Ok. Could you outline that "perspective" you're talking about? Like, give it clear boundaries, because we could apply that reasoning far more broadly if we were serious about saving lives. Does it apply to drug legislation? Automobile legislation? Legislation related to sugary drinks, bad diet, and lack of exercise? You see, when you talk about an "alarming issue" and where "lives are potentially at stake" here is what Canada's leading causes of death actually looks like:
The only way that firearm deaths could even factor into the top ten if it were suicides. And you know what's funny about those other things? If someone came in and said something so
incredibly short-sighted as "
When it’s an alarming matter where lives are potentially at stake, there’s a perspective where it is understandable" concerning instituting poorly thought out laws to save lives there are a lot of ways Canadian lawmakers could - and I assume you believe should, since these are far bigger problems? - we could start to crack down on all sorts of things to save far more lives than the proposed changes to Canadian gun laws would.
The problem is, people don't really get the scope of the problem. According to the CBC, our notably left leaning state-funded media, here is Canada gun death stats from 2000 to 2016:
"
In total, suicides accounted for 9,919 of the 13,168 gun deaths in Canada from 2000 to 2016."
Canada gun facts: Here are the latest stats on firearm deaths, injuries and crime | CBC News
That's over the course of 16 years. If you include suicides, that's under 1000 per year. If you exclude suicides, that's, like 200 something gun deaths in Canada per year - in a country of around 40,000,000,000 people. Contrast that with something like, say, car accidents, and you get
around 2900 per year, not every 16 years - and that's not even our top cause of death, by a longshot. Again, if you want to take the stance of "
When it’s an alarming matter where lives are potentially at stake, there’s a perspective where it is understandable" there are death numbers in Canada that are far, far more alarming than gun deaths. Should we start legislating things concerning them as thoughtlessly as I showed our current government wants to legislate gun laws? Or are you literally enabling politicians cashing in on an all but unthinking moral panic by adopting this line of reasoning, probably leading to bad laws which don't do what people think they did because nobody took the time to actually consider the issue?
As for the second question, yes, and this is the type of absolutely wanton ignorance which leads to such a misunderstanding on the use of guns as tools. Any small farmer who has livestock, especially in Canada which has a lot of wilderness, is going to have to deal with wild animals interacting with the livestock. A gun is tremendously important for that.
