is kindergarten stuff - oops i made the same mistake" thing My office got a great chuckle out of it - honestly it's just too bad your insecurities won't let you let it go and move on - the whole 'err.. i meant something different than what I wrote' routine is just icing on the cake

Well big guy - you've shown your colours. Bad thinker, bad with research, bad with numbers, and a bad loser I think we're done. You're obviously not making any arguments anymore, you're just trying to salvage your ego.

Being the better man, i'll let you have the last word if you like. You seem like your ego might need it.

 

[RangeBob]

Maybe I missed something...

400 fatalities and injuries per year. about 18,000 over the average gun owner cycle.

What's the math for those?

400 fatalities and injuries per year seems high for Canada, and low for the USA.

Canada accidents/unintentional should be around 15-20 fatalities (statcan cansim) and about 80 injuries per year from Firearms Act firearms (not including air guns and airsoft and paintball, made up estimate based on x4 which I think was mentioned elsewhere in this thread for Canada).
The USA accidents/unintentional should be around 500-600 fatalities (WISCARS Fatal Injury Reports 1999-2014 National), and about 6000 injuries admitted to hospital, and about 7500 injuries treated in ER but released immediately (including some air guns). (WISCARS, Cost of injury reports, Firearm Gunshot. Note by other sources WISCARS injuries here are too high by a lot).

Or are you upping the Canadian value based on some assumption that without training it would go up by a factor of 4 ?

What's a "average gun owner cycle" ?
45 years (age 25 to age 70)?
i.e. annual average * 45 years = value
Seems an odd way to do the stats. I think you're suggesting that in the 45 years I might own a firearm, if I never load it and never have ammunition and have had training and safe storage, that 18000 other Canadians might have an accident with a firearm during that time.

And they can be spared that by the investment of about 12 hours for gun owners.

Certainly not all of them. Canada for example has millions of PALers with training, so no change.

 

[RangeBob]

 

[RangeBob]

What's an amnesty?

In this context there are two definitions
1) police promise they will not charge or arrest you for possession of a firearm, or unsafe storage of a firearm; but will investigate to see if that firearm has been stolen or used in a criminal offence and if it has they may charge you or others. These do not 'get guns off the streets' in any meaningful sense, although that's the phrasing of the police public relations department. Rewards are occasionally offered, such as coupons for cameras or mass transit.
2) An Attorney General (not police) may grant a total amnesty for all crimes related to a firearm if its turned in. There have been a couple of these in Canada, and many in the USA. Gangs tend to turn in surplus guns if there's a reward for them (cash). Lots of people turn in guns of value (broken) less than the reward.

In other contexts, there's
3) a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.
4) an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole.
5) forgetting or overlooking of any past offense