Author Topic: Whats going on in Canada? (Read 4394 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #60 on:** December 29, 2005, 02:39:48 PM »

no beet.. the per capita murder rate has gone down... the only rise was if you counted the 911 deaths from the twin towers for that year..

you might want to check these figures from the Department of Justice..

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm#Violence

they show that all violent crime in the U.S. is down and that "Homicide has recently declined to lower levels than it has been since 1960"

This while the U.S. adds 3 million firearms a year to the homes of it's citizens and issues thousands of concealled carry permits every year.

One should probly not fear homicide or violent assault tho since it is as unlikely as getting into a car accident where a seatbelt would save you... No real reason to have a firearm or, at least.... no more than to put on a seatbelt. I suppose it is safe to say that seatbelts and firearms are for the paranoid.

lazs

beet1e · « **Reply #61 on:** December 29, 2005, 04:12:39 PM »

Rshubert - I'm not saying there aren't problems and no law works perfectly - not even UK gun control laws. I was speaking about my neighbourhood. London is not my neighbourhood.

Lazs, I have posted stats from the FBI website. According to the FBI, there were 13230 homicides in 2000, and 14465 in 2003. That's a rise of 9.33%.

In 2000, the US Census Bureau stated that the population was 281,421,000. Source: http://www.census.gov/population/pop-profile/2000/chap02.pdf

Right now, the American Factfinder states the US population size as 297,982,178. Source : http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en

As you can see, the population has risen by only 5.88%, and that's all the way through to Dec. 29, 2005. In 2003 it would have been less, ie ~4% up on the 2000 figure, at a time when homicides rose by 9.33%.

Are you saying that data from the FBI, US Census Bureau, and American Factfinder is... wrong? Where does the BJS get its data from. Are you sure they don't use Lazsmatics™ - removing blacks from the number of homicides committed, and then adding them back in to arrive at the population count?

For whatever reason, the BJS data is at odds with the FBI data. We need Nashwan.

Yeager · « **Reply #62 on:** December 29, 2005, 07:08:11 PM »

Well...Ill tell you guys...I dont see guns as the root of the problem.

The real problem in america is young people with: lack of education + poverty + drug addiction. Guns come into the equation very late in the game and really arent the problem generally speaking.

I suspect its a similar thing in Canada. Plus Im not about to allow my gun rights to go down the drain because Canada is having problems, Im all for stopping the flow of illegal guns into Canada. Perhaps Canada can do more to stop the illegal flow of drugs into the US. Im sure theres a criminal relationship there....

Thrawn · « **Reply #63 on:** December 30, 2005, 02:14:04 AM »

The problem in Toronto is black ghetto culture.

Yeager · « **Reply #64 on:** December 30, 2005, 02:37:59 AM »

thrawn educate me here...where did toronto get a black ghetto culture?

I know where the US got theres but where did Canada get one?

I know the bovious answer, the US but, I suspect there is more going on with your opinion than meets the eye....

Please discuss

beet1e · « **Reply #65 on:** December 30, 2005, 05:00:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
Well...Ill tell you guys...I dont see guns as the root of the problem.

The real problem in america is young people with: lack of education + poverty + drug addiction. Guns come into the equation very late in the game and really arent the problem generally speaking.

Well... I sort of agree that guns are not the root of the problem. That would be like blaming car accidents on the petrol. But it has to be said that car accidents could be avoided if there were no petrol available! It also has to be said that America is not unique in having a society with lack of education and poverty and drug addiction. The same problems can be found in many other countries in places like Europe and Africa, but with the exception of South Africa, where guns are freely available, those other countries don't have anywhere near the amount of homicides as America does because the general public does not have easy access to guns. The guns are just the props in the show. Guns don't turn law abiding people into criminals, but they do turn criminals and wackjobs into much more dangerous criminals and wackjobs. What's happening now in Canada is what I predicted would happen in the UK if guns were to be made freely available. No thank you.

HugeHead · « **Reply #66 on:** December 30, 2005, 06:00:28 AM »

Lazs2,

We have a fundamental difference of opinion here. While I completely see where you are coming from in most regards. I simply do not share those views or wish to emulate the actions/policies of some US communities here in Canada. Nor, do I think this is likely to happen.

No country to my knowledge is without out the same problems and issues. We know education and options are the key and not hand outs. However, since there is not a "magic" solution for this problem which would bare fruit within in one political term -- we have yet to see a sincere attempt to resolve it, at least in North America that I recall.

As for the guns being "freely available"...well, this is where we run into all the stickiness with our neighbours don't we? Who is carrying these guns into Canada? If it's American thugs then let's work with US investigators to shut them down. If it's Canadian punks then let's shut the hell up and shut them the hell down.

Regards,
HH

lazs2 · « **Reply #67 on:** December 30, 2005, 08:12:47 AM »

HH... I can only say that I am not basing my defense of my human right to defend myself on "feelings" but on fact. I am saying that fact would point out that you have very little to fear from your countrymen being armed as they please and as is their human right. Facts would point out that removing these rights is very dangerous and only aids the criminal.

beet... regardless of if you use the FBI or DOJ stats... the trend for the last couple of decades is downward. It is also clear that all violent crime in the U.S. is down not matter which figures you use.

As for your car and gun analodgy... it is a good one... without cars there would be no car accidents but... people would still die.. they would die from not haveing transportation.. probly in at least as many numbers... so... it is a necessary evil as are guns... the bad guys will continue to maim and kill and humiliate and rob and rape and assault. They just won't do it with guns (like in your country for example) in fact. like in your country... they will be even more bold... the rate they do it at will be increased like it is in your country since there will be no deterent.... in fact.... if you are unlucky enough to be their victim.... you will be totaly at their mercy.

lazs

HugeHead · « **Reply #68 on:** December 30, 2005, 08:28:12 AM »

Lazs2,

As thoughtful as I may find you and as provacative as I may find some of your arguments...over all I find you far more dogmatic than I. Your reply to beet is an example of this. I assure you this comment is not intended as a personal flame but, only an honest observation.

Your right to your opinion simply does not mean your opinion is right;)

Regards,
HH

lazs2 · « **Reply #69 on:** December 30, 2005, 08:45:20 AM »

HH which reply? beet and I do this all the time.

As for your and my opinions... I believe that being able to defend yourself is a human right. It has been since the beginning of time.

While I am not a countryman of yours... I still think that you and your countrymen are humans with the same inalienable rights as me. I do not believe that you have the right to remove others human rights no matter how many people you get to agree with you.

There really is no way to reconcile this. If we are just talking that is fine. If you wish to join the forces that want to remove my right to defend myself then really.... all you are is an evil enemy... a tyrant. It is my human duty to fight you. You on the other hand have no choice but to coerce me into giving up my rights by killing or imprisoning me.

How do we reconcile that?

I do believe that you have the right to kill or imprison anyone (and thereby disarm them) if they commit crimes against other men. this does not include putting them in jail for 5 years or killing them because one of their firearms might be 1/8" too short to suit you.

It would include him commiting unprovolked violence on others.

You don't remove my right tho because a tiny little minority can't handle freedom or perverts it. You are welcome to punish those who would harm others.

Most arguements about gun control break down at this point. The point where one or the other side says... "I don't care what the facts are... I don't feel you should be armed...it doesn't feel good to me to know you are"... or... "I don't care how many die at the hands of armed criminals my rights are not yours to vote away."

At this point.... both sides have no recourse but to kill or imprison the other.

It is exactly the same as free speech to me... it matters not how you or I feel about it... it is a right. If it were to be taken away then men of good concience would war on the tyrants who did so.

lazs

Curval · « **Reply #70 on:** December 30, 2005, 08:48:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
HH... I can only say that I am not basing my defense of my human right to defend myself on "feelings" but on fact. I am saying that fact would point out that you have very little to fear from your countrymen being armed as they please and as is their human right. Facts would point out that removing these rights is very dangerous and only aids the criminal.

Lazs, surely many of the gun crimes that occur in your country are committed by your "countrymen" even if they happen to live in say...Compton. Right? Or do you not consider these people countrymen, despite the fact that they may be born in the US or are citizens of the US?

lazs2 · « **Reply #71 on:** December 30, 2005, 08:49:56 AM »

and... I agree that I am indeed "dogmatic" on the subject for the above reasons. Being "dogmatic" about the right to defend yourself is only "wrong" or short sighted if society were such that there were no possibility of any evil perpetuated on anyone by force or any chance of tyranny ever happening again but...

If this were the case then there could still be no objection to my having firearms to collect and carry and do as I pleased with.

In short... as long as there is evil then we need a way to defend ourselves... if there is no evil then owning guns is a harmless thing that is no ones business.

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #72 on:** December 30, 2005, 08:56:40 AM »

curval.... you are correct... for the most part (not counting illegals) the people commiting crimes with guns are my countrymen. they are not however concealled carry permit holders.

What they are is a very small (miniscule) and, for the most part psycotic, minority of the people that make up any country. They will still be there no matter what laws we make. they will kill in the same numbers no matter what weapons we ban. They may even kill in greater numbers once the decent citizens are disarmed.

Right now.... 1.5-3 million times a year... in the U.S., citizens with firearms stop criminals... If we were disarmed... Who knows? Facts point to the places like DC and Detroit that are disarmed to be slaughterhouses and crime meccas.

lazs

HugeHead · « **Reply #73 on:** December 30, 2005, 09:01:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
I do not believe that you have the right to remove others human rights no matter how many people you get to agree with you.

A fascinating point of view. You are confusing an opinion shared by the lawful majority with a coerced one. Understandable since your position really doesn't allow for you to see it otherwise but, this is indeed how democracy and civilized society works.

And while I am most certianly not making a comparison between you and them -- the very elements you wish to protect yourself against also have no regard for the majority view or the laws which come from that.

The only legitimate exception you can really take is that you feel that majority opinion is not informed.

Regards,
HH

lazs2 · « **Reply #74 on:** December 30, 2005, 09:12:17 AM »

Nope.... that may be how democracy works (3 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner) but it is not how human rights work.

Our founders realized that people are instilled with god given inalienable rights that no man or group of men can take from them... Do you agree with this premis?

They realized that democracy was good only if first of all.... these inalienable rights were protected from the whim of the majority who.... historicaly have murdered and tortured and maimed millions of their fellow citizens for such things as not saying the right things.. All in the name of civilization.

If you believe in a civilization that can vote away human rights then I want nothing to do with your version of civiliaztion... I will not be joining the crusades or the inquisition or the genocide pogum that you vote for. sorry bout that.

so far as I can tell.... there is only one human right that has worked to keep your version of "civilization' from destroying more lives than it has... the right to bear arms and defend oneself.

and of course the other flaw in your statement is that you say that the "lawful majority" and then use not coerced for the rest... the lawful majority is indeed coercing up to 49.9999% of the population.

lazs