I wounder if they where following a no resistance policy?
[edit]
Article 2
I'm sure they would have gotten fired if they'd done anything to save lives.
It is hard to tell if you are being sarcastic or joking, but that happened at a Walmart.
I was being serious. In a case like this you're ****ed either way. Personally, I'd rather be fired than dead.
Then you won't fight back. Fighting back = dead more often than not and not fighting back = alive almost every time. I'm willing to wager that there have been MANY armed robberies in NY this year and that very, very, very few of them have resulted in what happened at the pharmacy. I'm also willing to wager that many or all of you here who say, "I would fight back against the guy with the gun." are talking out of their arse because it's far easier to talk that way from behind a computer screen with no gun pointed at you, than it is to actually work up the guts to take your hands and attack the guy with the gun pointed your way.
I was being serious. In a case like this you're ****ed either way. Personally, I'd rather be fired than dead.
Yup.
And stuff like this is why I'll never understand the 'it's safer to just comply' mindset. That's a great way to think when you're arguing statistics but no way at all to think when you're talking about life. Statistics are no protection from a bad guy. They don't mean anything when you happen to be an outlier. And, in these cases, being an outlier means being seriously hurt or worse. If that's a gamble you're willing to take - and one you're willing to take for your family as well - I'll never, ever play poker with you. Your stakes are way too high for me.
Putting my trust in a person that decided to point a gun in my direction while already committing another crime is something my brain categorizes as 'stupidly dangerous' and, therefore, is something I just can't wrap my head around. They obviously don't care about law, they don't care about me and they're also quite obviously desperate. Not ... umm, not a combination I'd trust my life to.
Aside from that, I have to wonder what goes through people's heads when they're lined up and executed. One guy, four people. If ya hear a shot, ****ing do something. You're dead anyway, may as well try not to be. Maybe you'll still die but the delay could be long enough to bring help for one of the other people there. That said, I'm pretty sure most people think that way and that's why situations like this are so scary. They know that and do nothing anyway. Their brains just don't take them to that place or their fear overrides it if they do. I know I talk a good game, but I hope to god I never have to find out if I'd be able to walk the walk. So many people just ... they just let people kill them. It has to be an incredibly amazing situation to find oneself in.
Ask yourself 'would I point a gun at someone' and then ask 'why not'. All of those reasons you wouldn't (I believe most, if not all here would never point a gun at someone first)? Yeah, those are reasons the guy pointing a gun at you doesn't give a **** about.
EDIT: There's also that old line about 'never point a gun at something you're not willing to kill'. While the bad guy may never have heard it, I have. And I know why it's something taught to responsible gun owners, too. That knowledge is enough to make me legitimately concerned for my well being - stats be damned.
My friend has this great story from college. He was walking home drunkish one evening when a guy armed with a knife sprang from the shadows and accosted him. My friend was not a small lad. When he saw this smaller guy with a knife, he (likely with some alcoholic inspiration) looked him dead in the face and said in a threatening tone 'you'd better ****ing kill me'. The guy with the knife got the hint. Man did my pal get lucky.
My friend has this great story from college. He was walking home drunkish one evening when a guy armed with a knife sprang from the shadows and accosted him. My friend was not a small lad. When he saw this smaller guy with a knife, he (likely with some alcoholic inspiration) looked him dead in the face and said in a threatening tone 'you'd better ****ing kill me'. The guy with the knife got the hint. Man did my pal get lucky.
I was stabbed 11 times during an armed robbery on the bus in San Francisco. Is it because I fought back? Maybe. But if some **** puts a knife to my throat, I'll still fight. Every. Single. Time.
I've also been robbed at gunpoint and had the SFPD put a gun in my face. I actually felt safer getting robbed...
I've heard that, psychologically, getting stabbed is worse than getting shot, because it's more personal. I was calmer getting robbed at gunpoint than I was at knifepoint, but maybe that was just being more experienced.
And stuff like this is why I'll never understand the 'it's safer to just comply' mindset.
Because the facts absolutely back this up. It is absolutely safer.........FAR safer. Nobody says that it is 100% safe, though.
Statistics are no protection from a bad guy.
Your chances to die go up by an incredible margin when you start to fight the guy with the gun. It's the very lucky that survive and get hailed as heroes or live to get fired.
Putting my trust in a person that decided to point a gun in my direction while already committing another crime is something my brain categorizes as 'stupidly dangerous' and, therefore, is something I just can't wrap my head around. They obviously don't care about law, they don't care about me and they're also quite obviously desperate. Not ... umm, not a combination I'd trust my life to.
But attacking a man with a gun pointed your direction with nothing but your hands IS something that you would trust your life to?
Aside from that, I have to wonder what goes through people's heads when they're lined up and executed. One guy, four people. If ya hear a shot, ****ing do something. You're dead anyway, may as well try not to be.
Yep. THIS I can agree with.
Yeah. Also, the chance of escalating a situation is something to consider. However, if a gun is pointed at you during another crime, I'd say it's a safe bet to consider things already escalated to about the top of the danger meter.
Ask yourself 'would I point a gun at someone' and then ask 'why not'. All of those reasons you wouldn't (I believe most, if not all here would never point a gun at someone first)? Yeah, those are reasons the guy pointing a gun at you doesn't give a **** about.
EDIT: There's also that old line about 'never point a gun at something you're not willing to kill'. While the bad guy may never have heard it, I have. And I know why it's something taught to responsible gun owners, too. That knowledge is enough to make me legitimately concerned for my well being - stats be damned.
+1
Because the facts absolutely back this up. It is absolutely safer.........FAR safer. Nobody says that it is 100% safe, though.
And when the guy pointing the gun at you doesn't follow these basic 'rules of robbery'? Then you end up executed in a pharmacy. I understand that most people don't want to shoot you when they rob you. Thing is, those that do will shoot you while robbing you. To me, that whole getting shot thing isn't something I'm willing to risk. When it comes to my or a family member's life, 'not 100%' is not good enough. Others are willing to trust some a-hole with a gun. That's fine. I'm not, though.
Your chances to die go up by an incredible margin when you start to fight the guy with the gun. It's the very lucky that survive and get hailed as heroes or live to get fired.
Chance to die without mounting a defense? Check. Chance to die while mounting a defense? Check. Which is preferable to you? I know which one I like better.
Look, each and every situation is different. If I'm next to a school bus that's unloading while some crack head has a gun at my head, I'm not gonna fight. I may very well die, but I'd rather that than have some poor kid get caught in the crossfire. I'm not trying to say the response to every single situation should be to fight, but you should never, ever trust some bastard that's robbing you at gunpoint with your life. If you do, expect to die. If that's ok, then so be it. In some situations, it may actually be.
But attacking a man with a gun pointed your direction with nothing but your hands IS something that you would trust your life to?
Yes and no. I've been practicing martial arts for 20 years. Depending on the exact situation - say whether he's five feet away or has the gun inches from me or is actually touching me - I may actually be ok. That's the 'yes'. The 'no' is that I also typically carry a knife (legal length) and now I have a CCW permit and plan to take advanced defensive pistol classes. If I can draw my gun, the playing field just got a little more even - depending upon the specific situation. I hope I never, ever have to fire my expensive bullets, though. Not from cost concerns, of course, but because if I did it means I had to shoot someone.
The other thing to consider here is that there's a major difference between putting my life in the hands of a criminal and putting it in my own.
Yep. THIS I can agree with.
Ya have to wonder how those people feel when that's going down. I mean, I know they know they should do something but they don't. That fact is scary as hell. Cuz it means all of us could find ourselves reacting (or failing to react, I guess) the same way. Not a comforting thought.
Tell you what. When I have someone pointing a gun at my head I'll trust Statistics right up until my sense motive tells me that Statistics just bent over for an Outlier in a dark alley.
That's not a bad idea in that every situation should be evaluated to the best of your ability before any decision like this is made. The only problem is that you've typically only got seconds and you're not able to think clearly when it's going down. Besides, I'm pretty sure a gun pointed at your head grants a +20 situational modifier to your Sense Motive. ;)
And when the guy pointing the gun at you doesn't follow these basic 'rules of robbery'?
Then the statistics are wrong.
I wonder... does anyone have the numbers on number of people robbed at gunpoint, number of people killed during robbery at gunpoint, number of people resisting robbery at gunpoint and number of people killed resisting robbery at gunpoint?
With actual numbers it'd be easier to see which stance is the best to go with I think.
Then the statistics are wrong.
And what does that mean? Yep, it means you're dead. Or at least shot. How's that for a gamble?
You can only act when you're at "I might be getting killed", at which point you should take the path that has the highest chance to end at "I did not get killed". In most situations, it seems that said path is to not draw a weapon. When they start executing people, you've reached the point where shooting back is more likely to save you.
It's not like the odds stop existing when you draw a weapon. All you've done is shifted the odds... it's important to know whether your chances went up or down if you value your life as much as you say you do.
If you know you are going to shoot first, hit, and disable, then sure. Shoot every time. But you don't know that. It's still guesswork, even when you shoot back. And you should be damn sure of your odds because once you draw, someone is going to get shot. Both sides walking away unharmed pretty much stops being an outcome.
If you came with the intent to shoot me the face, then shooting back is best. If you came to show me your gun... startling you might not be a good idea. If you came to rob me, your intent was probably not murder and just handing over my wallet (yay insurance) would probably mean we'd both live through it.
Whatever I (hypthetically, because I don't carry any weapons) did... my intention would be to increase my odds of survival, not to try and decrease yours. When a robber pulls a gun on a person, that person doesn't give two **** about whether that robber survives or not. They'll act based on what makes them live, and if they feel that's "don't do anything", they won't do anything.
Like I said before, though, I agree that every situation is different and should be examined as much as possible. The difference is that most of that examination needs to be done before you're in any danger. Once that gun is pointed at you, you are as good as dead. The fact that the guy might not shoot you isn't, IMO, enough. The people in the pharmacy found out just how well the statistics work. And they're dead. That could be anyone that finds themselves in that situation - stats or no.
Meh, maybe I'm insane for valuing my life as I do. If someone points a gun at me, I have to assume my life is in imminent danger. If I don't and the bad guy doesn't know the stats, I'm dead. That is not an acceptible outcome to me.
And when the guy pointing the gun at you doesn't follow these basic 'rules of robbery'? Then you end up executed in a pharmacy. I understand that most people don't want to shoot you when they rob you. Thing is, those that do will shoot you while robbing you. To me, that whole getting shot thing isn't something I'm willing to risk. When it comes to my or a family member's life, 'not 100%' is not good enough. Others are willing to trust some a-hole with a gun. That's fine. I'm not, though.
Chance to die without mounting a defense? Check. Chance to die while mounting a defense? Check. Which is preferable to you? I know which one I like better.
Or put more accurately. Chance to die without mounting a defense, less thant 10%. Check. Chande to die while mounting a defense, greater than 50%. Check.
Please note that I pulled those numbers out of my ass because I do not know the exact figures, but it is factual that the chance to die if you comply is far, far, FAR lower than if you try to fight the guy with the gun.
Look, each and every situation is different. If I'm next to a school bus that's unloading while some crack head has a gun at my head, I'm not gonna fight. I may very well die, but I'd rather that than have some poor kid get caught in the crossfire. I'm not trying to say the response to every single situation should be to fight, but you should never, ever trust some bastard that's robbing you at gunpoint with your life. If you do, expect to die. If that's ok, then so be it. In some situations, it may actually be.
You have to assess the situation. I'm not saying go meekly with someone who is cleary insane and twitching. I'm sayin that in the vast majority of cases, armed robbers do not want to actually kill anyone.
Yes and no. I've been practicing martial arts for 20 years. Depending on the exact situation - say whether he's five feet away or has the gun inches from me or is actually touching me - I may actually be ok. That's the 'yes'. The 'no' is that I also typically carry a knife (legal length) and now I have a CCW permit and plan to take advanced defensive pistol classes. If I can draw my gun, the playing field just got a little more even - depending upon the specific situation. I hope I never, ever have to fire my expensive bullets, though. Not from cost concerns, of course, but because if I did it means I had to shoot someone.
Well, your training and potential situations change things. However, as a general rule, fighting back is almost always the wrong things to do. Not always, just almost always. ;)
The other thing to consider here is that there's a major difference between putting my life in the hands of a criminal and putting it in my own.
Ya have to wonder how those people feel when that's going down. I mean, I know they know they should do something but they don't. That fact is scary as hell. Cuz it means all of us could find ourselves reacting (or failing to react, I guess) the same way. Not a comforting thought.
No, it's not. the truth is, no one knows how they will truly react until they are in that situation. I just hope that we never have to find out.
Because otherwise every robbery at gunpoint starts with someone pointing a gun at you. There's no time before that to assess the situation, becuse there's no situation until you're looking down the barrel.
Or put more accurately. Chance to die without mounting a defense, less thant 10%. Check. Chande to die while mounting a defense, greater than 50%. Check.
Please note that I pulled those numbers out of my ass because I do not know the exact figures, but it is factual that the chance to die if you comply is far, far, FAR lower than if you try to fight the guy with the gun.
The problem with that is that all the numbers are crap if you happen to be in a situation that puts you outside the norm. Cuz you'll be shot. It's a gamble - just like playing any odds. When your life is at stake, relying on someone else is not something I find appealing.
Let's say the numbers you pulled were correct (cuz I dunno and I need something to use
), the people in the pharmacy, then, only had a 10% chance to die if they did nothing. They would have increased that chance to 50% had they attacked the gunman. And what happened? They had a 100% chance of death. 100%. That's the stat that matters here. They died. They played the odds, lost and are dead. Even if the chance to die was only .01%, it doesn't matter. They are dead and gone. Cuz odds mean nothing when your life is in someone else's hands. The only thing that matters then is what sort of hands it's in. When we're talking about an armed robber, well, you can guess what I think about those particular hands.You have to assess the situation. I'm not saying go meekly with someone who is cleary insane and twitching. I'm sayin that in the vast majority of cases, armed robbers do not want to actually kill anyone.
Again, it only matters that the majority don't want to kill people until you're robbed by someone that doesn't care. Then you're dead. Odds schmods. Dead.Well, your training and potential situations change things. However, as a general rule, fighting back is almost always the wrong things to do. Not always, just almost always. ;)
I agree that there's situations where fighting back is a bad idea. I just think that if you're able and the situation is fair, you should go for it. If I decide to fight back, I change the odds by placing myself into the situation as an active participant. It no longer solely depends upon the person robbing me. I have myself to count on now, too. To me, that's preferable than hoping for the best.No, it's not. the truth is, no one knows how they will truly react until they are in that situation. I just hope that we never have to find out.
Yeah, that's the best we can do. Well, that and try to prepare ourselves as best we can. It doesn't mean we'll be able to use what we prepare, but it means we'll be prepared if we find we are able.
And when the guy pointing the gun at you doesn't follow these basic 'rules of robbery'?
Then the statistics are wrong.
No, they are not wrong. You just happen to fall into that very small minority of the statistics.
I wonder... does anyone have the numbers on number of people robbed at gunpoint, number of people killed during robbery at gunpoint, number of people resisting robbery at gunpoint and number of people killed resisting robbery at gunpoint?
With actual numbers it'd be easier to see which stance is the best to go with I think.
I found this. It's for Chicago in 2005.
In 2005, 75% of murders involved a firearm, and 11% were the result of a stabbing. 41% of domestic murders were stabbings. 10% of murders in 2005 (39) were the result of an armed robbery, 9% were of undetermined cause, and at least 30% were gang altercations
portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/por...
The link shows 15, 961 robberies for Chicago in 2005. How many of those do you think involved weapons? Half?
No, they are not wrong. You just happen to fall into that very small minority of the statistics.
Well if any generic robbers doesn't follow the rules, then the stats are wrong. If one specific robber doesn't follow the rules, he's the statistical outlier.
But generally the rules follow after the actions, so if there's a 95% chance to survive a robbery then when a robbery starts, you have a 95% to survive. Whether or not your chance goes up or down depends on what happens next.
Looking at the pharmacy example, let's assume these four people were aware of the odds. Let's also say that there was nothing about this situation that led them to believe the odds were skewed (the robber wasn't a twitchy, irritible guy, whatever). They took those things into account and decided that inaction was the proper course. Did they make the right decision?
On the other hand, if we take any of the thousand robberies that didn't end in someone getting shot, and that person knew that the odds for him were quite excellent, and he still drew his gun and then got himself shot by the robber, would you say he made the right decision there?
Yes. Life $#@$ed them over, but they made the right decision. Some battles you cannot win.
On the other hand, if we take any of the thousand robberies that didn't end in someone getting shot, and that person knew that the odds for him were quite excellent, and he still drew his gun and then got himself shot by the robber, would you say he made the right decision there?
If the result is death, no matter what the decision was, it was the incorrect one. The thing is, if they fought they possibly could have survived. If the guy who pulled his gun and got shot never did, he still could have been killed. One is a proactive choice made to try and protect ones' own life. The other is a passive choice made in the hope that someone that's already harmed you won't harm you further. To me, one of those is an obviously better idea.
I found this. It's for Chicago in 2005.
In 2005, 75% of murders involved a firearm, and 11% were the result of a stabbing. 41% of domestic murders were stabbings. 10% of murders in 2005 (39) were the result of an armed robbery, 9% were of undetermined cause, and at least 30% were gang altercations
portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/por...
The link shows 15, 961 robberies for Chicago in 2005. How many of those do you think involved weapons? Half?
Which shows that robberies don't have a high chance (statistically) to kill you. It does not show that resisting the robbery made you more likely to die.
If you have the choice between proactively choosing to fight and most likely dying or passively not choosing to fight and probably being fine, do you really think the best choice is to risk your life? Because if everyone thought that, the number of innocent people dead from gunpoint robbery would skyrocket.
And all of them would've chosen "life", would've died, and apparently chosen wrong? And if they hadn't shot, and still died, they'd still have chosen wrong?
It sounds like there is no right choice in this situation. Unless you label the choice after the fact, but that doesn't help the victim nor any future cases. It's only pointless labeling.
Yes. Life $#@$ed them over, but they made the right decision. Some battles you cannot win.
On the other hand, if we take any of the thousand robberies that didn't end in someone getting shot, and that person knew that the odds for him were quite excellent, and he still drew his gun and then got himself shot by the robber, would you say he made the right decision there?
If the result is death, no matter what the decision was, it was the incorrect one. The thing is, if they fought they possibly could have survived. If the guy who pulled his gun and got shot never did, he still could have been killed. One is a proactive choice made to try and protect ones' own life. The other is a passive choice made in the hope that someone that's already harmed you won't harm you further. To me, one of those is an obviously better idea.
You're still not getting it. I posted the number of robberies in Chicago in 2005 (16,000) and the number of people killed during robberies in Chicago in 2005 (39). If only 25% of those robberies were armed, then 1% ended in death (including any who resisted and got shot). If you lower that percentage to 10%, then 2.5% ended in death.
The correct choice, barring any obviously derranged individual who is out to massacre you, is not to resist. Resisting will only skyrocket your chances to die. Even for you, trained as you are, would have higher than 2.5% chance to be killed if you resist someone with a gun. You are also not getting that a correct choice can still result in death. Dying doesn't make it an incorrect choice, it simply means that the odds were not with you. Inceasing those odds by resisting is not a correct choice.
You're still not getting it.
No, you're still not getting it. The percentages mean nothing if the robber doesn't follow the script. You're 100% dead even though you only had a 2.5% chance to be killed.
I'm quite positive that the fact that the numbers were with these four people didn't save their lives, won't bring them back from the dead and is no consolation to their loved ones.
Meh, it all boils down to an individual's willingness to put their life in the hands of someone that's already doing them harm and to completely take their own hands out of their survival equation.
You're still not getting it.
No, you're still not getting it. The percentages mean nothing if the robber doesn't follow the script. You're 100% dead even though you only had a 2.5% chance to be killed.
I'm quite positive that the fact that the numbers were with these four people didn't save their lives, won't bring them back from the dead and is no consolation to their loved ones.
Meh, it all boils down to an individual's willingness to put their life in the hands of someone that's already doing them harm and to completely take their own hands out of their survival equation.
Remember when we were assuming that my numbers were correct. Let's go back to that 50% number for dying while fighting back. No. Let's drop it to 10% and then look at 25% of the number of robberies in Chicago for our numbers.
25% of the number of robberies being armed in Chicago puts it at 4000 armed robberies for that year. Of those, 39 resulted in death. That was 1%. 39 families had to grieve.
Now we have all of those people resist. Everyone of them follow your advice and instead of 40 dying, 400 die. 360 people who would have lived are now dead and that is no consolation to THEIR families. If everyone followed your advice and outlook, far more people would end up dead and there would be far more grief and sadness in this world. I personally believe that fighting back against a robber with a gun results in more than a 10x greater chance of death by the way, so even that 400 number is low.
I completely understand that the numbers say I'll be safe. I also completely understand that the numbers didn't mean a damned thing to the four people who were executed in that pharmacy.
An armed society is a polite society.
On the other hand, if every one of those resisting people was armed, the number of robberies commited next year would drop. And if every one of the resisting people that year was also armed, the number or robberies commited the following year would drop.
An armed society is a polite society.
And that's why I'm glad I live in a gun-friendly state.
You can't accurately label a choice as "correct" or "incorrect" until after the outcome is known.
So you're saying that choices are entirely luck based. If you get lucky, you made there right choice. If you get unlucky, you made the wrong choice. That perspective flies in the face of what choices represent.
So no. We are not an armed society. We are a gun-owning society, but we do not, on a daily basis, walk around with a firearm strapped into a hidden under-arm holster.
An armed society is a polite society.
Strange how Americans aren't really polite here, even if they come from a armed society.
America is NOT an armed society. It's a "you have the RIGHT to be armed." society. I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans don't own guns.
Except we really aren't. IIRC from when I threw statistics at you last year (predictably, you didn't respond) less then 25% of Americans are gun-owners, and most gun-owners don't actually carry. If you pick a random person on the street and ask if they have a gun on th em you have less then 1% chance of finding someone that does.
So no. We are not an armed society. We are a gun-owning society, but we do not, on a daily basis, walk around with a firearm strapped into a hidden under-arm holster.
It really is a question of perspective. From a Québecois's view, the USA is a armed society.
I'll wager that from their perspective, the Earth is flat, too. That doesn't make either perspective true in any way, shape or form.
From a Québecois's view, the USA is a armed society.
Um... no. Let me pull out my chart again...
See that dot at the 90 mark? That's USA, ranked #1 in the world for guns/capita. At 30.8 is Canada, ranked 13th. And that's out of 178. If it's all relative, and we're an "armed society" then so are you, since you're in the top 10% of countries as far as gun ownership.
Indeed, the US is an armed society. The graph shows this. Thank you.
The graph only shows that if you don't know A) how to read a graph, or B) what an armed society is. Otherwise, it shows that the U.S. is NOT an armed society, since the the vast majority of the society is not armed. Simply having the most privately owned arms does not an armed society make.
I'd be curious to see Québec's numbers. I'd bet lower then those Canadian numbers.
Which is entirely irrelevant as there is no such thing as an armed society on the entire planet, as the graph shows.
So yeah. We have more guns, but we have comparable gun owners. And both of us are much higher then the rest of the world. So either "armed society" isn't just about owning guns or Canada and US are both "armed socities". Sorry, but you really aren't that different then us.
________
1In the US most gun owners own multiple guns. In Canada few do.
Like I said, the US is an armed society and you ain't polite. Just look at Maxperson, among others...
At least I'm smart enough to know that in order to have an armed society, you actually have to have a society that is, you know, ARMED. That means a majority of the people, not a minority like, you know, actually exists in America.
Where have you seen this?
Mostly I was being snarky seeing as you didn't actually address what I said which, by pattern recognition, normally means you can't actually contest it. But then you did one better and said "25% is a lot. One in four person. That, to me, constitute an armed society." Wanna guess what percentage of Canadians are gun owners?
Here are some crime statistics by state. (links at the bottom).
The FBI publishes crime statistics every year, if you are interested.
Like I said, the US is an armed society and you ain't polite. Just look at Maxperson, among others...
At least I'm smart enough to know that in order to have an armed society, you actually have to have a society that is, you know, ARMED. That means a majority of the people, not a minority like, you know, actually exists in America.
Who said anything about a majority? 25% (EE's number) is a lot. One in four person. That, to me, constitute an armed society. Especially when you consider people can walk arond with them.
Fortunately your opinion on this and $1 will get me some M&Ms at the store.
Canada has 200% less guns per capita then the US.
8 out of 5 people fail at basic math.
Canada has 200% less guns per capita then the US.
8 out of 5 people fail at basic math.
His numbers are accurate when you take into account the "anti-guns" that Canada uses instead of the USA's normal guns. You know, those are the ones that when you shoot them, people come to life. They tend not to fire them, though, due to strict anti-anti-gun laws (would that just make them gun laws?) and also since anti-gunpowder is very expensive to manufacture.
Care to link all those stats that have been popping up?
Nope. You've been happy enough to not contest my numbers so far, even when I pointed out that the US and Canada have comparable gun ownership rats, and only got uppity when I pointed out that only using things you'd said and accepted that you called your own country an "armed society".
So to put it simply, if you're going to suddenly get an itch to verify numbers, you can look them up yourself.
As a side note, if you try to use your governments numbers on registered guns and licences given out as proof that I'm off my rocker I'll laugh. Even by their own estimates there's at least millions of guns completetly unaccounted for, and it's not like you guys have that many millions of people for them to be spread out among. (seriously, the US has about 8 times as many guns as Canada has people.)
I’ve removed content from this thread because baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...