So why not with the police who are offering that service?
Well, for one, we can conclude that you don't understand statistics. Let's compare to the City of Dallas, which is about the same size as Calgary, if we're only including city limits. Dallas had 152 murders in 2012. Calgary had 20.
Well in the case of High River people were being evacuated and that is why the RCMP were going into people's homes, to find anyone who was still in their homes. They would also be under continuous armed watch so I'm sure they would be safe.
A small snub nose revolver? or small short pistol?
As for carrying it in your home, really? When watching tv, or going to get a drink from the fridge you carry your gun?
Protect them from what? Every animal and every human was supposed to have drowned in that universal flood. Who was left to shoot?
I am guessing that the City of Dallas is more violent then the suburb cities of Dallas which ever they are. It would be a better comparison to include the metro stats.
Overall though if I am not mistaken the gun death rate per 100 000 is approx. 5 times lower in Canada then the US
Well, for one, we can conclude that you don't understand statistics. Let's compare to the City of Dallas, which is about the same size as Calgary, if we're only including city limits. Dallas had 152 murders in 2012. Calgary had 20.
OK, so that works out to about 15 per hundred thousand in Dallas, vs. 2 in Calgary. What is it I don't understand about statistics again?
And what can we conclude from the numbers?
There are 30 million people there. Almost all of them are the same race...or close enough. Who the hell do you have to shoot?
Who the hell do you have to shoot?
My guess? Calgary has better public education, less gang violence, and probably less crime overall. Hell. Aren't drugs less of a problem in Canada?
Why not? It isn't uncomfortable. Mine actually is so comfortable I just don't take it off when I get home.
Well, for one, we can conclude that you don't understand statistics. Let's compare to the City of Dallas, which is about the same size as Calgary, if we're only including city limits. Dallas had 152 murders in 2012. Calgary had 20.
My guess? Calgary has better public education, less gang violence, and probably less crime overall. Hell. Aren't drugs less of a problem in Canada?
sure we can. All we have to do is look at the murder rates in cities and states in THIS country and the presence of restrictive gun laws there...that pretty much answers the questions, right?Can we just dismiss the obvious connection between stricter gun controls and lower murder rates? How do we know that there is no cause and effect relationship
They also forced their way into homes to collect them also.
And no I would not hand over my firearms for "safekeeping".
I just would consider it rather strange. The thought that I would have to carry a gun when at home for protection is alien to the vast majority of Canadians. Even going out in public carrying a gun for protection would be an alien idea to most Canadians (excluding gang bangers of course). In general I think Canadians feel far more safe then most Americans, it may not be true based on overall crime stats, but I expect that is the most feel
You don't have to guess. All you have to do is read what I wrote.
Yes, some people responded with some very reasonable alternatives. Leave them with a friend. One person even suggested leaving them with someone just up the road during a flood, which I found particularly amusing since it is likely that the family just up the road would also be flooded. Personally, I'd rather not give them to the Police for no other reason than because they have problems with logistics and I'm almost sure that I can handle my guns with more care than anyone else. They're mine, after all.
But in addition to these alternatives, many people, including yourself, have framed your response within the the context of protecting your rights, which, again, I find interesting, since the OP's question was never about your rights. It was about whether or not you'd accept a service.
Now, those of us who don't think that the American government would love to get its hands on everybody's guns (since even the most developed assault rifle probably isn't going to do much good against a missile launched from hundreds of miles away by one of America's 10 nuclear-powered supercarriers) didn't see that question as an issue of rights. That's why you didn't understand the cheese analogy. Placing cheese in a context of your rights is silly, which was your point, but your response doesn't make any sense to anybody who correctly perceived this question as a matter of pragmatic response and not as an issue of rights. So of course you couldn't understand that analogy. It caused a brief moment of cognitive dissonance because you are not capable of viewing any issues relating to guns as anything but a civil liberties issue. Responding to floods pragmatically by offering a basic service isn't a civil liberty issue, so why did your response and so many other responses take it that far? Was it a coincidence? An accident?
Or...
You were baited by the poster of the OP and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker. It was a very basic question--would you respond "yes" or "no" if the Police offered to safeguard your weapons in the event of a flood. The OP didn't even bother asking "why" because he knew that all the ra-ra-ra gun owners were gonna respond with litanies about government intrusion and their rights and all that.
The purpose of this OP was to make gun-toting conservatives (or libertarian conservatives, or whatever they're calling themselves these days) look bad and that's exactly what it did.
I don't really understand what that has to do with anything. Someone from Nigeria could have answered such a basic question. I related to the answers which had to do with logistical considerations, but you, yourself, took it way further than that. If you hadn't, we wouldn't have been discussing whether or not a socialist could form a decent answer to the relevant question.
So is it a logistics issue or a rights issue? You don't know. Whatever sounds best at the time, right?
Hold on. First London was a classic British example, wasn't it? You brought it up, not me. Suddenly the tables are turned and it doesn't represent Britain? Somehow, New York City isn't at all relevant to America?
What kind of insanity is this?
And what do you mean "you do things your way"? What, the conversation is over, now? We can't talk about it any more? I'm not from Canada or Britain, so phrasing it like you're talking to someone who isn't from the exact same country as you is kinda odd.
No, you haven't explained anything about socialism. You threw a couple remarks at it to poison the well by referring to socialists as state-worshippers.
As I said before, being able to carry pocketknives has nothing to do with socialism. Nothing in this thread has anything to do with socialism, which is government ownership of the means of production.
How's it feel to have been successfully baited by the "Canadian OP"?
You don't know much about Canada
The Vancouver region is heavily Chinese, Indian/Sikh. It has a nickname of Hongcover due to the number of Chinese there.
Calgary has 140 000 east and south east Asians, probably 100 000 south Asians, 10 000 east Africans
GTA (Toronto) has 500 000 Tamils, large numbers of Asian, Africans, etc.
Montreal has a large number of Hatians
Overall just under 20 % of the population is a visible minority group and the majority of them live in the largest cities.
If you count Hispanics as being white, the difference between the US and Canada is 8%. Which would be predominately because of the much larger African population.
Last but not least.
What on earth does this mean. It is ok to shoot minorities? or people from different ethnic groups
Public education in Alberta is very good, it rates high on international comparisons being beat by South Korea and Finland all the time. Gang violence is generally low, a few years ago there was a small gang war between two generally Asian gangs. As for drugs, they are readily available, and the police do not go after users very much. Getting caught with an ounce of coke got someone I know probation and community service, no jail time. Two people I know crossing the boarder with 21 kg of coke had 3 years jail time for one, and the other just had a massive legal bill (he hired the best criminal defense attorney in Calgary)
sure we can. All we have to do is look at the murder rates in cities and states in THIS country and the presence of restrictive gun laws there...that pretty much answers the questions, right?
Do gun control laws reduce crime? Do they save lives? Is it possible they even cost lives?
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, one of the dissenters in the 5-to-4 decision, surveyed a quite substantial body of empirical research on whether gun control laws do any good. Then he wrote: “The upshot is a set of studies and counterstudies that, at most, could leave a judge uncertain about the proper policy conclusion.”
I just would consider it rather strange. The thought that I would have to carry a gun when at home for protection is alien to the vast majority of Canadians. Even going out in public carrying a gun for protection would be an alien idea to most Canadians (excluding gang bangers of course). In general I think Canadians feel far more safe then most Americans, it may not be true based on overall crime stats, but I expect that is the most feel
Actually, no, it doesn't.
We had a long thread about this very subject not too long ago. The only conclusion was that there was no conclusion about whether restrictive gun laws had any effect at all on violent crimes in general.
Here's an interesting article about the question of gun laws and violent crimes:
Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship
Does attempting to control the ownership of guns reduce violent crimes?
Does individual ownership of guns discourage criminal activity?
The answer to both of the above questions appears to be, "no."
We've pretty much established that Canadians have a much lower murder rate than the US does, and that they are also an ethnically diverse country.
So, we need to look beyond those factors to decide why we have so many more murders.
Actually, no, it doesn't.
We had a long thread about this very subject not too long ago. The only conclusion was that there was no conclusion about whether restrictive gun laws had any effect at all on violent crimes in general.
Here's an interesting article about the question of gun laws and violent crimes:
Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship
Does attempting to control the ownership of guns reduce violent crimes?
Does individual ownership of guns discourage criminal activity?
The answer to both of the above questions appears to be, "no."
We've pretty much established that Canadians have a much lower murder rate than the US does, and that they are also an ethnically diverse country.
So, we need to look beyond those factors to decide why we have so many more murders.
So, now you're fishing for reasons for the lower murder rate in Canada.
and just guessing while doing it.
Can we just dismiss the obvious connection between stricter gun controls and lower murder rates? How do we know that there is no cause and effect relationship there?
and shouldn't more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens actually lower the murder rate?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?