- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Absolutely. You can't shoot someone if you don't have a gun.There is NO debating, gun control reduces the shooting rate. That is just true.
If that is so, then Canada should have a lot more murders than the US, and yet the opposite is true.
I don't know. Should we dismiss the dozens of other cultural/social differences between Canada and the United States? You know? Drug laws? Gangs? Population? Number of cities? Economic diversity? Ethnic make up?
The truth is, more freedom is more dangerous.
Is that what this thread is about?There is absolutely no debating that banning guns has resulted in fewer gun deaths.
Absolutely. You can't shoot someone if you don't have a gun.
The thing is, we want some shooting. We want the rape victim to shoot the perp. We want the home owner to shoot the burglar. Etc.
Reducing "shootings" is not a desirable goal since justified shootings are a good and desirable thing. Certain crimes should cost you your life in the act by the victim's hands.
Recently the extent of the political pressure the RCMP got when it seized firearms from people's unsecured homes during the summer flooding in High River, Alberta was revealed. The Conservatives demanded the seized guns be returned to the owners. What the RCMP like to point is most of the firearms (more than 600 to be exact) they had in storage were voluntarily given to the police to be safeguarded during the disaster along with half a million rounds of ammunition. My question to you is if say your house was damaged and flooded, torn apart, burned, etc. by a natural disaster and have no safe place to store them would you surrender your firearms voluntarily to the police for safe keeping until you could return home and store them safely.
Is that what this thread is about?
Let me tell you, that even if private gun ownership increased crime, it should remain legal. Even if more guns = more crime, private gun ownership should remain perfectly permisable and unhindered.
If you want to make the most improvement on crime, focus on local economy and intact homes. When it comes to crime, the presence or absence of guns have little impact.
You will need to open a thread on it, as the moderators generally frown on this much drift away from a thread's OP.Ah, now here is something we can debate! While I still thoroughly disagree with you, I recognise that this is matter of morals and conscious, not statistics.
To address that point: That sounds to me worryingly like vigilante justice, neverminding that I'd argue capital punishment is wrong entirely. Surely you would prefer a rapist or thief face due process?
Recently the extent of the political pressure the RCMP got when it seized firearms from people's unsecured homes during the summer flooding in High River, Alberta was revealed. The Conservatives demanded the seized guns be returned to the owners. What the RCMP like to point is most of the firearms (more than 600 to be exact) they had in storage were voluntarily given to the police to be safeguarded during the disaster along with half a million rounds of ammunition. My question to you is if say your house was damaged and flooded, torn apart, burned, etc. by a natural disaster and have no safe place to store them would you surrender your firearms voluntarily to the police for safe keeping until you could return home and store them safely.
If that is so, then Canada should have a lot more murders than the US, and yet the opposite is true.
I'm sure Canada's ethnic "make up" doesn't look anything like that of the US. they might have a couple of all races there, but that isn't what we see in the US. I would tend to leave race out of it as it seems crime rates are usually higher in dense populations. Canada doesn't resemble the US well in that aspect.
We really are talking apples to oranges when comparing Canada and the United States. It be like comparing obesity from state to state and country to country. There are just some cultural different that comes into play. The statistics cannot be denied though, and what is most damning is what I didn't put into that. The District of Columbia, has the toughest gun laws in the country, and also the highest murder per capita as well. At some point you have to start drawing a correlation.
We never wanted one, we saw yours and thought it was a stupid idea. There is just so much potential for abuse it is astronomical.
Why were the pólice searching peoples homes for weapons? I doubt they were out in the open, so searching had to be done.
Do you agree with the pólice searching your house after a natural disaster?
Why were the pólice searching peoples homes for weapons? I doubt they were out in the open, so searching had to be done.
Do you agree with the pólice searching your house after a natural disaster?
Is Canada really all that different from the US? What are the differences that matter to the issue of murders and gun violence/gun control?
I think the primary difference between the US and Canada, as it affects to gun crime, is related largely to drugs and poverty within the inner cities. Neither of these issues are as prevalent a problem as they are in Canada. Well, unless we're talking about that mayor from Toronto.
Then again, if the presence of guns were the sole cause of violence, Switzerland would be one of the most violent places in the world with their permissive gun culture. But their not, which further shows that guns aren't responsible for crime, but people are.
Neither of these issues are as prevalent a problem as they are in Canada.
No, not at all. In fact, some other factor must be the reason why there are fewer murders in Canada than the USA. Just listing possibilities, however, doesn't help unless you can make some sort of a connection between those factors and murder/violent crime rates.
But, is there that much less poverty and drug abuse in Canada? If so, then that just might be the factor to look at.
Pick a position already. Canada's gun laws prevent violence, US gun laws DONT prevent violence. It's all the same thing. It's not at ALL the same thing.Is Canada really all that different from the US? What are the differences that matter to the issue of murders and gun violence/gun control?
I'll see your Toronto mayor and raise you the mayor of Washington DC...I think the primary difference between the US and Canada, as it affects to gun crime, is related largely to drugs and poverty within the inner cities. Neither of these issues are as prevalent a problem as they are in Canada. Well, unless we're talking about that mayor from Toronto.
Then again, if the presence of guns were the sole cause of violence, Switzerland would be one of the most violent places in the world with their permissive gun culture. But their not, which further shows that guns aren't responsible for crime, but people are.
A nation that is eager to kiss any oppressor's ass rather than fight for freedom certainly has less need of a right to keep and bear arms than a nation of people who value freedom and are willing to fight for it, if necessary.
We kicked oppressive American forces out of this country not once but twice. Maybe it is because America is not a true democracy but here democracy and peaceful negotiation is the way of things.
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?