3 ms·

Canada has the same rates of gun ownership as America and you don't see cops come up with guns blazing like they do here

dogemaster2025 6mo ago
[flagged]
- Open-Sourcery 6mo ago
  "My source is that I made it the fuck up"
  - dogemaster2025 6mo ago
    [flagged]
- ceejayoz 6mo ago
  > Let’s bring data: > Source: ChatGPT Please tell me this is a joke?
  - dogemaster2025 6mo ago
    Why? Do you have different data or you just don’t like the numbers? - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts... - https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/guns-and-daily-life-identity-experiences-activities-and-involvement/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/guns-an... - https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2025001/article/00011-eng.htm https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2025001/article...
    - snakeboy 6mo ago
      I fail to understand why you cited ChatGPT in the first comment instead of just linking the sources in the first place. That was obviously the critique of your comment, and it seems bad-faith to claim it was because they "just don't like the numbers".
      - dogemaster2025 6mo ago
        [flagged]
  - lIl-IIIl 6mo ago
    I agree and have the same reaction, but I also wonder how long before we accept "ChatGPT" source like we do Wikipedia. For ChatGpt answers we reasonably expect to cite actual sources rather than "Source: ChatGPT". For Wikipedia, most of us just stop at "Source: Wikipedia".
    - dghlsakjg 6mo ago
      Wikipedia is easily viewed by anyone, and their sources are right there for further verification. “Source: ChatGPT” frequently doesn’t include the link to the original chat, so is hard to verify that is the actual output, and we all have experience with ChatGPT wholesale making up facts when it is led towards the conclusion, or just inventing facts and sources. I personally treat ChatGPT “facts” like “facts” from Reddit or Meta. There might be a grain of truth in it, but treating it like an actual source is a fool’s game.
    - johnnyanmac 6mo ago
      I'm not most people. You spend enough time in the "talk" section and you realize that Wikipedia is every bit as vulnerable to propaganda as Facebook or Twitter. It's decent enough for high level technical explanation, but anything opinionistic needs to follow the source trails.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
EdwardDiego 6mo ago
If Canada is like New Zealand, which also has a similarly high rate of gun ownership - it's largely different types of guns - that is, guns for hunting, not for killing people - very hard to conceal a rifle or shotgun compared to a pistol.

dogemaster2025 6mo ago

[flagged]

Open-Sourcery 6mo ago
"My source is that I made it the fuck up"
- dogemaster2025 6mo ago
  [flagged]
ceejayoz 6mo ago
> Let’s bring data: > Source: ChatGPT Please tell me this is a joke?
- dogemaster2025 6mo ago
  Why? Do you have different data or you just don’t like the numbers? - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts... - https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/guns-and-daily-life-identity-experiences-activities-and-involvement/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/guns-an... - https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2025001/article/00011-eng.htm https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2025001/article...
  - snakeboy 6mo ago
    I fail to understand why you cited ChatGPT in the first comment instead of just linking the sources in the first place. That was obviously the critique of your comment, and it seems bad-faith to claim it was because they "just don't like the numbers".
    - dogemaster2025 6mo ago
      [flagged]
- lIl-IIIl 6mo ago
  I agree and have the same reaction, but I also wonder how long before we accept "ChatGPT" source like we do Wikipedia. For ChatGpt answers we reasonably expect to cite actual sources rather than "Source: ChatGPT". For Wikipedia, most of us just stop at "Source: Wikipedia".
  - dghlsakjg 6mo ago
    Wikipedia is easily viewed by anyone, and their sources are right there for further verification. “Source: ChatGPT” frequently doesn’t include the link to the original chat, so is hard to verify that is the actual output, and we all have experience with ChatGPT wholesale making up facts when it is led towards the conclusion, or just inventing facts and sources. I personally treat ChatGPT “facts” like “facts” from Reddit or Meta. There might be a grain of truth in it, but treating it like an actual source is a fool’s game.
  - johnnyanmac 6mo ago
    I'm not most people. You spend enough time in the "talk" section and you realize that Wikipedia is every bit as vulnerable to propaganda as Facebook or Twitter. It's decent enough for high level technical explanation, but anything opinionistic needs to follow the source trails.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

EdwardDiego 6mo ago

If Canada is like New Zealand, which also has a similarly high rate of gun ownership - it's largely different types of guns - that is, guns for hunting, not for killing people - very hard to conceal a rifle or shotgun compared to a pistol.