Author Topic: Whats going on in Canada? (Read 4345 times)

Ping · « **Reply #15 on:** December 28, 2005, 08:59:17 AM »

I will add one more to the sentencing HH.
Undeniable caught in the act murder, You get the Death sentence.
Canadians in general are not blaming the US. Its those spineless corrupt Politicians looking for votes from a fed up public who are.

HugeHead · « **Reply #16 on:** December 28, 2005, 09:06:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ping
I will add one more to the sentencing HH.
Undeniable caught in the act murder, You get the Death sentence.
Canadians in general are not blaming the US. Its those spineless corrupt Politicians looking for votes from a fed up public who are.

Yep Martin's "ban guns" platform is a sickening example of politicing to be sure. No other issue in this current campaign has more clearly defined the parties philosophies then this one incident. I wonder if the Bloc will even care enough about it to issue any kind of statement of policy...I doubt it. And that sums up the bloc's POV as well...clear as crystal.

Personally I don't care if you ban handguns or wave a magic wand and turn them all into balloon animals. I could care less what you do with them. I certainly don't have any need for one but, it's not the answer to this problem and Martin damn well knows it and if he doesn't then he sure as hell is not qualified to be PM.

However, let's not get the DP involved in this discussion because it will just take us on another tagent. These bastards have no repsect or fear of a death penalty. The only thing which would make them fearful would be the certainty of aprehension. We've all seen what cowards these gang members are. Being in a gang is a clear statement that you are indeed a sniveling coward with no self respect or courage. Let's work to make that a reality first.

Regards,
HH

Ping · « **Reply #17 on:** December 28, 2005, 09:15:49 AM »

Its not the fear of the death penalty I'm thinking of.
Its the cost of coddling them in a prison and the likelyhood of re-offending after release that I consider the issue. How many murders could have been prevented by this?

I wholeheartedly agree with your view on stiffer penalties and working on solutions to prevent, But its time we start looking for true justice for those who are the victims and not the guilty.

JCLerch · « **Reply #18 on:** December 28, 2005, 09:25:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by eagl
The solution seems clear... Shut the Canadian border.

You do realize that Canada has been, and will continue to be, the largest supplier of crude oil INTO the United States, yes?

After Canada, the next largest supplier of oil INTO the Untied States is Mexico.

The combined imports of Canada and Mexico exceed the combined imports from Saudi Arabia + Iraq + Kuwait by 942,000 Barrels per Day.

Source:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

At Yesterday's (12/27/2005) crude oil price of $57.71us, and using the 11/2005 per day average import of crude oil, for each day of November 2005 $168,974,880.00us dollars crossed the the borders into Canada and Mexico.

Ping · « **Reply #19 on:** December 28, 2005, 09:31:01 AM »

Which makes me ask.

WHY am I paying 94 cents a litre for Diesel for my Enviro killing, Global warming, Road Killing F-350 7.3 litre commuter vehicle.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #20 on:** December 28, 2005, 09:32:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by JCLerch
You do realize that Canada has been, and will continue to be, the largest supplier of crude oil INTO the United States, yes?

After Canada, the next largest supplier of oil INTO the Untied States is Mexico.

The combined imports of Canada and Mexico exceed the combined imports from Saudi Arabia + Iraq + Kuwait by 942,000 Barrels per Day.

Source:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

At Yesterday's (12/27/2005) crude oil price of $57.71us, and using the 11/2005 per day average import of crude oil, for each day of November 2005 $168,974,880.00us dollars crossed the the borders into Canada and Mexico.

I think eagl meant to say "Annex Canada".

Ping · « **Reply #21 on:** December 28, 2005, 09:34:10 AM »

Its a deal Rip. On condition you get rid of Bush and then send ALL of the Canadian Parliment on one of those secret flights.

lazs2 · « **Reply #22 on:** December 28, 2005, 09:54:11 AM »

My thought is that the canadian politicians secretly are thrilled with the gun violence as a few minority gang members killing each other (and the occassional bystander) is just what they need to convince people like huge head that they need tougher gun control laws... more power for the government... more police and bigger budgets to work with.

What most fail to see is that the shooting is financial... drugs and crime will allways cause killings to gain local control of the vice money..

This particular situation would not maybe have been helped by an armed populace except.... it may never have happened in the first place. Our concealled carry states do show a decrease in crime in general. and...

Far from the wild west shootout that is predicted here.... our concealled carry holders do not make the situation worse in a shooting situation...

Curval... would it have made you happier if the gang guys started driving cars into crowds where rivals might be in order to run em down?

What kind of a head in the sand woman fears guns so much that they would allow their government to disarm them?

Who believes that they are safer with only the government and the criminals being armed? How did you guys every get convinced of that?

Is is just a big city rat mentality or is it a product of liberal education?

It is beyond comprehension to me that anyone faced with gangs of mionority thugs and criminals would not want to arm himself... It is like you are selling out your humanity to socialism..

lazs

HugeHead · « **Reply #23 on:** December 28, 2005, 10:00:21 AM »

I used to be OK with the US annexing us before we had our own Taco Bells and Krispy Kremes. Now...I just don't see the point. And yes, it's just popular polictical sport to toss **** at each other. Our politicians use the US as a handy excuse for everything and the US politicians do the same damn thing. I don't bother listening to the crap from them anymore.

Wasn't there some idiots in the US recently suggesting you should build a fence across our boarder? I hope if you do that at least you'll make it a nice pine fence and not one of those crappy chain link things.

And Laz I think I was quite clear that gun control is not the primary issue here and I stated quite clearly that Martin's stance that we should ban handguns will do nothing to help. If you want to have people wandering around your streets with concealed weapons and the right to use them then so be it. You have a differen history and culture. More power to you. However, please don't get it in your head that your way is the only way. However, I do appreciate your POV even if I think it's flawed.

We have no desire to remove your right to carry guns. As Canadians we simply don't wish to emulate you.

Your solution is as much a Panacea as what you are accusing me of swallowing. Adressign the root of the violence is the only thing which will stop it. That can't be done in a four year political term which is why politicians never bother to consider it seriously. More's the pitty.

Regards,
HH

Curval · « **Reply #24 on:** December 28, 2005, 10:06:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
Curval... would it have made you happier if the gang guys started driving cars into crowds where rivals might be in order to run em down?

I wouldn't be happy at all...thing is though that would mean they would have INTENTIONALLY driven into a crowd of innocent bystanders meaning to kill innocents. They didn't. They were shooting at their "enemies" and missed...striking a little girl and killing her.

How would legal gun carry by citizens have prevented this?

Let's assume this took place in a mall in Dixon (if there is one....any place highly populated during shopping hours would do). Would you have drawn your gun and shot back? Would your actions have saved this little girl's life? Would you be able to guarentee that you would hit the right person...or guarentee the same of your trusted fellow citizens for that matter?

HugeHead · « **Reply #25 on:** December 28, 2005, 10:11:27 AM »

One question in all seriousness for the gun owners/experts here. Are not handguns nortoriously inaccurate in a crowd situation and at any real distance? Would not more guns in this situation just made it more likely that more people could have been killed?

I have to be honest and say I don't want to put my safety or that of my family in the hands of anyone with a gun unless he or she is a police officer. At least I know that person is a professional.

Regards,
HH

Callisto · « **Reply #26 on:** December 28, 2005, 10:13:48 AM »

I do believe that Canadian people should be allowed to arm and defended themselves.

Im not saying that it would help in the praticular shooting screnario on a busy street. But i think it would help the overall situation.
Fact is that criminals know noone is armed.. they know noone from the public can challenge them..., makes it that much easier for them to engage in these sorts of activities.

Just recently, person got stabbed for honking at a car that was blocking the traffic.... Person honked, guy just jumped out of the car, walked over to him and stabbed him bunch of times and his passenger too. Now if people were allowed to be armed and carry concealed weapon, I'm sure every crimilnal or person would think twice before starting some stupid ****..

I want to have a right to be able to defend myself my family and my property........ hell with the police, they cant protect me.....

just my 2 cents

lazs2 · « **Reply #27 on:** December 28, 2005, 10:21:51 AM »

huge head.... You are welcome to your views and...you are welcome to go around unarmed. It is only when you tell your neighbors to not be armed that the trouble starts... You prove the point that not everyone would arm themselves...even here in places with easily gotten concealled carry permits only about one percent to 5% of the population avails themselves of the right...it is enough tho to deter crime. Even in israel... only about 10% arm themselves. It is enough to matter.

curval... how would people with guns have made the situation worse? Do you think that happens here? It does not. Do you really think that a gang member would not run over an innocent that was standing next to a rival? do you think he would not put a bomb in a rivals car if it might hurt an innocent? You are assuming that guns in the hands of citizens would make things worse... You are assuming that in an armed society that criminals would leave their ghettos and confront us. Both assumptions are not born out by what happens here.

the situation you describe does not happen here in small towns with a lot of armed citizens... except rarely... in most cases... if there is shooting... most people react by running away or hiding... I might shoot at a gunman if I had a good shot... one safe to take.... otherwise... I would wait till he ran into the parking lot or got into his car... after a few of them died like that.... we might not see it happen very often...

In the U.S. it used to be the style of the late 1800's bandits and 1930's gangsters to rob banks by shooting up the town. After about 20 gangs were decimated by gunfire from citizens.... the big gang daylight robberioes ceased...

We had one pair in LA that thought they could do it with full autos and body armor... they died. Police used civilian weapons from a gunshop (hope we allways have gunshops eh?) none have tried it since.

Your solution would have been to pretty much disarm the populace and close the gunshops... I think those guys would have liked that.

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #28 on:** December 28, 2005, 10:28:47 AM »

hugehead.... If I am given the time to aim.... I can hit a man sized target pretty eaisily at 100 yards or more with my 4" barreled handguns. It would take me about 5 seconds to get on target and be sure.

I am probly a better shot with one than 99% of police. Police do not compete in most handgun sports because they do not do well against civilians. My bet is that of the 1-5% of civilians that get permits... most of them will be better shots (more surviavability for you and your family) than police who are trained to shoot entire magazines of 15 round handguns into a crowd if someone is shooting at them.

My point is... if you are in such a situation as a civilian... you will not be the target of the badguy most likely...he will be shooting at his rivals and any uniform that shows up... I think that I could work my way into a very good shot at him with a high chance of putting a stopping round into him. I would not fire at him while everyone was running and screaming in every direction..... plenty of time.

lazs

HugeHead · « **Reply #29 on:** December 28, 2005, 10:36:32 AM »

Laz,

I respect your commitment to your POV but, you are really oversimpleflying it. Comparing small towns to large urban centres just doesn't cut it and claiming that the LA robbery has not been repeated because of the weapons used by the police rather then the heroic actions of the police more supports the oposing view then it does yours. However, it's something you can interpret to support any view. That incident was extreme and was not indicative of any kind of trend which was stopped by weapons.

Im not telling you not to arm yourself. I'm simply saying that Canadians dont wish to emulate you. Countless studies and almost 2 centuries of history back this up. We view guns because of that history in an entirely different way then you do.

It's just not so simple as you wish to believe. The only real way to resolve this violence is to address the root causes and ask the tough and often non politically correct questions which we have become so fearful of asking.

Trust me...you and I are not so far apart...we simply have a different idea of how to fix the issue. I absolutely do NOT want anyone other then a trained police officer to have anything to do with defending or protecting my family or myself.

People in this country at least can put their money where their mouths are and first shell out for more police on the streets (rather then *****ing about taxes to support them) then they can start howling for guns if they wish. With out the former the latter POV is completely without any credibility whatsoever.

Thanks for the data on gun accuracy and if you could assure me that 99.9999 percent of all private gun owners were just as good and perferably better;) as any cop then I would breath easier. Laz are you saying you are that accurate in a tactical situation where all hell is breaking loose? Can anyone say that? On a range and on the street are two very different things.

Regards,
HH