2106 others browsing the Canadian Forums! Join us!
Nonsense, Colpy. Your right to own a penis-extending toy does not trump the right of others to not be shot.
You want to keep a machine designed to kill people as easily accessible as possible. The onus is on you to show that it will not cause harm. You have failed to do so.
There is an human right to a reasonable expectation of safety of the person. That right is infringed on when the presence of guns takes away that expectation, Colpy.
By the way, since Harper said that he'd consider a handgun ban as well, doesn't that mean that you guys have to find somebody else to support? You wouldn't want to be hypocritical, after all.
Lott Co-Author Admits to Gaping Flaws in Study
Professor David Mustard, the co-author of Lott's study, has conceded that there were serious flaws in their study - flaws that seriously undermine the conclusions. Mustard was deposed under oath in the Ohio concealed handgun case Klein v. Leis. Mustard admitted that: 1) the study "omitted variables" which could explain that changes in the crime rate are due to reasons other than changes in CCW laws, and 2) the study did not account for many of the major factors that Mustard believes affect crime including crack cocaine, wealth, drugs and alcohol use, and police practices such as community policing. These serious flaws completely undermine Lott's findings.
This is legaleze. Taken out of context it means absolutely nothing. Lott's study was not MEANT to include every variable, it could not. All the study did was take crime and murder rates from every single county in the United States over 15 years, and compared them to the rates of gun ownership in the same counties.
Guess what? More Guns, Less Crime
Situational variables do matter, though.
Switzerland - population 6 million
- # of publicly owned firearms - 2 million!
this includes approx. 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols;
- all men between the ages of 21-32 are given M57 assault rifles and 24 rounds of ammo by the government which they must keep at home;
- in addition there are few restrictions on buying guns;
- the government even sells off surplus firearms to citizens when new weapons are introduced;
- violent crime is very rare;
- there are minimal controls on public buildings;
- politicians rarely have police protection;
- gun crime is so low that statistics are not even kept.
+++++
Dated 2003. Recent firearms regulations have not made the streets of Australia any safer either:
-The total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again;
-Over the past 6 years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has continued to increase; robbery and armed robbery rates continue to rise with armed robbery increasing 166% nationwide.
In contrast, violent crime rates, and homicide rates in particular, have been falling in the United States. The drop in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world. In 18 of 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990’s.
+++++
A ban on all private ownership of handguns in Gresat Britain became law in November 1997. Based on factual research conducted in Great Britain since 1997, consider the following, all of which I have taken from the internet almost word for word. I take no credit for the hard work of others.
A study released in July 2001 by researchers at King’s College in London found “The use of handguns in crimes rose 40% in the 2 years after the weapons were banned.” The study also found that “It’s crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place. Policymakers have targeted the legitimate sporting and farming communities with ever-tightening laws, but the research clearly demonstrates that it is illegal guns which are the real threat to public safety. The study concluded that Britain’s experiment with gun prohibition has followed the same path as other government attempts at prohibition. Ever since guns were banned, every criminal has seen the merit of having one. In contrast, the U.S. has among the world’s lowest ‘hot’ burglary rates - defined as burglaries committed while people are in the building - at 13%. Compare that rate with GUN-FREE Great Britain’s rate, which is now up to 59%.
It’s logical. An American study showed that the #1 explanation from would-be burglars NOT to enter an occupied building was “I might get shot.”
“Criminals may be strolling down the road to Hell, but they’re not crazy enough to hurry the trip.”
“In June 2003 a CBS News report labelled Great Britain “one of the most violent urban societies in the western world”.
BBC News reported “a dramatic rise in violent crime in 1998 to the present (2001).” Statistics from the British Office of Home Affairs found that crime in Great Britain in 2001 was at epidemic levels, 60% higher per capita than in the U.S.”
Since the ban on all private ownership of handguns became law in 1997, handgun offences have risen each year since then. Overall, violent crime has spiked since that act of parliament.
A word of caution. It would be simplistic and dangerous to place all of the blame for this crime wave on the 1997 handgun ban. But it certainly has not “ended violent crime” as its supporters predicted. Illegal guns continue to flood the country. Young hoodlums and career criminals have no problem obtaining the firepower they need.
British social policy analyst, Michael S. Brown, O.D., sums up his government’s gun-ban implications for future generations of Britons. “It is no coincidence that crime typically goes up after a government enacts new gun restrictions. Several American researchers and criminologists have explored this effect. Whenever people give up their rights to self-defense in return for a promise of government protection, the results have been negative. No amount of social engineering will change this basic consequence of human nature. Unfortunately, the downward progression of gun control only goes on way. British subjects will never regain the basic human right of armed self defense.”
What? Michael S. Brown the 'social policy analyst' from --
Ok PoisinPete2, I'll bite. Where and when has a purely indigenous (not already an established army) group with no outside source of weapons and/or fighters battled a State-backed force to defeat in service of other than criminal --I mean this in the narrow sense-- ends? To start, let's even say for ANY ends.
Ok PoisinPete2, I'll bite. Where and when has a purely indigenous (not already an established army) group with no outside source of weapons and/or fighters battled a State-backed force to defeat in service of other than criminal --I mean this in the narrow sense-- ends? To start, let's even say for ANY ends.
- all men between the ages of 21-32 are given M57 assault rifles and 24 rounds of ammo by the government which they must keep at home;
We are the highest taxed population on earth
and our government is the most corrupt per capita (# dollars stollen/citizen) on this or any other planet known to man.
What? Michael S. Brown the 'social policy analyst' from keep and bear arms.com?
Dr. Michael S. Brown is an optometrist
Simple.
The United States of America, in the late eighteenth century.
Here it is folks, from the National Post:
I wonder why there is such deep sediment against Ottawa?
You tax the poor to death, clamp down every regulation known to man, and treat the law abiding like criminals.
Quote:This is not true.We are the highest taxed population on earth
Quote:Neither is this.and our government is the most corrupt per capita (# dollars stollen/citizen) on this or any other planet known to man.
Who told you these things, iamcanadian? Whoever it was, you should stop listening to them because they are lying to you.
Nope. The revolutionary army had help from the French, including supplies of arms. I believe there were also German mercenaries fighting on both sides.
Quote:
Here it is folks, from the National Post:
Gee, a right-wing newspaper spewing the same innaccurate numbers from the same twisted studies that you've already used. Sorry, doesn't work.
Quote:
I wonder why there is such deep sediment against Ottawa?
Riverbank erosion?
The gun registry is full of holes, just like the Liberal Party. I grew up with guns, guns are tools, nothing short. You cannot compare a ghetto and a country farm and come up with a solution. These are two different worlds bar none. Anti gang units, border protection, and more funds given to anti crime task forces are needed. To burden another law-abiding citizen with more rules and regulations, and the possiblity of having there house searched, is only going to breed animosity. (I wonder why there is such deep sediment against Ottawa?) You tax the poor to death, clamp down every regulation known to man, and treat the law abiding like criminals.
Ok, lets do the math on taxes:
Average family income of two working Canadians w 2 kids = $100,000.
Income Tax / EI / CPP ~ $40,000
Gas Tax ~ $10,000
GST & PST ~ $10,000
Property Taxes ~ $5,000
Miscelanious User Fees/Licensces etc. ~ $5,000
