Canadian sharpshooter denied Queen's Medal

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
Despite sharpshooting her way to the highest score in the prestigious Queen's Medal competition, a female soldier has come away empty-handed.


Afghanistan War veteran Sergeant Tatyana E Danylyshyn, of the Canadian Scottish Regiment, of Victoria, British Columbia scored 1,012 points.


But this year the Queen's Medal was awarded to Army Reservist Corporal Johnny Moore with a score of 1001 points (the highest scoring British competitor).


"To date there has never been a female holder of the Queen's Shot of the Army Reserve," said Chris Fletcher, a senior press officer for the British Army.


The result is not due to sexism but the fact that Danylyshyn is Canadian.


Each year roughly 1,300 of the best shots in the world gather at the Bisley-Pirbright range complex in Surrey to compete for the top shooting honour in the Queen's Shot of the Army Reserve as part of the Joint Service Central Skill-at-Arms Meeting.


Their skills are tested at shooting short range, long range, timed fire, and other scenarios.


Competitors include military members from France, the US, UK, and commonwealth nations like Canada. Foreign nationals, however, are invited to compete "on an honours-only basis," said Fletcher. He could not say whether Danylyshyn is the first woman with such a high score because the performance of foreign nationals is not recorded.


That didn't stop Sgt. Danylyshyn's father David Danylyshyn from trumpeting his daughter's high score online. "I taught all my kids to shoot, read, and swim before they started kindergarten," he wrote in a letter to Canadian gun advocacy website TheTruthAboutGuns.com. "She won't get the medal herself, though, because...colonial."


The Canadian Military run a similar competition to compete for their own version of the Queen's Medal and Britons participate under the same honours-only rules. "They too, on occasions, have produced the highest score," said Fletcher.




Sharpshooting female soldier beats best Brits but fails to take home top Queen's Medal








 

grainfedpraiboy

Electoral Member
Mar 15, 2009
715
1
18
Alberta The Last Best West
Anthropologically speaking men developed a greater towards abstract thought and reasoning largely through 1000s of years of tending flocks, hunting and exploring where they were alone and today are more readily able to mentally piece together multi dimensional objects. Women on the other hand dug for roots and berries and developed superior eye/hand coordination and while doing so in groups, better communication skills.

Whether that research is true or not, from my military days I can tell you that training women to shoot was simpler and they always grasped the principles of marksmanship faster.

Good on her.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,639
7,099
113
Washington DC
Anthropologically speaking men developed a greater towards abstract thought and reasoning largely through 1000s of years of tending flocks, hunting and exploring where they were alone and today are more readily able to mentally piece together multi dimensional objects. Women on the other hand dug for roots and berries and developed superior eye/hand coordination and while doing so in groups, better communication skills.

Whether that research is true or not, from my military days I can tell you that training women to shoot was simpler and they always grasped the principles of marksmanship faster.

Good on her.
That's the difference between anthropology and science. No experimentation.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,639
7,099
113
Washington DC
It's clear. You imply anthropology as a discipline conducts research without experimentation.
It does. It is observational, not experimental.

That doesn't make it invalid, it just makes it less reliable than science, which depends on experimentation to demonstrate hypotheses.

Stupid is as stupid types and that was one of your more stupid ones.
Your tantrum isn't helping you here. Tantrums rarely do.
 

grainfedpraiboy

Electoral Member
Mar 15, 2009
715
1
18
Alberta The Last Best West
It does. It is observational, not experimental.

That doesn't make it invalid, it just makes it less reliable than science, which depends on experimentation to demonstrate hypotheses.

Wow. Are you for real? Do you really believe anthropology and it's related research has no basis in controlled experiments and is nothing more than opinions from casual observation?

Merriam Webster defines experiment as:

"a scientific test in which you perform a series of actions and carefully observe their effects in order to learn about something;"

"an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law."

To be clear, are you claiming that the above definition does not occur in the field of anthropology?

Your tantrum isn't helping you here. Tantrums rarely do.

Calling out your statement as one of the stupidest I've every seen is hardly a tantrum. I can\t believe anyone would even state that let alone believe it. No wonder you hold some of the views you do.

Wow.

He is just upset that his new religion is a proven lie.

Does that mean you agree with techumsehbones?