U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-20-2013, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Canada
3,677 posts, read 3,585,472 times
Reputation: 3139

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by scaramouchebluez View Post
Look at this immigrant coming to call me an immigrant when my people built this country while yours were back creating world wars with sticks.

Yes, it is a reality what is stopping harper from killing you right now, nothing, so get your head to meet a reality check the gov't can wipe us out any time and the less guns we have the more likely it is. You think people though o that hitler is going to throw millions in concentrations camps that mao, that stalin, that pol pot, that gaddafi. We are not immune from dictatorship, stop being so naive. Remember the Americans overthrew their tyrannical government and dummies in Canada embraced the dictatorship and tyranical government that was king George the despot and taxation without representation. So despite having a history of tyranny it could never happen here you are so right.

Our country was 3rd world until America developed it, most Canadians were poor and the cities didn't even exist until the american irish came here and built toronto in the 1800s. If it wasn't for America and their guns we'd be either speaking German, russian or Cree Indian take your choice.

The prime minister is irrelvent you have no real vote in canada the queen is the dictator and she wins every election and calls all the shots behind the scenes, the pm is her wiping boy. because he wipes her butt all day. And when he is political useless he is dumped in the garbage and a new figure head is put in place to placate the idiots who think they will get change but get 4 more years of the same bad corrupt, inept government.

No you know more than me, I am just some idiot immigrant who rolled off the boat in the 1600s. It doesn't matter that Paul Hellyer the deputy prime minister to Pierre Trudeau and former minister of defense went on tv and said the Canadian government is controlled by the shadow government, or when I sat at fundraisers with John Tory, or Mike Harris, no no you know everything, they are just in politics and know nothing.

I bid you good day sir, drink your flouride water and take all your vaccine and gmos, the government is infalliable and will protect you from every crime, you didn't build that Obama did, there is no corruption in government, everything is perfect and no one needs guns police are never corrupt judges don't take bribes and the world is made of pixie dust. And make sure you let them blast you with radiation xray machines at the airport to keep you safe from terrorist and let them take all your rights. Government is never bad its always good democide killing 200+ million people never happened in the 20th century and it was all just a dream we are at war with sealand and have always been at war with sealand.
Wow, I disagreed with your other posts but this is just plain delusional. You actually think the Queen is highly involved in Canadian politics behind the scenes, dictating our public policy? You are massively out of touch with the way things work practically in Canada. Toronto was founded by Irish Americans? It was a Loyalist, deeply Protestant, Orange Order stronghold for centuries, founded as Fort York by the British military in the location it was so as to be more defensible from American attacks. This country was founded and developed by the BRITISH EMPIRE, not America, and was largely created and shaped by competition with USA. And it's nukes, not guns, that kept the Russians at bay, and don't start taking credit for benevolently saving us from the Nazis, Canada fought for years against them while the US was happy to sit pretty and watch it all happen, you only got involved when the Axis directly attacked Hawaii. Talk of Vaccines and Fluoridation being evil plots just cliches it, you've allowed yourself to believe in a fantasy of conspiracy theories, adopted a totally crazy worldview, because despite it's awfulness it's more exciting than the real world. I'd be fine with it if it weren't so dangerous. Grow up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-20-2013, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Lethbridge, AB
1,132 posts, read 946,367 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman249 View Post
What you say is not entirely true. In reality statistical analysis correlating guns and violent crime tend to be very complicated and are difficult to interpret. Hence are easily dismissed. Some earlier post suggested that an increase in cars will lead to an increase in car related deaths. An increase in knives will lead to an increase in knife related deaths. Agree? Similarly, an increase in guns will lead to increase in gun related deaths. So no need to muddy the issue by bringing in crime statistics. By simple correlation: increase in guns leads to increase in gun related accidents/ deaths. Here Correlation=Causation.
Back up to my previous post. By using "Gun related" deaths, you're muddying the issue yourself.

An increase in guns does not increase the total deaths.

I've already covered this somewhat in my lengthier write up on suicide. Upon implementation of the long gun registry, Canada suffered less gun related suicides. We suffered the same amount of total suicides. The total number of deaths was not affected.

Why would we concern ourselves with the method of death rather than with the death itself?

Beyond that, with the advent of concealed carry in the US, we've seen an increase in guns in the public space. If more guns present in public correlated with more gun deaths, we would have seen an increase in shooting deaths. That hasn't occurred.

Quote:
Guns are more dangerous than knives because you can inflict widespread serious damage at a very fast rate. A person cannot kill multiple well-built people with a knife. However, the same person can kill scores of people in minutes with a gun. So to assert that a gun is not more dangerous than a knife or rope is ridiculous.

If I live in a neighborhood, I know that everyone has a knife in their kitchen. It does not make me feel any more safe or scared. However, if I live in a neighborhood where everyone has a gun, I would feel more scared. In fact, to make myself feel secure, I might be FORCED to buy a gun.
Except that more people are killed by knives and ropes than by guns.

Yours isn't an argument based on evidence, it's an argument based on your personal fears. You've been exposed to knives and do not fear them, even though more killings occur with knives than with guns. Speaking statistically, you are more likely to be stabbed than shot, yet the risk of stabbing does not concern you, while the lesser risk of shooting does.

Because you feel safer around knives you've concluded they're less dangerous despite the greater statistical risk they pose.

Quote:
I lost you there. What evidence? What do you mean my "little" risk?
An increase in guns does not correlate with an increase of total homicides, violent crimes or suicides. Since more guns does not translate into more deaths, etc. we can conclude that the number of guns is not a factor in the risk of homicide, suicide etc.

Quote:
As a society, we deem cars and planes to be necessary for our everyday lives. Hence car and plane related deaths while very sad, are accepted by society as "accidents". Now if a society does not deem guns to be necessary, then even ONE gun related accident is not acceptable. Do you get the difference?

Even one gun related death is one too many if guns are not deemed to be an essential part of our everyday life. "Do we Really Need Guns?" that should be the debate.

That should not ever be the debate.

To limit a persons possessions to those deemed (by someone else, mind you) to be essential is the antithesis of a free society. Generally, people only make this argument regarding something that they fear or dislike - and fear and dislike are not things on which to base public policy. Who makes the call as to what's legitimate?

Every pastime, even those that we see as completely benign comes with some degree of risk. Swimming pools, for example, kill something like 10 times the number of children than guns do, yet I've never heard a "Do we really need swimming pools" debate.

Last edited by Stubblejumper; 06-20-2013 at 03:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 03:43 PM
 
Location: British Columbia, Canada
1,886 posts, read 1,959,007 times
Reputation: 2169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

Take Switzerland, It requires every citizen to own a Full Auto Rifle by Law. They have nearly a 100% Gun ownership rate, ......
That is not correct. Only 30% of households in Switzerland possess firearms of any kind. No citizens are required by law to possess a full auto rifle, let alone to possess any kind of firearm unless they are active or standing in reserve in the militia, in which case they are issued a firearm by their government. Once they are discharged from their term of service in the militia at age 30 they may either return or keep the firearm that was issued to them, but if they choose to keep the firearm after their term of service they must be licensed.

I think you should do some research about gun laws in Switzerland so you won't go making any more erroneous statements such as your quote above. This is a good place to start:
Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 03:48 PM
 
Location: Lethbridge, AB
1,132 posts, read 946,367 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaramouchebluez View Post
Yes, it is a reality what is stopping harper from killing you right now, nothing...
Evidently, you've never dealt with Federal Government bureaucracy. If Harper wanted me dead now it would be years before anything would get done about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 03:49 PM
 
1,514 posts, read 700,230 times
Reputation: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubblejumper View Post
Back up to my previous post. By using "Gun related" deaths, you're muddying the issue yourself.

An increase in guns does not increase the total deaths.
Now, what do you mean by total deaths? Are you saying that there is a predetermined TOTAL deaths every-year and that introducing guns into the picture does not affect this total number?

The point I am making is very simple. If there are 100 cars on the road and 1% are known to crash (statistically), we will have approximately 1 car crash. If there are 1000 cars, we will have approximately 10 car crashes. So how is increasing the number of guns not going to increase the number of deaths caused by guns?

For the purpose of this argument, I was defining gun-related death more like a gun-related accident. For example, a 2 year old shoots his mother. This is not possible with a knife or rope. Such a death is strictly gun-related. I am not even talking about suicide (rope vs gun) or gang-violence (shoot vs stab).

Quote:
I've already covered this somewhat in my lengthier write up on suicide. Upon implementation of the long gun registry, Canada suffered less gun related suicides. We suffered the same amount of total suicides. The total number of deaths was not affected.
Read my statement(s) above. You are clearly misleading everyone by using this analogy. If there are 100 people who want to commit suicide, maybe 10 will use a gun and 90 will use a rope. Or maybe 50 will use a gun and 50 will jump of a bridge. I get that.
But if 1 car accident happens for every 100 cars; then you will get 10 car accidents for 1000 cars, and 100 car accidents for 10,000 cars.
You want more?
If one 3-year old shoots his mom for every 10,000 guns in a town (gun related accident). Then statistically two 3-year olds will shoot their mothers for every 2x10000 = 20,000 guns.

I have either tested your limits or you are purposefully not understanding this simple equation.


Quote:
Why would we concern ourselves with the method of death rather than with the death itself?
Again, you make no sense. If lead in paint causes cancer. I will would ban the use of lead paint since I do not deem lead paint to be an essential part of life. I won't just take this unnecessary risk ......
However, if a cars and planes kill people, I will not ban them ... since we as a society deem them to be essential and are willing to withstand that risk. We drive to work everyday knowing these facts.

Quote:
Except that more people are killed by knives and ropes than by guns.
Honky, please! I have already explained to you the concept of acceptable risk. Yet you keep making such ridiculous arguments.

Quote:
Yours isn't an argument based on evidence, it's an argument based on your personal fears. You've been exposed to knives and do not fear them, even though more killings occur with knives than with guns. Speaking statistically, you are more likely to be stabbed than shot, yet the risk of stabbing does not concern you, while the lesser risk of shooting does.
Please do not use the word statistically and then make a statistically invalid statement. The primary use of a knife is to cut vegetables. In Canada alone you would have over 100 million knives. And how many deaths are caused by knives?
If X wants to kill Y, any weapon of choice can be used: gun, knife, car, baseball-bat. Here the weapon of choice is irrelevant. And the use of statistics here is moot.
However, I can be killed while sitting in my house if a bullet comes through the wall OR if a maniac walks into a movie theatre with a gun. So of course I am more afraid of a gun. And evolutionary speaking, our brain has evolved in way that makes us afraid of things that are extremely dangerous. A 1-year old child is afraid of fire .... and this fear is not irrational! Similarly, my fear of guns is rational.

Quote:
Because you feel safer around knives you've concluded they're less dangerous despite the greater statistical risk they pose.
If you run towards me with a knife, I will punch you in the ****
If you run towards me with a gun, I will run ...
Your statistics is that of convenience.

Quote:
An increase in guns does not correlate with an increase of total homicides, violent crimes or suicides. Since more guns does not translate into more deaths, etc. we can conclude that the number of guns is not a factor in the risk of homicide, suicide etc.
Again, not true. Like I have already proved. An increase in guns results in more 5-year olds shooting their mothers and more friends shooting other friends in the face while hunting. Such deaths cannot be replaced by a rope or knife.

Quote:
That should not ever be the debate.
To limit a persons possessions to those deemed (by someone else, mind you) to be essential is the antithesis of a free society. Generally, people only make this argument regarding something that they fear or dislike - and fear and dislike are not things on which to base public policy. Who makes the call as to what's legitimate?
This is a topic for a very different debate. I welcome you start a new thread that explores this topic. And by the way, "a society" by definition is not free. For what is society but a series of rules and regulations imposed upon its people .....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 03:54 PM
 
7,295 posts, read 2,665,711 times
Reputation: 3943
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaramouchebluez View Post
Look at this immigrant coming to call me an immigrant when my people built this country while yours were back creating world wars with sticks.

Yes, it is a reality what is stopping harper from killing you right now, nothing, so get your head to meet a reality check the gov't can wipe us out any time and the less guns we have the more likely it is. You think people though o that hitler is going to throw millions in concentrations camps that mao, that stalin, that pol pot, that gaddafi. We are not immune from dictatorship, stop being so naive. Remember the Americans overthrew their tyrannical government and dummies in Canada embraced the dictatorship and tyranical government that was king George the despot and taxation without representation. So despite having a history of tyranny it could never happen here you are so right.

Our country was 3rd world until America developed it, most Canadians were poor and the cities didn't even exist until the american irish came here and built toronto in the 1800s. If it wasn't for America and their guns we'd be either speaking German, russian or Cree Indian take your choice.

The prime minister is irrelvent you have no real vote in canada the queen is the dictator and she wins every election and calls all the shots behind the scenes, the pm is her wiping boy. because he wipes her butt all day. And when he is political useless he is dumped in the garbage and a new figure head is put in place to placate the idiots who think they will get change but get 4 more years of the same bad corrupt, inept government.

No you know more than me, I am just some idiot immigrant who rolled off the boat in the 1600s. It doesn't matter that Paul Hellyer the deputy prime minister to Pierre Trudeau and former minister of defense went on tv and said the Canadian government is controlled by the shadow government, or when I sat at fundraisers with John Tory, or Mike Harris, no no you know everything, they are just in politics and know nothing.

I bid you good day sir, drink your flouride water and take all your vaccine and gmos, the government is infalliable and will protect you from every crime, you didn't build that Obama did, there is no corruption in government, everything is perfect and no one needs guns police are never corrupt judges don't take bribes and the world is made of pixie dust. And make sure you let them blast you with radiation xray machines at the airport to keep you safe from terrorist and let them take all your rights. Government is never bad its always good democide killing 200+ million people never happened in the 20th century and it was all just a dream we are at war with sealand and have always been at war with sealand.
Whaaathehell you smoking bro?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 04:02 PM
 
7,295 posts, read 2,665,711 times
Reputation: 3943
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyyc View Post
Oh no, you're spot on. I just don't like being lumped in with him.
You are right of course. I made a critical mistake and one that I will have to work more diligently at refraining from repeating.

If his later posts are any indication; he's in a class (or ward ) all by himself in any case.

Just the kind of nutbar seeing the government or a 90 year old Queen under his bed, we want running around armed to the teeth in Canada.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 04:03 PM
 
Location: British Columbia, Canada
1,886 posts, read 1,959,007 times
Reputation: 2169
There is no way I would engage with that person. I don't think he has a clue what he's raving about, he seems quite delusional.

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2013, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Windsor, Ontario
7,745 posts, read 4,089,765 times
Reputation: 8381
[quote=movingwiththewind;30107120]


Quote:
I can't believe, Canadians want their country to become like the US in this regard.

Ficking why?
I only want to be able to defend myself and my family, or a citizen in need, in or around my home. I have no desire for open carry, CCW, or anything else. However, I want to be able to go to any range I wish with a so-called "restricted firearm", without an ATT. You do understand there is already a huge range of semi automatic firearms Canadians can travel around with though, right?


"
Quote:
Freedom"? Fighting your own democratically elected government?


I refuse to believe our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers, that have vowed their lives to our protection, would turn their weapons againts the citizens of Canada per orders of "the man". As I've tried to tell the Americans with this issue, in their case, you would sooner see an Abrhams pointing it's turret at the White House, before your house. With us, I'd sooner see a Leapord point it's turret at Parliment before my house.




Quote:
How a ficking gun in your pocket can make you feel free? Do you feel inferior or less significant without a gun?
No, Sir. As I've said, I only want to be able to defend my life when I need to within my own home. I don't want to, but I will if I have to. Regardless of what laws are on the books. Might as well not make the victim a criminal for saving himself, or another.


Quote:
What is it exactly you're missing? Do you really need to have this gun under your pillow at night to feel safer?


I'm not missing anything except easy access to my firearm in an emergency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2013, 06:20 AM
 
Location: Canada
3,196 posts, read 2,803,761 times
Reputation: 4997
It's already been mentioned that crime rates are dropping all over the world, so I don't see how there is any correlation to be made between lower homicide rates in some states with open carry laws and lower crime. In 2012 our crime rate was the lowest it has been since 1972. One might as well argue that increasingly stricter gun laws have a hand in that. Police report lowest crime rate in forty years, Statistics Canada says | News | National Post

And then there's the fact that there is more violent crime the further west you go. I think this is likely due to culture, and many parts of the west still being very rural.

I don't doubt that the majority of gun owners are responsible people - but the fact is that one crazy person can kill many more people with a gun than with a knife. Studies also show that the more guns there are in a country, the more deaths there are - not only homicides but suicides. It is hard to take back a gun shot to the mouth. It's harder to survive a gunshot than it is a knife attack.

http://web4.uwindsor.ca/users/m/mfc/...85-002-XIE.pdf

And the self-defense argument is so rare as to be, frankly, ridiculous. The Self-Defense Self-Delusion The New England Journal of Medicine posts statistics that women are at a 3-4 times greater risk of dying by homicide than women in households without guns.

http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/cha.../103.myth0.pdf

Growing up on a farm, there were always long guns around for putting down livestock or predators. My husband has several long guns from his hunting days. I have no objection to hunters, target shooters, etc having firearms but that is probably not the vast majority of people.

And maybe the best argument for gun control has already been made on this thread by someone trying to make the opposite point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $89,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top