OCTOBER 2016 AMNESTY - BC - Help spread the information!

[sewktbk]

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

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.

Lol again TLDR (i can only withstand reading so much nonsense in one go), but i'll still address this.

Rates for stats are always expressed in percentages or in number/100,000. They are never a standalone figure. Rates are never just a division of number A by number B... because then theres no point. what purpose would it serve to express " 72 accidents for 4 million people" by changing it to 0.000018??? Thats not a rate.

It now seems you need an english class too...

Definition of the word rate : a measure, quantity, or frequency measured against another quantity or measure.
First definition of percentage : a rate.

LOL do you really think that the number I gave just happens, by coincidence, to be the number you get when calculating the percentage for this data?? You think I somehow got to the percentage number accidentally by making a mistake?? LOL are you even serious??

What is this, the 4th or 5th crash course i have to give you on how statistics are calculated and expressed?? Good grief.

I might have omitted to type in the percentage sign from writing on my phone...and my only mistake might have been to assume that the person reading had a functionning brain cell left and knew how rates are expressed when doing stats, but who am I kidding...you cant even figure the difference between 1 in 500 vs 1 in 50,000, so...

And about my "if theres a mistake" statement that i changed...thats simply because i started replying to you without double checking my numbers since its harder to browse on a phone....then i posted...and then realized that you were actually out to lunch again because YOU had forgotten to multiply by 100, so came back to edit.

Now we can all se why youre trying so hard to focus and convince yourself i made some type of error...because you dont want to talk about the actual results. I mean hell, even when you find mistakes that dont exist, turns out these lower the numbers and make your argument even weaker than it already was in reality...and you parade around like a fool thinking you just won something. LOL.

Let it go. Mandatory training for ownership/possession achieves nothing, as all stats prove. Government-managed licensing for possession/ownership doesnt either (nope, not even in your grandpa's estate example).

You cant come up with any numbers that support your opinion.
You cant do basic math.
You've almost reach the point of giving us the " if it saves one life" speech, which by itself is very telling.

Nuff said. At this point i dont even think its humanely possible to be this ignorant and stubborn, so i'm thinking you might actually be trolling.

 

[sewktbk]

Dont waste your time rangebob...Foxer evidently doesnt care about stats....even if you show him a graph that shows the decline of gun accidents over the course of 60 years without mandatory training..and that this decline rate went unimproved with the implementation of mandatory training measures...he's just gonna say its important for that training to be mandatory regardless, think he can just repeat such an empty statement and somehow hammer his way into victory, and pound on his chest for thinking he just won the debate...

I'm glad to see you witnesses his "odd" way of coming up with numbers... where of course, "odd" means just inventing them and never providing an actual source for them, as he's been doing since post 1 of this thread... But i guess that can be expected when no data exists to support his claim, and data does exist to disprove it.

But yeah. Dont waste your time too much

 

[triq]

Without providing standard deviation, I can't make sense of any of this pseudo science.

Just stoking the fire.

JIC triq is short for triqster.

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

 

[DanN]

Oh man that was all hard to read. I forget what the original hypotheses was now..

 

[sewktbk]

Oh man that was all hard to read. I forget what the original hypotheses was now..

The original hypotheses was that " we could all agree that only trained individuals should be in possession of a gun".

Although training and education is always good, not a single piece of statistical data can factually support the idea that it should be mandatory. All it does is make people feel better, quite litterally.

 

[DanN]

The original hypotheses was that " we could all agree that only trained individuals should be in possession of a gun".

And although deceiptful by sounding like a universally "beneficial" approach, research and long-term statistics clearly show that mandatory training for ownership/possession achieves nothing and does not improve the safety of anyone.

Well, except that I know a person or two who shouldn't handle anything more dangerous than a Nerf ball; if they wanted to buy a gun I'd hope they'd get some training. And if I "expect" those persons to get training, then I should "expect" everyone to get it (or at least be able to show proficiency) and then be certified (A license by any other name) for life (not withstanding criminal reasons to have that certification revoked).

 

[sewktbk]

Well, except that I know a person or two who shouldn't handle anything more dangerous than a Nerf ball;

Wth all due respect, your opinion of two unknown people is anecdotal at best and isn't relevant when determining if legislation is needed.
Again, statistics and facts do not support that mandatory training is beneficial in any way, nor improves public safety at all. In fact, data fully support the idea that mandatory training achieves absolutely nothing. And theres been without a doubt lots of people like the two you know in history.

Effective legislation (or absence of) can only be based on factual data, not personal opinions and feelings. Sharing those is counterproductive and besides the point.

If you have statistical data that can support the idea that mandatory training is at all effective, please provide it.

 

[DanN]

Wth all due respect, your opinion of two unknown people is anecdotal at best and isn't relevant when determining if legislation is needed.

Again, statistics and facts do not support that mandatory training is beneficial in any way, nor improves public safety at all. In fact, data fully support the idea that mandatory training achieves absolutely nothing.

Effective legislation (or absence of) can only be based on factual data, not personal opinions and feelings. Sharing those is counterproductive and besides the point.

If you have data that can support the idea that mandatory training is at all effective, please provide it.

Well, I won't be the only person to hold that opinion, regardless of how anecdotal it may be.

While I simply am out of time for this discussion today, I would refer you to the following pages as a reasonable source for justification.

https://firearmrights.ca/en/15-1-licensing/
https://firearmrights.ca/en/15-2-mandatory-training/

 

[sewktbk]

Well, I won't be the only person to hold that opinion, regardless of how anecdotal it may be.

You're right, and I actually hold the same opinion about certain people. But I know better than to suggest that this opinion alone is relevant when discussing wether or not measures should be implemented, or are effective.

While I simply am out of time for this discussion today, I would refer you to the following pages as a reasonable source for justification.

https://firearmrights.ca/en/15-1-licensing/
https://firearmrights.ca/en/15-2-mandatory-training/

Thanks, I've clicked on the two links. No data is provided. In fact, they start their paragraph with "the CCFR believes..."

So they are providing an opinion but are not sharing any data that can support it.
And on the subject of licensing...they state that its the only way to make sure criminals and the mentally ill do not have access to guns. And that simply isn't true at all. Other simple systems could achieve the exact same thing without the need for a government-managed licensing scheme.

They also say this :

The CCFR acknowledges that the available evidence shows there has been no public safety benefit anytime the Canadian Parliament has changed or increased licensing requirements. However, the CCFR appreciates that the general, non-gun owning Canadian public will not easily accept a regime without some form of firearms licensing.

In layman's terms, this means "we know its useless, but we need licensing so people feel better". Which kind of proves my point.

 

[Foxer]

Maybe I missed something...


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.

Well you can't use the 'now' figure - and it's about 2 times for Canada not 4 just FYI. We have training now so if you looked at the figures for today that's already after any lives that are going to be saved had been. So I was looking back to before the introduction of any real manditory training to get figures that represented a 'pre-trained' Canada for the most part. I mean there's always been SOME, but it really didn't start to show up till hunters Ed became manditory in the various provinces.

Back then, end of the 60's beginning of the 70's, we had a peak of somewhere around 250 deaths per year, so I backed it off to 225. Double it to add injuries (which is based on today's injury rates but I have no way of knowing what injuries were back then) and we get 450. Take off about 40, because we still have '18' deaths and about 20 injuries a year so we didn't save them, and then round it down to 400 to be more than fair.

As far as numbers go it's more than generous. It could be argued that with more gun owners and such the numbers would be much higher than that.

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

Well sure now, but I was looking at the 'cycle' of the next 45 years where we basically we replace all the current gun owners with new ones, all of whom will have to take the training at some point over that time. That's the 'cost' we will have to pay to save those 18000 lives over that time period.

 

[Foxer]

Well, except that I know a person or two who shouldn't handle anything more dangerous than a Nerf ball; if they wanted to buy a gun I'd hope they'd get some training. And if I "expect" those persons to get training, then I should "expect" everyone to get it (or at least be able to show proficiency) and then be certified (A license by any other name) for life (not withstanding criminal reasons to have that certification revoked).

Well basically

Of course sewtbk misstated the original premise. (He doesn't read much Apperently). The premise was that it's very easy to accidentally misuse firearms if you don't know what you're doing, and some people should be barred from owning firearms.

Safety training resolves the first problem, and background checks resolve the second. Anyone who finds a gun laying around the house, perhaps from a relative, and wishes to keep it should be required to do that. Those who don't wish to do that should turn them in. Hence the amnesty.

I also noted that while I do think they should be turning them in, I'd rather see them do that with us than the police

As I showed, a fairly significant amount of death and injury can be spared doing that, mostly in the safety training area, at a pretty minimal cost. Our legal tradition in this country has always been that if something can result in significant improvements in safety at a minimal effort, it is reasonable and prudent to expect that action to be taken.

And as you say, if you expect it for one, you have to expect it for all.

 

[sewktbk]

Lol what i said the original hypotheses was is almost word for word what the OP wrote.

We can all agree that firearms should not be in the hands of those who are not trained to handle them safely.

The original hypotheses was that " we could all agree that only trained individuals should be in possession of a gun".

Talk about not reading...when my statement is more accurate than yours...

6th strike....and counting...

 

[Foxer]

Lol what i said the original hypotheses was is almost word for word what the OP wrote.

No, that was just a statement. And he was referring to our discussion. "Hypothisis" is actually something else. If you were to identify the hypothisis of the original poster, then it would be:

The benefits of taking these unwanted firearms to shops greatly outweigh the benefit of having an RCMP officer come into your home to retrieve them.

That was in fact the primary statement of the first post.

For the rest of the discussion, it's what i said.

No one's really listening to you anymore muffin. Go have a cookie and a nap.

 

[sewktbk]

No, that was just a statement. And he was referring to our discussion. "Hypothisis" is actually something else. If you were to identify the hypothisis of the original poster, then it would be:

That was in fact the primary statement of the first post.

For the rest of the discussion, it's what i said.

No one's really listening to you anymore muffin. Go have a cookie and a nap.

LOL here you go with the belittlement attempt again, trying to talk in the name of everyone..lol....does that make you feel better and make up for the embarassment?
Are you trying to hurt my feelings? LOL

You could have at least come up with something more original than your first one...but I guess on top of basic math and language comprehension issues, you also lack imagination....yikes, not a lot of stuff left in there.

I'm also glad to see my post #62 shut you up and that you had nothing to reply it...It took you a while, but I guess you finally realized you were making a fool of yourself...Seeing mistakes that didnt exist....forgetting zeros in your pseudo-math based on guesstimates and unverifiable data you never provided sources for...weakening your own arguments...failing to understand basic statistical calculations and terms...Ya, you really showed everyone!! Just not what you think LOL

Keep it coming! Looking forward to the 7th strike of utter ignorance.

 

[Foxer]

LOL here you go with the belittlement attempt again

Oh I think you do just fine on your own in that regard.

 

[sewktbk]

Oh I think you do just fine on your own in that regard.

LOLOLOL and he's back for more, now in the form of a oneliner!!
Feel better yet?

 

[kennymo]

There's a topic for this thread, I suggest some people look it up.....

 

[DanN]

And on the subject of licensing...they state that its the only way to make sure criminals and the mentally ill do not have access to guns. And that simply isn't true at all. Other simple systems could achieve the exact same thing without the need for a government-managed licensing scheme.

You talked about a dedicated computer connected to the Judicial system for looking up legal history of people who want to buy a firearm. So basically, a dedicated computer network (expensive) connected to the judicial system (that would likely be controlled by gov't) to look up your legal history (background check)...

How is that simpler?

Do you really want every gun retailer you buy from looking into your legal history?

How is the sporting goods guy in Canadian Tire going to make a reasonable decision about whether or not you should be allowed to buy a gun that day?

I'd rather be certified one time for life (unless revoked) with a "license" than have every Tom, Dick and Harry peering into my divorce. But that's just me; maybe you're ok with it.

 

[RangeBob]

You talked about a dedicated computer connected to the Judicial system for looking up legal history of people who want to buy a firearm. So basically, a dedicated computer network (expensive) connected to the judicial system (that would likely be controlled by gov't) to look up your legal history (background check)...

How is that simpler?

Do you really want every gun retailer you buy from looking into your legal history?

How is the sporting goods guy in Canadian Tire going to make a reasonable decision about whether or not you should be allowed to buy a gun that day?

I'd rather be certified one time for life (unless revoked) with a "license" than have every Tom, Dick and Harry peering into my divorce. But that's just me; maybe you're ok with it.

Actually it's pretty simple.

The Canadian Tire employee enters four pieces of information
1) buyer name
2) buyer birthdate
3) buyer government issued photo id (driver's licence, PAL, etc)
4) Canadian Tire Store access id

It would return
a) a photo of the person, and their address
b) one of {approved, rejected, delayed, unknown}
c) in the case of "approved" it would also give an "approval code number" which can be recorded in a firearms sales logbook.

"Unknown" means that the person wasn't found, probably due to a typo in entering the name or driver's licence. i.e. name and birthdate have to match the government id, or "unknown" is returned.

In Canada, most people are identified by Name & BirthDate. Sometimes there are two people that match, in which case additional information is required.

CPIC already has access to every government issued photo ID, especially driver's licences. This is where the returned information for Photo and Address appear.
If the photo and address don't match the ID, then the ID is fake.

The main source of "rejected" would be the Prohibited Weapons List.

The Canadian Firearms Program (on the CPIC network) already gets the Prohibited Weapons List data from every court in the land. So we'd just tie into that. Anyone on this list is "rejected"

The Firearms Interest Police database, which includes assorted warnings about individuals (such as they have a complaint that hasn't been investigated yet, let alone charged or court appearance), would be used to deal with "delayed". There may be other categories of "delayed".

There may be other databases that are connected to this.
e.g. A database of people who've taken a firearms course (such as CFSC, or Hunter Safety Course, or any other course on the approved list) in their lifetime.

If no database contains a "no firearms" sort of comment, then the response is "approved".

If a given Store Access Id is used significantly more than the number of firearms and ammunition sold, then it can be revoked. Thus avoiding use of this system for non firearms transactions. Although it's on the internet, it's not accessible by the public, because they don't have a Store Access Id.

A separate interface could be used by the public, where they enter their own government issued photo id instead of the Store Access Id. A father couldn't check on their daughter's boyfriends, unless the boyfriend gave the father their driver's licence. It could be made illegal to check without intent to sell a firearm, and 1 in 1000 could randomly be checked by an RCMP officer who contacts both parties by telephone.

Except for the random check, all record of "approved" inquiries would not be recorded.
All "rejected" and "delayed" would be recorded.
All "delayed" would create a manual response of "approved" or "rejected" by an RCMP officer, as is the case now with PALed restricted transfers.
All "rejected" with a name match (as opposed to driver's licence spelling error) could result in a local police officer visit.

For people without a government issued id, such as Americans, or people who had been on the Prohibited Weapons List but have been pardoned but not yet removed from the Prohibited Weapons List, or other conflicts, they may apply for a PAL. PAL is a pre-vetted, continuous eligibility, approval. i.e the PAL is optional and rare, certainly not required.

This system records the people who may not have firearms, rather than a PAL system which records those who may.

If police find someone with a firearm (in a car, or at home), they can query this system to see if they are authorized to possess a firearm.

 

[sewktbk]

You talked about a dedicated computer connected to the Judicial system for looking up legal history of people who want to buy a firearm. So basically, a dedicated computer network (expensive)

No more expensive than the current system

connected to the judicial system (that would likely be controlled by gov't) to look up your legal history (background check)...

the judicial system is independant from government.

How is that simpler?

It is a system that doesn't criminlaize mere ownership or possession. It is a system in which you do not need government approval.
It is simpler because there is no licensing scheme, therefore no licensing application and all the expensive bureaucracy that goes with it. Yet it achieves the adequate "screening" process.

Do you really want every gun retailer you buy from looking into your legal history?

He doesn't need to. This hypothetical system could simply show the retailer a "this person is/isn't prohibited from owning firearms" type of message, without showing details of any irrelevant/relevant convictions.

How is the sporting goods guy in Canadian Tire going to make a reasonable decision about whether or not you should be allowed to buy a gun that day?

again, the system decides for them. He's just querying it and proceeding according to results shown.

I'd rather be certified one time for life (unless revoked) with a "license" than have every Tom, Dick and Harry peering into my divorce. But that's just me; maybe you're ok with it.

And again...this system wouldn't invade anyone's privacy nor share any personal/sensitive information with anyone, so your worries are unfounded. And speaking about divorces....did you know that in the current system, your angry ex-wife can block you from owning guns just by saying a few words, no matter how untrue they might be? Those are the types of abuses you innevitably end up with when you leave it up to government to decide.