In that particular case, it apparently did, though there may have been other ways to deal with that situation that would also have worked, but you can't--or at least shouldn't--generalize an anecdote into a basis for public policy.
I disagree. It is quite right and responsible to take personal experience more seriously than statistics from another country. My bias is derived from my authentic experience as opposed to an unauthentic experience which comes to me from statistical research which may or may not be credible, relevant or accurate. I am dubious of the research specifically because it comes from another country, a different demographic, law system, rules and regulations and above all culture. I would be a fool to let such research usurp my own authentic experience.
In particular, there's the issue of who defines what "responsible" gun ownership means in a legal sense, and precisely what it means.
Who defines "responsible" gun ownership are the people with the guns. The government can pass as many laws as it likes but at the end of the day only responsible people are likely to follow them. It is my opinion also that many responsible people may not follow them either if they are too draconian. Herein is where gun owners truly have the power and an appeal needs be made to their authentic experience or the argument loses credibility. Your never going to convince a Canadian gun owner their guns are a danger because some Americans are irresponsible. You will convince non gun owners with scary statistics and unauthentic experience but, as I think I have shown, that doesn't really matter much.
By far suicide is the most common cause of gun deaths in Canada. Only 0.4 of gun deaths out of 100,000 people is homicide. The annual rate of gun suicide is 2.0 per 100,000. So violent crime perpetrated by guns is really very minimal.
Source
The current homicide rate in Canada is 1.8 per 100,000 This means 1.4 murders per 100,000 are by other means than guns. It seems like the panic over gun crime is mostly hyperbole.
Source
In the USA homicide rate by gun is 3.98!!! That is a staggering difference at almost 10 times Canada's rate and so using facts derived from the US is terribly misleading.
What do you think might have happened if those scoundrels had also qualified as responsible gun owners and had been armed at the time of this event?
In the US they may have qualified as responsible gun owners but in Canada (as our gun rates attest to IMO) they wouldn't have qualified. Obviously they were criminally minded and I doubt very much they could have gone through the riggers required to own a handgun here. It's a lot more difficult than just showing a drivers licence like in some parts of the USA.
Obviously, since they are criminally minded, it was only luck that they were not armed since getting an illegal hand gun in Canada is really no big deal. Restricting gun ownership serves only to strip guns from responsible people.
It worked out as it did only because the veteran was the only one who happened to be armed.
Maybe. That's a pretty big assumption. It might have worked out because the scoundrels didn't have the patients to legaly aquire a gun; a trate common in such people, which I argue is why so few people are murdered by guns in Canada.
In Canada it is very likely that a gun owner is responsible but in the USA it isn't anywhere near as likely. I think that is what the statistics truly demonstrate.
