Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthornova
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: AngusYou have to compare apples to apples.

    OK but why do you bring in an irrelevant statistic? Murder is inexcusable.


    Switzerland .58 homicides per 100,000.
    Canada .76 homicides per 100,000.

    Switzerland 45.7 guns per 100 residents.
    Canada 30.8 guns per 100 residents.

    No correlation to gun ownership and homicide rate.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: novaFrom a Canadian.
    "Since Canada brought in the gun registry, gun related crime has grown drastically. Sadly that is related to the massive drug import export business. "
    <http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-819159>


    Too true. We export illegal drugs and import illegal guns. If you restrict access to the guns on your side, your crooks will have to give our crooks money instead. That ought to slow things down.

    Maybe we should declare a "War on Guns" and go over and bomb the Glock factory.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: sonoboy
    Posted By: Duracell
    Posted By: nova
    Posted By: joshsThere is a lot wrong with the welfare system and how it rewarded and encouraged dysfunctional behaviors. However but for a lot of luck, many of us could find ourselves in much more difficult circumstances. Does or does not society have an obligation to see that children do not starve?
    You assume that unless the government intervenes, children will starve. And when you ask, does not society have an obligation you are actually saying does not government have an obligation and my answer is no.


    So, your argument is that all social welfare should be abandoned then? A government shouldn't "intervene" under any circumstances? What about the elderly and the infirm? What about people with mental health issues, learning difficulties and other disabilities? You reckon that if the US government were to cease even pretending that it's trying to provide the poorest and most marginalised members of its population with the bare minimum amounts of food, shelter, clothing, healthcare & education they require, then somehow this would reduce poverty and crime (including gun related crime) in the US? You believe that this would somehow provide the missing motivation that the poorest and most marginalised members of US society need in order to transform themselves into fully functional, healthy, fit, able, successful, well-educated and law-abiding members of the their communities?


    Exactly. Charity used to be through the churches and various civic groups. Those who were helped often became the helpers as part of the deal when they could. However, some brainiacs decided we didn't need either and that the gooberment can do it all better. Now we have a perpetual welfare class always with their hand out. Brilliant.


    Breathtaking!

    There is a rising tide of shit gradually engulfing the US, and one of these days you might just realise that this disgusting deluge is gushing forth from the grotesquely bloated assholes above you, and that it is not the poor fuckers below you already swimming in the filth and struggling to keep their heads above the surface that are the source of the pestilential pool!
    • CommentAuthornova
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: joshs
    Posted By: nova
    Posted By: joshsThere is a lot wrong with the welfare system and how it rewarded and encouraged dysfunctional behaviors. However but for a lot of luck, many of us could find ourselves in much more difficult circumstances. Does or does not society have an obligation to see that children do not starve?
    You assume that unless the government intervenes, children will starve. And when you ask, does not society have an obligation you are actually saying does not government have an obligation and my answer is no.
    No, I assume that unless someone intervenes children starve as has been demonstrated. Would you kindly answer my question?
    My answer was no, the government should not intervene.
    • CommentAuthornova
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Too true. We export illegal drugs and import illegal guns. If you restrict access to the guns on your side, your crooks will have to give our crooks money instead. That ought to slow things down.
    Why should you import guns, they are available at a Canadian gun store.
  1.  
    Posted By: AngusCanada does permit quite liberal gun ownership, but not as a right. You forgot one important statistic:

    firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year, historical

    USA 10.27
    Canada 4.78

    Is your home not your castle unless you have loaded heat about? Then your society is not working and you are reverting to the law of the jungle. The rest of us in the civilised world continue to develop our civilisation, although those of us too near the border with you do have some problems.


    One of the things that struck me when I was living in the TO metro area was how many murders were committed with blades.
    And then.... there are the Sikhs. Every one of their adult males is armed with a deadly weapon at all times. Except maybe when boarding an airplane, and with the way things are, they might even be allowed to carry even then.
  2.  
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: nova
    Posted By: AngusCanada does permit quite liberal gun ownership, but not as a right. You forgot one important statistic:

    firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year, historical

    USA 10.27
    Canada 4.78

    Is your home not your castle unless you have loaded heat about? Then your society is not working and you are reverting to the law of the jungle. The rest of us in the civilised world continue to develop our civilisation, although those of us too near the border with you do have some problems.


    Jamaica 8.1 guns per 100 residents.

    Firearm related death in one year per 100,000 in one year.
    Jamaica 44.74.

    No correlation of gun ownership and firearm related death. None.


    Canada and USA are highly comparable societies, bar a few important differences for which we Canadians thank our good fortune daily. USA and Jamaica are not:

    GDP per capita at purchasing power parity

    USA #6 in the world $48,387
    Canad #12 in the world $40,541
    Jamaica #88 in the world $ 9,029

    You have to compare apples to apples.


    You are drawing your borders too large. There are neighborhoods in your great cities and ours, where the ethnic and economic parameters are identical or "worse" than in the native locales of the denizens. Fremont, California, for example, has sections that are indistinguishable from Kabul. Toronto, Kingston. San Antonio, Ciudad de Mexico. Vancouver, Shanghai.

    The apples are just in smaller boxes, but they are the same apples. Toronto has a huge problem with Jamaican gangsters.
    • CommentAuthornova
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: Duracell
    So, your argument is that all social welfare should be abandoned then? A government shouldn't "intervene" under any circumstances? What about the elderly and the infirm? What about people with mental health issues, learning difficulties and other disabilities? You reckon that if the US government were to cease even pretending that it's trying to provide the poorest and most marginalised members of its population with the bare minimum amounts of food, shelter, clothing, healthcare & education they require, then somehow this would reduce poverty and crime (including gun related crime) in the US? You believe that this would somehow provide the missing motivation that the poorest and most marginalised members of US society need in order to transform themselves into fully functional, healthy, fit, able, successful, well-educated and law-abiding members of the their communities?
    One of the worst things President Reagan did was close the mental institutions. The severely mentally ill are beyond redemption and need to be kept for life. On the other hand the way the government has responded to the needy is to create a culture that is dependent on the government. No way out. Society as a whole does not benefit from the way the government has responded to the needy. I know the needy would benefit greater if they relied on the goodwill nature of charity. Suddenly stopping government benefits would be disastrous so the best way to stop government give aways is through attrition.
    We all benefit from a well educated population and that is something that needs to improve. It has been shown over and over that government is incompetent and inefficient and ineffective.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: nova
    Posted By: Angus
    Too true. We export illegal drugs and import illegal guns. If you restrict access to the guns on your side, your crooks will have to give our crooks money instead. That ought to slow things down.
    Why should you import guns, they are available at a Canadian gun store.


    Not handguns, unless you go through quite a procedure. Not anything capable of full automatic fire. The supply of weapons to our criminals comes from the same source as your criminals use. The great reservoir of weaponry sloshing around the US.
    • CommentAuthornova
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinOne of the things that struck me when I was living in the TO metro area was how many murders were committed with blades.
    Yeah, a blade is just a gun without the bang.
  3.  
    Posted By: novaNo, I don't need loaded heat about but it should be a matter of choice.

    so guns should be a matter of choice and the government shouldn't intervene in poverty or hunger, yet you would define for others what has "redeeming qualities" or "long-term benefits"? Interesting.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: nova
    Posted By: alsetalokinOne of the things that struck me when I was living in the TO metro area was how many murders were committed with blades.
    Yeah, a blade is just a gun without the bang.


    Hence my question about why one can't go about in the USA carrying a sabre. Or a hand grenade, for that matter. They are all Arms. ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.").

    Why do you lie down like pussies when the Government tries to take away your God-given right to carry a claymore about (either kind)?
    • CommentAuthornova
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: nova
    Posted By: Angus
    Too true. We export illegal drugs and import illegal guns. If you restrict access to the guns on your side, your crooks will have to give our crooks money instead. That ought to slow things down.
    Why should you import guns, they are available at a Canadian gun store.


    Not handguns, unless you go through quite a procedure. Not anything capable of full automatic fire. The supply of weapons to our criminals comes from the same source as your criminals use. The great reservoir of weaponry sloshing around the US.
    I have never seen or know no one who owns a fully automatic firearm. Ted Nugent is one of those rare owners of full auto's. Otherwise the government keeps close scrutiny of owners.
  4.  
    You forgot to mention how and why the mental hospitals were emptied out.

    It was all due to a failed cold medicine, the antihistamine compound Chlorpromazine.

    In other words, it happened by putting a bunch of people on a set of addictive drugs with horrible long-term permanent side effects and releasing them to fend for themselves.
  5.  
    Posted By: novaI know the needy would benefit greater if they relied on the goodwill nature of charity.
    how is it that the needy don't become dependent on private charity but they do with government provided aid?

    and if we're all busy following the nobleideal of free market capitalism, where's the motivation to help others? There's no "excitement" in that.
    • CommentAuthornova
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Why do you lie down like pussies when the Government tries to take away your God-given right to carry a claymore about (either kind)?
    A claymore offers no self defense.
    Reminds me of my time in the military. As an air crew we would carry nukes' at times and it didn't dawn on me until years later that if we ever had to drop that sucker it would have taken us as well. We had no defense, only offense.
  6.  
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: nova
    Posted By: alsetalokinOne of the things that struck me when I was living in the TO metro area was how many murders were committed with blades.
    Yeah, a blade is just a gun without the bang.


    Hence my question about why one can't go about in the USA carrying a sabre. Or a hand grenade, for that matter. They are all Arms. ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.").

    Why do you lie down like pussies when the Government tries to take away your God-given right to carry a claymore about (either kind)?

    If you pay the right "agencies" the right "taxes" you can get a "permit" to carry around whatever you like. How do you think claymores of either kind get from the place of manufacture to the place of utilization? They aren't _all_ smuggled, you know. You can even buy claymore mines, fully functional except for the actual explosives, at gun and military surplus shows in these parts. In fact, I can get an M18A1 mine easier than I can get a claidheamh mòr around these parts.
    • CommentAuthornova
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012
     
    Posted By: duncan torusand if we're all busy following the nobleideal of free market capitalism, where's the motivation to help others? There's no "excitement" in that.
    Bill Gates has a huge fortune from free market capitalism and is now giving huge amounts to charity. If you don't have it, you can't give. Or would you rather everyone be equally poor.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: nova
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: nova
    Posted By: Angus
    Too true. We export illegal drugs and import illegal guns. If you restrict access to the guns on your side, your crooks will have to give our crooks money instead. That ought to slow things down.
    Why should you import guns, they are available at a Canadian gun store.


    Not handguns, unless you go through quite a procedure. Not anything capable of full automatic fire. The supply of weapons to our criminals comes from the same source as your criminals use. The great reservoir of weaponry sloshing around the US.
    I have never seen or know no one who owns a fully automatic firearm. Ted Nugent is one of those rare owners of full auto's. Otherwise the government keeps close scrutiny of owners.

    At just about any gun show in the country, you can buy these little springy things that clamp to the trigger guards of semiautomatic rifles like the Ruger Mini-14 and the AR-15 that establish a kind of recoil-resonance with your trigger finger, turning the weapon into as near full-auto as you might imagine. It won't match the cyclic rate of an Uzi or a Mac10 but it will take the work out of having to pull the trigger for every round fired. Cyclic rates of 5 rps are easily obtainable with a modern semiauto rifle and one of these simple little springy thingys.

    Of course it is very illegal actually to attach one to a rifle.

    And here's what happens when you actually use an AK47 on full auto to fire off a lot of rounds from drums.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNAohtjG14c
  7.  
    Posted By: nova
    Posted By: Angus
    Why do you lie down like pussies when the Government tries to take away your God-given right to carry a claymore about (either kind)?
    A claymore offers no self defense.
    where in the constitution does it say the "arms" have to be for self-defense? I wasn't aware of any limitations on the types of "arms".

    or maybe we should interpret it to include only weapons that were available at the time it was written.