Printable View
the first salvo has been fired by the left leaning media and government. this is only to pave the way for tougher gun laws and a return to some sort of registry. Really it doesn't matter if this story is based in fact or is incredibly vague, the general population will only see the headline.
I just heard the news on the way home, 1310 Ottawa. The pediatricians wants to push for better training for gun storage (we have this) and increase the gun control laws to stop kids from getting guns.
In my opinion if your kid takes your gun and shoots someone because of improper storage you should be charged alongside them. Our laws are tough but the media is not making it seem like we live in the US, as I stated at the start.
maybe an over simplification. if you have knives in the house chances are you will be cut, if you play hockey chances are you will be hurt.
I read the report but didn't see what are the instances of catastrophic injury are? not an air soft to the eye but a serious gun shot. I live as rural as rural can be for over 50 years and I have never heard of any child being injured by a firearm. could it be as far reaching as a gun kicking and leaving a scope eye brow. if so I have seen that stitched up once.
Langmann makes a couple of questionable statements.
This is true, but every such incident will lead to SIU involvement. These are clearly not an important contributor to the overall numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninepointer
I see no indication that the method used to define rurality in this study would consider Brampton rural.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninepointer
The study does not make such an association. Indeed, it finds that assaults and injuries are associated with low income urban neighborhoods.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninepointer
This doesn't address the fact that 75% of the incidents are accidents and have no clear relation to criminal risk behavior. The obvious conclusion is that further work is required to better understand those accidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninepointer
These are the actual recommendations of the Canadian Paediatric Society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
http://www.cps.ca/en/media/release-c...rearms-at-home
You didn't see it because it isn't there ... my feeling is that most of the accidental injuries are in the vein of Airsoft to the eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by bardern
When it comes to fatal shootings, homicides far outstrip accidents. In this paper, accidents far outstrip assaults. This strongly suggests that these are non-life-threatening, relatively minor accidents.
Remember, the numbers here tell us we have 5 accidents each week. If even one fifth of these were true firearms, we'd be burying a lot of bodies.
Funny... after this winter I don't see anyone calling for increased training in the safe use of snowmobiles. But then agian I suppose they're not as evil or scary as guns are.
I heard some of it on radio at work , along the lines of recording stats since 1990,s ????. If this kind of situation ie high incidence of high rate of injury by fire arms . Why was it not looked into after say ... the first year or two into the study ???? And why are so many ( in at least my little circle of hunters shooters owners etc ) saying they,ve never heard of a kid getting shot , accidentally or what ever .
Studies take years (or seem to) NoBush because in order to carry any "validity" at all, you need a large data set, over a long period of time.
Anything else could be and should be "written off". It could be an aberration, it could be some other factor.
just for illustrative example.
If during the years 2008-2010 someone studied alcoholism and spousal abuse, and saw an alarming spike in the data. Should we immediately think that society is reversing coarse and husbands are coming home, pounding the Crown Royal and smacking their wives around?
Or is it possible, that with so many people, especially men in rural Ontario, small town Ontario losing good jobs in manufacturing......funny, theres no mention of those kinds of things in this study, but the author could argue "well that wasn't purpose" this study just want to establish that there are a lot of "accidents"
*****
The timing to me isn't so hard to figure out.
Theres a new regime in power, one that is sympathetic to some groups ( one of which is medical "gun related experts"). Political winds.......
*******
No matter how it's sliced and diced, the study I think obviously didn't even remotely try to "look" beyond the superficial layers. That one statement about "are there any other commercial available products creating as much carnage as guns"....Says everything that really needs to be said about the authors agenda.
And for what it's worth, that one statement utterly discredits the entire study, no way around that. Which possibly in some ways is a bit of a shame because maybe there is something worth looking at........looking into deeper.
I am almost always somewhere in the middle when it comes to GC. Again for simple illustrative example and word. I don't want Canada to resemble the US. The stats are clear A) GC works and its a good thing, B) The states are off their rockers not willing to change some things.
But there are many reasons why statistically the US is dirty bath water when compared to us and some others. Reasons that go beyond the plethora of firearms, the gun culture there and more, that speak to people going ballistic and shooting 30 kids in a schoo, that speak to crime, that speak to cops being executed and more. Things like
Racial problems
Socio economic problems
Access to healthcare and education
and more
I don't in theory have a problem with some "new" measures here. If and thats a big IF!
First it can be established that we do in fact have a problem or big enough weakness inn the existing measures.
Secondly. It can reasonably without much question be argued that the the new measure will actually do something about the real problem, identified in step one, whatever it may be.
Thirdly: Once we strip out suicides from our gun deaths per capita......its pretty clear we don't have problems.
In my mind, this author has totally discredited herself and the motive behind the study as a result. It is dirty bathwater. Cannot be used, it is clearly, questionable. Toss it like the dirty bath water ( muddied) it is.
Which is kind of a shame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
I read that as well Trimmer. Gurney is usually pretty good at shedding some light and common sense on things.