Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
How cute the ignorant leach thinks people care what he has to say..
Okay, it has just come to my attention, not sure it's true..
But you don't have a woman, you don't have a condo outside the Hat on a golf course, you don't have kids..
You live in your sisters basement living off your family..
Fukk even a bigger loser than I thought.
Matt Gurney: The Globe and Mail's little (and big) gun-control screwups
The Globe editorial is a perfect microcosm of how Canada — the media, politicians and the public — approaches the gun-control debate
A Glock 19 9mm handgun.Luke Sharrett/Washington Post
The Globe and Mail editorial board has thought long and awful hard about it, and it has decided Canada should ban handguns. Gun control is a topical issue of late, with the Danforth shooting in Toronto last summer, the recent massacre in New Zealand, and a fairly consistent churn of atrocities in the United States. It’s a shame the Globe editorialists didn’t think a bit longer and harder, though. If they had, they might have caught the variety of factual errors in their piece, and maybe — just maybe — noticed the massive failure in logic at the heart of their proposal.
The factual errors, in general, aren’t serious. The Globe notes, for instance, that a handgun “can be legally purchased in Canada with a nine-round magazine.” That’s … just weird. The law in Canada isn’t mysterious or opaque — it’s a maximum of 10 rounds per handgun magazine. The Globe says “it’s unclear” whether licensed Canadian gun owners such as myself are a growing source of firearms to the black market, particularly in Toronto. Also nonsense: police forces across the Greater Toronto Area, and the country, continue to assert that the vast majority of traceable handguns seized in criminal investigations are linked to the United States.
There are other statements I could rebut or quibble, but I think the point is made. These aren’t necessarily major errors in isolation, but in aggregate, and especially when contrasted with other awkwardly phrased parts of the editorial, the overall picture becomes clear — the Globe editorialists, like most Canadian journalists, don’t understand guns, gun control or the specific nuances of Canada’s system of firearms laws and regulations. A few hours of Googling can’t change that.
And that’s OK! Gun control is hideously complicated. Most people have no reason to become fluent in its intricacies. It would be nice to think that the Globe’s editorialists might have recognized their own (understandable) shortcomings in this area and asked an expert — of which there are some! — to at least glance over their work before publishing it. But hey.
This Globe editorial is, in fact, a perfect microcosm of how Canada — the media, our politicians, and vast swathes of the public — approach the gun-control debate. It doesn’t matter if you get the facts right. The facts aren’t the point. The point, it seems, is being seen to be on the right side of history, or more sophisticated than those gun-owning hicks, or, most of all, Not An American. The rush to take a stand on the issue of guns routinely bypasses the usual rigour and research that is supposed to back up journalism, particularly on vital matters of public policy, and it’s forgiven.
It shouldn’t be, and it wouldn’t on almost any other public policy issue in this country. But who cares what the gun nuts say, right? Why let a few minor factual errors stand in the way of good rhetoric and public posturing? I’m honestly curious if the Globe will feel it’s worth bothering to correct the editorial’s errors.
But it’s not, in fact, just about a few minor factual errors. The Globe editorial certainly contains those, more than I have room to list here, but it also contains something much worse: a fundamental failure of logic.
Mike Andrew of the Rock Cut Shooting Club shoots a clay target at a range outside North Bay, Ont., in a file photo from Sept. 15, 2010. Bryn Weese/Postmedia News I refer you back to the Globe’s claim that there’s “more than 900,000” handguns in Canada. It follows that up by noting that’s “twice as many as a decade ago.” The Globe adds: “During this period of rapid ownership growth, homicides involving handguns in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal have also increased. Much of the rise is related to an increase in urban gang violence.”
It’s true that gang violence is a growing problem in Canada. But it’s also true that StatCan tracks homicides by firearms type. And while the total number of restricted and prohibited guns (which is mostly but not exclusively handguns) in Canada has been growing sharply, you know what hasn’t been growing much at all? The rate of homicides committed with a handgun. I’m not sure what precise years the Globe was looking at when it claimed “a decade ago,” but let’s just look at the past 10 years of available data. In 2007, the rate per 100,000 of homicides committed with a handgun was 0.38. And a decade later, after a vast increase in the number of restricted guns in Canada — “twice as many,” as per the Globe — the rate in 2017 was … 0.4. Doubling the guns correlated with an increase of 0.02 per 100,000. Meanwhile, rifles and shotguns, which the Globe goes out of its way to stress it isn’t overly concerned with (“Hunting rifles and small-calibre ‘varmint guns’ are legitimate firearms for legal ownership”) actually accounted for far more homicides per capita over that period, going from 0.1 homicides per 100,000 in 2007 to 0.17 in 2017. Not huge numbers, but a much bigger swing.
Why stop our number crunching there? The number of restricted guns has gone up in this country by more than 230 per cent since 2005, according to the CBC. And the rate of homicide by handgun in Canada, from 2005 to 2017 … dropped slightly, from 0.41 per 100,000 to 0.4. You can get different results by comparing different start and end dates, but the overall trend is clear: a large boom in restricted firearms ownership has not produced anything even remotely approximating a boom in homicides with those very firearms.
The Globe editorialists, like any citizens, are entitled to their opinions, and to express them. If they want to live in a country without handguns, that’s their choice. But gun control isn’t a popularity contest, it’s a series of interlocking laws and regulations that have real impacts on real people and businesses. A handgun ban would require a public buyback costing the federal government hundreds of millions, potentially billions, of dollars, and would destroy a thriving Canadian sporting industry. All without any real sense that a ban would accomplish what everyone agrees is a laudable goal: saving lives.
This is a big issue. It needs real debate driven by real subject matter experts who’ve done real research. Alas, that, it seems, excludes the members of the Globe’s editorial board.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-gurney-the-globe-and-mails-little-and-big-gun-control-screwups
The Globe editorial is a perfect microcosm of how Canada — the media, politicians and the public — approaches the gun-control debate
The Globe and Mail editorial board has thought long and awful hard about it, and it has decided Canada should ban handguns. Gun control is a topical issue of late, with the Danforth shooting in Toronto last summer, the recent massacre in New Zealand, and a fairly consistent churn of atrocities in the United States. It’s a shame the Globe editorialists didn’t think a bit longer and harder, though. If they had, they might have caught the variety of factual errors in their piece, and maybe — just maybe — noticed the massive failure in logic at the heart of their proposal.
The factual errors, in general, aren’t serious. The Globe notes, for instance, that a handgun “can be legally purchased in Canada with a nine-round magazine.” That’s … just weird. The law in Canada isn’t mysterious or opaque — it’s a maximum of 10 rounds per handgun magazine. The Globe says “it’s unclear” whether licensed Canadian gun owners such as myself are a growing source of firearms to the black market, particularly in Toronto. Also nonsense: police forces across the Greater Toronto Area, and the country, continue to assert that the vast majority of traceable handguns seized in criminal investigations are linked to the United States.
There are other statements I could rebut or quibble, but I think the point is made. These aren’t necessarily major errors in isolation, but in aggregate, and especially when contrasted with other awkwardly phrased parts of the editorial, the overall picture becomes clear — the Globe editorialists, like most Canadian journalists, don’t understand guns, gun control or the specific nuances of Canada’s system of firearms laws and regulations. A few hours of Googling can’t change that.
And that’s OK! Gun control is hideously complicated. Most people have no reason to become fluent in its intricacies. It would be nice to think that the Globe’s editorialists might have recognized their own (understandable) shortcomings in this area and asked an expert — of which there are some! — to at least glance over their work before publishing it. But hey.
This Globe editorial is, in fact, a perfect microcosm of how Canada — the media, our politicians, and vast swathes of the public — approach the gun-control debate. It doesn’t matter if you get the facts right. The facts aren’t the point. The point, it seems, is being seen to be on the right side of history, or more sophisticated than those gun-owning hicks, or, most of all, Not An American. The rush to take a stand on the issue of guns routinely bypasses the usual rigour and research that is supposed to back up journalism, particularly on vital matters of public policy, and it’s forgiven.
It shouldn’t be, and it wouldn’t on almost any other public policy issue in this country. But who cares what the gun nuts say, right? Why let a few minor factual errors stand in the way of good rhetoric and public posturing? I’m honestly curious if the Globe will feel it’s worth bothering to correct the editorial’s errors.
But it’s not, in fact, just about a few minor factual errors. The Globe editorial certainly contains those, more than I have room to list here, but it also contains something much worse: a fundamental failure of logic.
It’s true that gang violence is a growing problem in Canada. But it’s also true that StatCan tracks homicides by firearms type. And while the total number of restricted and prohibited guns (which is mostly but not exclusively handguns) in Canada has been growing sharply, you know what hasn’t been growing much at all? The rate of homicides committed with a handgun. I’m not sure what precise years the Globe was looking at when it claimed “a decade ago,” but let’s just look at the past 10 years of available data. In 2007, the rate per 100,000 of homicides committed with a handgun was 0.38. And a decade later, after a vast increase in the number of restricted guns in Canada — “twice as many,” as per the Globe — the rate in 2017 was … 0.4. Doubling the guns correlated with an increase of 0.02 per 100,000. Meanwhile, rifles and shotguns, which the Globe goes out of its way to stress it isn’t overly concerned with (“Hunting rifles and small-calibre ‘varmint guns’ are legitimate firearms for legal ownership”) actually accounted for far more homicides per capita over that period, going from 0.1 homicides per 100,000 in 2007 to 0.17 in 2017. Not huge numbers, but a much bigger swing.
Why stop our number crunching there? The number of restricted guns has gone up in this country by more than 230 per cent since 2005, according to the CBC. And the rate of homicide by handgun in Canada, from 2005 to 2017 … dropped slightly, from 0.41 per 100,000 to 0.4. You can get different results by comparing different start and end dates, but the overall trend is clear: a large boom in restricted firearms ownership has not produced anything even remotely approximating a boom in homicides with those very firearms.
The Globe editorialists, like any citizens, are entitled to their opinions, and to express them. If they want to live in a country without handguns, that’s their choice. But gun control isn’t a popularity contest, it’s a series of interlocking laws and regulations that have real impacts on real people and businesses. A handgun ban would require a public buyback costing the federal government hundreds of millions, potentially billions, of dollars, and would destroy a thriving Canadian sporting industry. All without any real sense that a ban would accomplish what everyone agrees is a laudable goal: saving lives.
This is a big issue. It needs real debate driven by real subject matter experts who’ve done real research. Alas, that, it seems, excludes the members of the Globe’s editorial board.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-gurney-the-globe-and-mails-little-and-big-gun-control-screwups
You clearly do. You admitted to thinking about me, even when you aren’t on here...and look at how much you respond to me
Never admitted to such rubbish..
Don't you have the dishes to do for your sister.. pay your rent.. :lol:
Your wife left you HA! HA! HA! I can see why.. Definitely the spare tire..
Trump needs to roll over in his bed and invade Canada already.. :lol:
Everyone in Canada should have a gun and know how to use it..
That's my Henry Rifle.. and 9mm if you look close
It's a concealed carry holster that goes inside the pants.. usually.
That waskally ole wabbit!Trump needs to roll over in his bed and invade Canada already.. :lol:
Everyone in Canada should have a gun and know how to use it..
That's my Henry Rifle.. and 9mm if you look close
It's a concealed carry holster that goes inside the pants.. usually.
- 08 Mar 2019 Victim status, engaged. – lobby doctors
- 20 Feb 2019 Andre Picard-media distrust, a well-earned perception
- 15 Feb 2019 VIDEO: Gun Control battle with doctors intensifies
- 15 Feb 2019 Doctors oppose anti gun lobby doctors position
- 03 Apr 2019 ER Doctors speak out against Lobby Doctors
- 28 Mar 2019 Brampton the Brave, defying hyperbole
- 28 Mar 2019 CALL TO ACTION: a Media Experiment for Gun Owners
- 22 Mar 2019 Gun Bans could make for
ER Doctors speak out against Lobby Doctors 03 Apr 2019
Tracey Wilson 17 3k 35
“I have seen the horror and touched the horror. I have felt the abyss of sorrow at the senseless loss of young, productive life. But this movement to ban certain firearms is an emotional response that stems from a lack of information and a view of firearms that is distorted” ~Dr. Mosdossy
A petition was circulated through the Trauma department of Ontario Hospitals, asking staff to sign a petition to ban handguns and “assault rifles” and to attend protests. While a handful of hospital staff replied, a very different approach was taken by Dr. Gregory Mosdossy MD. The following note came in via e-mail to our offices today;
Hello,
I am an Emergency Physician and Associate Professor at an academic centre caring for both adult and paediatric populations for over 30 years. I have worked in 2 provinces, overseas and in many emergency departments in Ontario. I was forwarded our Trauma Program Director’s call to sign a petition in support of the National Day of Action. I would like to pass on my response to your organizations to give you a somewhat different perspective from a physician regarding the topic of gun violence and a firearms ban.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Gregory J. Mosdossy MD FRCP(C)
Below is the response, albeit lengthy, where Dr. Mosdossy responds to his colleagues;
I had your call to sign a petition forwarded to me and I would like to comment.
Firstly, it goes without saying that I am in full support of curbing violent crime and suicide, as are, I am positive, all law-abiding citizens of this country. That includes the health care workers, support and admin staff at LHSC.
In order to give you an idea of my stake in this, I would like to fill you in on some of my past and present personal involvement with firearms and gun crime.
I was the attending on duty in the early 1990’s in Sudbury, ON, when an 8 year old boy was brought in with a shotgun wound to his midsection. He had been playing with the teen next door, who had pointed his father’s improperly stored and loaded gun at the child and pulled the trigger, in what he thought was a jest. I performed an ED thoracotomy and he regained his vital signs, only to die soon after from massive liver and splenic trauma. This case, and the boy’s mother’s advocacy were part of the stimulus for the 1995 Canadian
Firearms Act that put into law our current method of storage, transport, categorization and licensure of firearms.
I was also present at the Montreal Polytechnique massacre in 1989 where 14 promising, young, high achieving women were killed and 14 others were injured by a deranged misogynist. I entered the premises with an EMS crew and pronounced a number of victims dead on scene and helped to extricate and transport some to the Royal Victoria Hospital. I wrote an abstract in the JEM in collaboration with one of the other residents involved regarding the disaster response. I had a 2 year old daughter and a 7 month old son at the time and I slept on the floor of their room for 6 months afterward.
I have since cared for countless trauma victims of violent crime in my over 30 year career as an Emergentologist, but being in Canada, a small proportion were gunshot wounds and many more were stabbings, beatings, etc.
I have had 2 relatives (one distant, one non-blood relative) commit suicide, one by handgun and one by overdose.
I have also owned rifles since I was 12 and have in the past decade become an avid hunter and competitive pistol, rifle and shotgun enthusiast. My wife and 2 of our 3 grown kids attend competitions in Canada and the USA where we shoot on the run at various target arrays and are scored and timed. I am also a qualified Range Officer with two pistol shooting disciplines (IPSC and ICORE) as well as with the Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA).
With that, I have a few thoughts on the creation and propagation of a petition, especially when the premise and the items it purports to ban are ill defined and, it seems, poorly understood. Let me elaborate.
The term “assault weapon” is bandied about by media and those in the public domain, who seem to have a less than clear understanding of its meaning. In general, an assault weapon is any weapon that can or has been used to assault someone or a group, including a chair, box cutter, baseball bat, kitchen knife, switchblade, musket, Lee Enfield rifle, van, car or truck, etc. The way in which people are using the term in current dialogue seems to be in reference to a common rifle platform utilized by most of the world’s armed forces. The characteristics that make a military assault rifle different from the many and varied semi automatic sport and hunting rifles are the fully automatic fire and high capacity magazines that are banned/illegal and unavailable in Canada (Canada has a 5 round limit). No Canadian citizen is allowed to own or possess a military assault rifle, with stiff jail sentences for those who are found to possess them illegally. In the military and policing domain, where these firearms are used for training and deployment, they are kept under lock and key on the military or police premises and the military and police personnel are not allowed to store them off premises. To clarify by example, the much maligned AR 15 (Armalite Rifle 15 after the founding company/designer, not “Assault Rifle”) is one of many rifle platforms, designed in the 1950’s and is just one among many other semi auto sporting and hunting rifle designs. It is not available/legal in its military assault rifle configuration in Canada.
The long and short of it is that there are no military assault weapons in the legal possession of any Canadian citizen and thus a petition to ban such firearms is redundant and misleading.
As for semi-automatic long guns, they are a staple of the hunting and shooting sports and of collectors in Canada and have been since the country was founded and the firearms existed. Handguns, similarly, are an integral feature of the shooting sports and they are also acquired by collectors. Anyone wishing to participate in these activities must undergo safety training and testing in 2 stages, one for non-restricted, (most long guns; Possession and Acquisition Licence – PAL) and the other for restricted (handguns and some long guns; rPAL), with references, a background check and licensure if successful. The process can take several months, sometimes more. Once licensed, the individual is subjected to a background check by the RCMP automatically every 24 hours on an ongoing basis. With the restricted licence (rPAL), the licensed firearms owner must join a range/club if they wish to shoot a restricted firearm. If they are collectors, they must consent to an on site inspection. If they do not, then they are in violation of the law. Most ranges also require separate supervised safety courses before allowing a new member to shoot.
The purchase of all ammunition or firearms requires the presentation and in many cases the verification of a valid firearms licence (PAL or rPAL).
The PAL and rPAL must be renewed every 5 years and if not renewed then any firearms in the possession of the individual will constitute a serious crime.
As far as the transport of restricted firearms, they can only be transported legally to a range, a gun store, a gun show or the border with an Authorization to Transport (ATT), that is currently electronically attached to the rPAL and with Bill C-71, if passed, will revert to having to make a phone call and have the paper ATT issued and attached to such transport with each excursion. Special ATT’s are required for transport out of province. Transporting a restricted firearm to any other location and without proper authorization constitutes a serious breech of the law.
I know this has been a long and detailed account to make a simple point. However, there is much conjecture and misinformation circulating regarding this topic and I feel it is important to know the facts when debating the issue of firearm regulations. Firearms laws in Canada are some of the most stringent and comprehensive in the world. Crime statistics show that we are a very safe country with low baseline crime and suicide rates that have been steadily dropping, with peaks and ebbs, over the past 4 decades. The recent statistics that some have used to counter those data are parsed from specific geographical areas and interval timelines with biased manipulation to suit the purposes of interest groups.
Banning certain classes of firearms does not decrease violence. This is shown in the UK where handguns and many long guns have been banned since 1996 and yet London, England has seen a significant increase in the number of homicides and assaults with guns, knives, vehicles and acid attacks over the past decade. Evil will perpetrate a massacre or cause violent injury and death in spite of the laws of the land.
Prohibition was an example of the futility of banning a substance when the black market could easily, by violent and illegal means, overcome the legal restrictions. Firearms can be acquired illegally with relative ease. Any ban would simply turn law abiding citizens who own firearms into instant criminals with the true criminal element untouched and even more motivated to smuggle in firearms.
Firearms owners are not evil. They are manual workers, office workers, factory workers, trades people, union members, hospital workers, security personnel, police officers, military members, ESW’s, nurses, doctors, lawyers, accountants, judges, politicians, media personalities, etc., etc. In fact there are over 2 million firearms owners in Canada, many of them women and youth. A significant number of the people I work with in the Emergency Department and throughout LHSC are firearms owners and enthusiasts. This pastime is a passion for most. We have a great respect for the sport, the safety requirements, the rules and the great country we live in that has allowed us this wonderful opportunity.
The issue of gun violence is a complex one that cannot be addressed by media sound bites and simple sweeping pronouncements. It is also woefully unfair to blame and punish large numbers of law abiding citizens, who are in complete support of curbing gun violence, by confiscating hundreds of thousands of their firearms. Perhaps instead, those of us who are faced with the products of violence and suicide could have discussions on how to find some reasonable ways to help curb these scourges with effective and fair measures.
Addressing access to underfunded and underserviced mental health care is one example. Educating firearms owners regarding the signs of depression and providing resources to seek help without stigmatizing or legally limiting their future in firearms related sports is another area that needs addressing. Another is supporting our police services in tracking and prosecuting criminals distributing and using firearms. Surely the academic and health provider community can come up with something smarter and more effective than a blanket ban.
I understand that some trauma caregivers have reacted with horror at the violence they have witnessed on the job. I have witnessed more than my share. I have seen the horror and touched the horror. I have felt the abyss of sorrow at the senseless loss of young, productive life. But this movement to ban certain firearms is an emotional response that stems from a lack of information and a view of firearms that is distorted by multiple sources, including some media, interest groups, the entertainment industry, etc. The lawful use of firearms is a safe, mature sport that requires focus, discipline and a profound respect for safety and the law. When firearms are used for violent purposes, someone has broken the law. When firearms are used for suicidal intent, someone has not received the care they need and the support to distance themselves from the firearm. These are the issues that need to be addressed, not an ineffective blanket ban that targets innocent law abiding individuals.
As an avid practitioner of the shooting sports, I am committed to preserving its legacy for coming generations. As a physician, I have made a lifetime commitment to saving lives. I have personally and professionally experienced the effects of the illegal and suicidal use of firearms. I only support reasonable and thoughtful approaches to curbing injury and death due to firearms. This petition and the call for a ban are neither.
Respectfully,
Gregory J Mosdossy MD FRCPC
https://firearmrights.ca/en/er-doctors-speak-out-against-lobby-doctors/
If they can't handle the job and blood.. maybe they need to look for a new career..
Stay doctoring and stay out of politics, we already have enough leftist elites trying to run the country in Ottawa, we don't need a bunch in Toronto too.
Seriously, it's time for Alberta to split and join the USA. The west and east are just growing further apart.
https://nationalpost.com/news/polit...erta-and-u-s-would-likely-welcome-a-new-state
Stay doctoring and stay out of politics, we already have enough leftist elites trying to run the country in Ottawa, we don't need a bunch in Toronto too.
Seriously, it's time for Alberta to split and join the USA. The west and east are just growing further apart.
https://nationalpost.com/news/polit...erta-and-u-s-would-likely-welcome-a-new-state
Last edited:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have had this "lets become Yankees" argument with various people and in each case the supporter of becoming a Yankee state is an airhead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
First off.....................there is the TOTAL LOSS of health care coverage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And the new opportunity to get screwed by a health insurance company!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And most Cdns who have ever dinged their car and made a claim KNOW they did not get all they expected!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bad enough to feel short changed on your car repairs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How much WORSE to feel cheated on your cancer treatments????????????????????????
Second- HIGHER Yankee prices for prescription drugs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cdn govt buys drugs in bulk at a savings on purchase price and re-sells the drugs to us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AS a Yankee................you are on your own for medical costs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Third- ready access of Yankee criminals to poorly armed and naive former Cdn residents once the border is eliminated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fourth.................the possibility of being DRAFTED into Yankee army fro some Viet Nam replay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fifth.................the number of environmentalist who want to shut down the Cdn oil patch is just as large in United States as in Canada so no Alberta break there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sixth..................various environmental laws are MORE LAX in United States!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yankees are- or used to be much more casual - for instance - about handling lead than we are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cdn LIE-berals ought to read up on the amount of TOXIC LEAD in the water in places like Flint Michigan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yankee taxes are lower but the chances of your house being destroyed in a wild fire or tornado are HIGHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The chances of being caught in a terrorist event are HIGHER in United States than Canada!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cdn separatist who despair of negotiating with Ottawa should consider that there are ONLY ten Cdn premiers.....................and NO - I dont count Nunavut as a province..............it is a LIE-beral pipsqeak creation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So there are TEN provincial premiers...........................................
compare that to the FIFTY Yankee state governors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And then ask HOW a lone Cdn - newly minted as a state governor is supposed to stand out in that mob??????????????????
And then recall the population of California is BIGGER than the entire population of Canada!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The newly elected governor of the STATE of Alberta would have about as much influence in Washington as the MAYOR of Flint Michigan as they would both represent about the same number of voters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Separation is a PIPE DREAM for the DELUDED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And the root of that phrase "pipe dream" goes back to the old says of OPIUM smokers with serious drug addiction problems!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Canada aint perfect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But it aint bad either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And WE CAN IMPROVE the place greatly by DUMPING those VILE LIE-berals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have had this "lets become Yankees" argument with various people and in each case the supporter of becoming a Yankee state is an airhead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You want to know what REAL alienation is, become an obscure 51st state in the middle of nowhere (by their mental maps) ... right off their maps ... with little to offer other than the oil that they already have 100% control over. "The West want in!". You will be in from time to time in Canada as federal governments periodically need to form coalitions with regions in order to govern. We've already seen that happen. You will never, never done in anymore than North Dakota is in. You have neither the population nor any special magic other than skill at resource extraction and that will not go far in a country that has an abundance of those skills at hand. You will be #51. With a little luck, you may make it all the way up to #42.
You want to know what REAL alienation is, become an obscure 51st state in the middle of nowhere (by their mental maps) ... right off their maps ... with little to offer other than the oil that they already have 100% control over. "The West want in!". You will be in from time to time in Canada as federal governments periodically need to form coalitions with regions in order to govern. We've already seen that happen. You will never, never done in anymore than North Dakota is in. You have neither the population nor any special magic other than skill at resource extraction and that will not go far in a country that has an abundance of those skills at hand. You will be #51. With a little luck, you may make it all the way up to #42.
It's obvious you never lived in the USA.
Our health care comes at a very high price and it's not all that great.
I have the Canadian Health care, but I also have Blue Cross in the USA.
Guess where I get the quickest and best service.. Not Canada
Sure I have to pay a co-pay of either $25 to see a doctor, $50 to go to urgent care and $100 for emergency.. Something I'd like to see Canada adopt to push people away from abusing the emergency for a head cold.
With your simple stalking of JLM in CC. The only one upset and with no fukking life is you.
It's funny to watch, you melt down stalking members in CC.
Guess when you're a drug addicted loser living in his sisters basement you don't have much of a life.