[hmmm-i-wonder]

>and what would data tell why guns have to be restricted?

We have banned, restricted, and unrestricted classifications. There are good arguments for fully automatic weapons, concealable shotguns and handguns being at least restricted, and for fully automatic and concealable weapons to be completely banned. I'm not going to rehash the arguments, because frankly we're likely going to disagree on most of them and neither of us are going to benefit from rehashing the debate. There are many arguments and viewpoints, but the salient fact is 85% of Canadians view the arguments and decide gun control under some logical framework is needed and support it, while Americans largely take the opposite side which can be traced to cultural and other differences between the countries.

That being said, the fact that the majority of non-domestic gun crimes are done with restricted/banned weapons that are being illegally imported from the states demonstrates a few things.

1. restricting access to those weapons is in fact the correct approach 2. internal restrictions need to be accompanied by stricter border enforcement due to the prevalence of guns and gun culture south of the border. Making it difficult to get legally needs to be superseded by making it incredibly difficult to get illegally first/foremost.

If anything good is coming from the current political nonsense, Canada's stepping up border protection has actually made Canada safer from US drugs and guns illegally crossing the border north, while having almost no impact on the traffic south as Canada Border agents don't stop or search traffic moving south without specific requests from US officials (something most Americans seem to misunderstand about border crossings)

>Is there data for this question which would back restricting populations from having tools of self defense against tyrannic government

Is there data comparing the known and predictable harms to a population having open and unrestricted access to weapons (see the impact of US social problems exacerbated by gun culture vs other countries) vs the concept that it would in fact help in 'self defense against a tyrannical govt'?

Frankly the 'standup against a tyrannical govt` argument has held little weight for decades as modern militaries and equipment vastly outclasses what any civilian can and will have even in the US. A proper democracy with checks and balances will serve far better than any number of civilians with military purpose weaponry, in fact the argument more so applies to a strengthened education and judicial system to ensure tyrants can't bloviate their way into power and remove all checks and balances.

[riku_iki]

> and equipment vastly outclasses what any civilian can and will have even in the US.

not really. In urban setting, it is still the same soldier on foot with rifle, unless military decides to level all cities in the country.

[hmmm-i-wonder]

We will have to disagree on this.

>unless military decides to level all cities in the country.

See Gaza, most of eastern Ukraine. The existence of armoured equipment, air support, satellite monitoring and encrypted/EW resistant communications means civilian resistance is all but irrelevant.

Civilians co-operating with an organized, funded and supplied military is one thing, but on their own its a laughable concept at best.

[simne]

> See Gaza, most of eastern Ukraine. The existence of armoured equipment,... means civilian resistance is all but irrelevant.

I cannot say anything about Gaza.

But I live in Kyiv, Ukraine, and I have lot of talks with civilian resistance, from about 2012 (yes, Euro-2012 significant).

And I could say, map of occupied Ukrainian territory is very close to map of least pro-Ukrainian civilian activity.

I could state exactly - territory where pro-Ukrainian civilian activity (mostly in form of various Non-Government Organizations), was high before war, stay under control of Ukrainian government, but territory where previous power just physically destroyed civilian activity was lost.

Exceptions are Kharkiv and Odessa, where anti-Ukrainian Organizations was very powerful, but they appear very early and pro-Ukrainian forces successfully neutralized them.

What I mean saying about physically destroyed civilian activity, for example The deportation of the Crimean Tatars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tat...

[riku_iki]

I see your examples as in opposite direction.

In Ukraine, militia with rifles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Defence_Forces_(Uk...) dug into the ground and stopped invasion of 1M army with thousands of armored vehicles, absolute superiority in artillery, airforces, tactical missiles and 100B annual budget.

In Gaza, Israel with all tech advantages struggles to efficiently police relatively small urban area for 70 years already.

[hmmm-i-wonder]

Yes the Territorial Defence forces in Ukraine, an example of government backed reserves/semi-trained forces with equipment far beyond the oversimplification of "rifles".

Actual untrained civilian forces with nothing but rifles on their own made little impact to the speed of russian advances however, which after multiple defeats and setbacks led to the formation of that defence force.

Gaza is a whole can of worms in many ways, but its a shining example of a civilian group with access to arms being completely unable to stop a superior local force from driving over them multiple times when they have the desire and political backing.

Which is exactly the point. A bunch of untrained sport shooters and hunters with more guns than they can personally use at once and no supply lines for ammunition or anything else aren't going to stand for any length of time against an organized military, especially on the military's home soil.

More realistic scenarios in any case are full civil war and the military itself splitting and civilians join sides as reserve forces to back them. in which case civilians having blanket access to arms before hand doesn't have any significant bearing on.

All of this is hypothetical, and ultimately comes down to the argument for unrestricted access to guns being 'so we can stand up to a tyrannical government' falls short. You are welcome to disagree, and that's OK with me. My country is largely in line with my sentiment and sees gun ownership as a privilege not a right, one that comes with restrictions balancing the safety of our society. You do you, we will do us.

[riku_iki]

> Territorial Defence forces in Ukraine, an example of government backed reserves/semi-trained forces with equipment far beyond the oversimplification of "rifles".

I don't think this is true. They were formed at the day of invasion (or few days before) with those who voluntarily enlisted(very many people), they received some old AK with bullets, and then moved to frontline to dig tranches, and that's what stopped advancements, because it is still extremely difficult to clear infantry which dug into the ground.

> A bunch of untrained sport shooters and hunters

A bunch is not, but in US number of gun owners is not "a bunch".

> but its a shining example of a civilian group with access to arms being completely unable to stop a superior local force from driving over them multiple times when they have the desire and political backing.

Sure, superior in tech and numbers force can "run over" aka walk on the streets, while being regularly shot from the windows in urban area, and it was with 5x superiority in population. Now imagine dictator tries with say 100k loyalists establish his rule in country with 350M population?

[hmmm-i-wonder]

>I don't think this is true. They were formed at the day of invasion (or few days before) with those who voluntarily enlisted(very many people), they received some old AK with bullets, and then moved to frontline to dig tranches, and that's what stopped advancements, because it is still extremely difficult to clear infantry which dug into the ground.

Read your own wiki link I guess? There was multiple losses before the formation of the reserve defence force. There was also a high element of public participation in training and military force before hand. At no point did a bunch of untrained and unorganized civilians with only rifles significantly hold back the russian advance on their own, however partially trained armed and organized reserve forces did.

>say 100k loyalists establish his rule in country with 350M population?

More like 70 million+ loyalists in the country including the majority of the military which upends the point you are trying to make completely.

[simne]

> Actual untrained civilian forces with nothing but rifles

This is myth. Ukrainian war began in 2014 and all adequate Ukrainians learned books about war or have some training, and this was very respectful form of pastime.

Plus, many Ukrainians just served in military from 2014 consciously, this was great patriotic boom.

To be honest, I think, if Ukrainian science and education was reformed before war 2022, we would be much better prepared and would not lost additional territories. But unfortunately, we hear from our governments constant "don't critic us, or Putin will attack", and this is hard to broke circle.

[hmmm-i-wonder]

My point is untrained, inexperienced and under-equipped civilians have little chance against a military.

Once you start giving them training, organizing and arming them with a logistics arm backing them the discussion completely changes.

Ukraine is an example of reserve/partially trained and backed forces being able to make a significant difference, but its also an example of how unorganized civilian resistance on its own has little to no impact on a modern military.