The Province published an article lamenting the fact that the gun registry in Canada seems to be doomed.
Doctors, the police, women's groups, psychiatrists, public health and victims groups have all urged the government not to abandon the gun registry, but the Conservatives aren't listening and Jack Layton of the NDP seems prepared to let the registry die.
To these politicians this seems to be all about votes in rural communities. But ironically, these are the areas with the highest rates of gun deaths by suicide and domestic violence. As a rural psychiatrist I can tell you, without question, that in rural Canada, the registry saves lives. While vocal opponents may dominate the discussion, there are plenty of us in rural Canada who believe in the critical importance of this tool to prevent suicide and domestic violence.
She doesn't say exactly how it prevents suicide and domestic violence. Maybe it's so obvious we can figure it out for ourselves. What do you think?
Please leave a comment.
"Maybe it's so obvious we can figure it out for ourselves."
ReplyDeleteOr maybe it's because it doesn't.
Most interesting about suicide rates is they align with population density better than firearm ownership.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Mikey W., your cite doesn't say that. It says nothing about firearm ownership; instead, it talks about method of suicide--firearm or non-firearm.
ReplyDeleteFurther,there really is no such statistical measure or comparison as "align better."
IOW, your suggestion that suicide is more a function of population density than of method is really akin to saying the price of apples has something to do with the performance of a women's basketball team in China.
Sorry Jadeyboy, this Anon isn't the same as the other Anon you believe is Mike W.
ReplyDeleteYour credentials must be astounding in order to denounce all those studies my citation sourced.
Or you need to change your diaper again. (This statement doesn't necessarily make me Weer'd either, although I do have a van dyke.)
MikeB: "Maybe it's so obvious we can figure it out for ourselves."
ReplyDeleteYes, it is so obvious that I would love to see a detailed explanation with statistics to back it up.
"(This statement doesn't necessarily make me Weer'd either, although I do have a van dyke.)"
ReplyDeleteLOL! I'd never have a Van Dyke, they look cool, but too much maintenance!
My beard is more for practical reasons than cosmetic.
Well, I hereby dub me "Van Dyke" so that Jade can tell one supposed "Mike W" from another.
ReplyDeleteGod forbid he truly learn to distinguish a criminal, with the exception of when his bias doesn't exclude his selection for jury duty.
Welcome Van Dyke.
ReplyDeleteWell, I hereby dub me "Van Dyke" so that Jade can tell one supposed "Mike W" from another.
ReplyDeleteWell at least he'll come across some interesting internet sites while he is trying to cyber-stalk you.