Thread by @Dicky_Paul_95

I said I’d do a thread on the Docs thread of alleged evidence supporting Bill C21 and it’s gun bans.

Here we go.

First, a vague 20 year old statement that I somewhat agree with. I support some gun laws that Canada has had for decades.

Their cited link takes us nowhere though.

Next they cited two Canadian studies on firearm legislation and suicide. Of special note: their links are just to the main page at NIH, not any actual study. Sloppy at best, incompetent more likely.

The first explored the after effects of Bill C-17 in 1991. It found firearm homicide and suicide rates fell after the bill.

It also reinforced the “displacement” phenomenon in Canada, where firearm suicides dropped, but overall suicides did not. The method of suicide changed.

Nothing in this paper is relevant to firearm bans or Bill C21 that I can see.

The second paper is more of the same. It found firearm suicides dropped after Bill C51, but that the suicides were displaced by other methods.

Again, zero to do with C21 here.

Next is something about Bill C68 saving 300 lives, but again their link is wrong. Honestly whoever did this thread is incompetent or drunk. (both?)

I managed to find the link with the Google machine:

inspq.qc.ca/sites/default/…

It’s far from a peer reviewed study with solid findings. In fact, the 300 number comes after they discussed several studies, but used a citation to their own work to support the claim.

Even if it were true (it’s likely not), it also has no bearing on the discussion on C21.

Next is a study that, again, has no bearing on C21. I’ll just attach part of the abstract.

Usually their go-to paper, this 2016 paper does support good effective gun control measures like licensing and safe storage.

What does it say about assault weapon bans?

“In contrast, evidence suggests that laws restricting the sales of certain firearms are not associated with variations in all or firearm homicides.” Also check the screenshot.

Huh. Well that does help inform the discussion on C21, but against bans not for them.

Of course no discussion on gun bans is complete without mentioning Australia.

I recommend the below 3 papers (screenshots added in order):

melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/w…

ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.21…

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

Also of note, the two authors most cited for supporting the Australian NFA also lobbied the government for the NFA… a conflict of interest.

Also, even Public Safety Canada agrees there is no evidence supporting the NFA.

Holy cow… another broken link. How do they expect to be taken seriously?

Anywho, I know the paper they attempted to link. It looked at news reports to form the basis of how many mass shooting fatalities there’ve been in the US. Yes. Media reports as a dataset.

It wasn’t hard to find numbers contradicting the paper.

Regardless, here’s a study published in The Lancet that found an increased risk of firearm homicide during the US AWB. Add this to the paper posted 4 tweets above:

https://twitter.com/Dicky_Paul_95/status/1451390289277595649

They then linked to another page error. 🤷‍♂️

It was supposed to be about the UK handgun ban. This was also addressed by this 2018 Public Safety Canada report:

Also, crime continued to increase for years after the ban. You will be hard pressed to find any actual evidence the ban had a positive effect.

As for mass shootings, they almost never happened before the ban.

Next was a Swiss study that found licensing lowered their suicide rates. Cool. What’s that have to do with C21?

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23897090/

Lastly is a US paper on red flag laws.

Great!

We have red flag laws. We have for decades.

Not relevant to C21.

So… as expected, they added nothing to the discussion.

These types of threads by the Docs are meant to give the impression there is strong evidence supporting their claims, when there is not.

Always always always fact check these guys. They are straight up liars.

#C21