Ain't how it works. I ask a question. You answer the question. Then you ask a question. Then I answer the question.
Repeat as needed until the Magic of Friendship is achieved, we agree to disagree, or we drop it due to waning interest.
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Ain't how it works. I ask a question. You answer the question. Then you ask a question. Then I answer the question.
Repeat as needed until the Magic of Friendship is achieved, we agree to disagree, or we drop it due to waning interest.
I am not trying to truncate anything. I am Canadian. I keep saying Canada does not have a gun problem and doesn't need more gun laws. You are not listening. You don't hear me spouting the American NRA mantra so you automatically assume I'm anti-gun and attack my posts. You sound like the Americans who attack other gun owners if they are not as extremist as they are.
BTW, using the suicide issue to state your case is not a wise argument. It begs people who are more concerned with human life than Colby's toys to side against you. It makes you sound like a mindless extremist. If you don’t care what people think, think again. We got rid of the long gun registry because the Liberal gun grab offended everybody, not just shooters. We need the votes and influence of the people you might not give a sh!t about, so please, be nice for the sake of my guns if you don’t care about your own.
First you write that you don't believe there were 200,000 US woundings, then you say you think it includes "all woundings". It’s impossible to tell what you are arguing? However the 851 figure sounded too low so I looked up suicides. Check this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
In the United States, firearms remain the most common method of suicide, accounting for 50.7% of all suicides committed in 2006.[18]
http://rt.com/usa/us-suicides-crisis-cdc-report-761/Using 2010 America as an example there were 33,364 suicides. Statistically (albeit with the 2006 percentage) 50.7% of them were with guns. That means 16,815 shooting deaths by suicide. That beats 851.
More Americans now die of suicide than from car accidents, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention….
In 2010, there were 33,687 deaths from motor vehicle crashes and 38,364 suicides.
I am “spouting off? Indeed. Well, we have already seen that shooting deaths are numerically overtaking motor vehicle accidents, so the only thing left to address in this paragraph is whether leaving loaded guns lying around is part of statistics. You say it is not. Check out http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html. It says:
In one survey, 10% of families admitted to having unlocked andloaded firearms within easy reach of children (Patterson and Smith, 1987).Another study showed that two-thirds of accidental firearms injuries occured inthe home, and one-third involved children under 15. 45% were self-inflicted,and 16% occurred when children were playing with guns. (Morrow and Hudson,1986) A study from 1991-2000 showed that twice as many people died fromunintentional firearm injuries in states in the U.S. where firearm owners weremore likely to store their firearms loaded. (Miller, et al, 2005).Maybe you should do the research before committing yourself to such easily disproved positions?
If the gun laws are so liberal what are you complaining about?
103 nations? Obviously you are including every banana republic and tin pot dictator on earth. Yeah, some have strict gun laws. Most dictatorships do. Is that really the kind of society you want to compare with Canada and the US?
You got that all figured out from statistics, have you? Even though Americans themselves now say they kill as many of each other with guns as with motor vehicle accidents.
from http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age
Top 10 Countries - Rate per 100,000
Starting from the bottom..........yep. More guns, more people die with guns. Duh. So what??? The point is the suicide rate in the USA is very close to the same as the Canadian rate. That fact in itself proves it really doesn't matter what they used. If they didn't have a gun, there is always a bridge close by.
As for the 103 countries with tough gun control and high murder rates..........look for yourself
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What you notice right away is most if not all of the countries on Wickedpedias list has lots of US aid or was bombed or democratized or sanctioned by the USA, they aren't just natural born killers they're just infested with westerners with weapons.
Further more the title of this thread is completely useless. You aren't getting into my car unless you have complete control of your gun.
Further more the title of this thread is completely useless. You aren't getting into my car unless you have complete control of your gun.
Pro-gun lobby in U.S. is rewriting history: Burman
Imagine for a moment that the 13 tragic victims of the latest mass shooting in the United States had nothing to do with the Washington Navy Yard, where the killings occurred on Monday. Like the thousands of other innocent, largely anonymous Americans who die each year from senseless gun violence — most of them simply in the wrong place at the wrong time — their memory will quickly fade from public view.
more from the um, star
Pro-gun lobby in U.S. is rewriting history: Burman | Toronto Star
Imagine for a moment that the 13 tragic victims of the latest mass shooting in the United States had nothing to do with the Washington Navy Yard, where the killings occurred on Monday. Like the thousands of other innocent, largely anonymous Americans who die each year from senseless gun violence — most of them simply in the wrong place at the wrong time — their memory will quickly fade from public view.
more from the um, star
Pro-gun lobby in U.S. is rewriting history: Burman | Toronto Star
That's America because there are too many unaccountable handguns. No other NATO country has America's level of violence because we do not have either their violent culture or their handgun proliferation. All available statistics that I have read (and I have been in this argument since the 1960's, first on the extremist side but more recently on the side of the Canadian public) show that the degree of US violence over everybody else is not attributable to the difference in the size of their population, it is something far more numerous and far more dangerous.
Country
Total (calculated) #/1,000
1.06 (2010)
Belgium
2.42 (2006)
Canada
2.38 (mixed years)
Denmark
1.45 (2006)
France
3.01 (2009)
Germany
1.24 (2010)
Greece
1.64 (mixed years)
Iceland
1.57 (mixed years, incomplete)
Italy
1.28 (2009)
Netherlands
0.46 (2010)
New Zealand
1.45 (mixed years)
Norway
1.78 (mixed years)
Poland
0.25 (2010)
Portugal
1.77 (2010)
Switzerland
3.84 (mixed years)
United Kingdom
0.25 (2010)
United States
10.3 (2011)
Canadians do not fear Canadian governments like Americans fear US governments. The rest of the world does not hate us the way it hates Americans. Who do we need to arm against - each other? We don't have the American problem. I believe I have a right to own my rifles and shotguns. I use my weapons for sporting uses. Although they are available in case of an emergency I don't fantasize about shooting people, like so many gun extremists I read online. Nor do I walk around in public carrying a loaded gun for the purpose of shooting other Canadians - and this is probably the nub of it. When you remove the window dressing, the pretense of heroism and the weak arguments for need, America is becoming a nation of three hundred million+ people who carry loaded guns for the purpose of shooting other people. No other "western", or NATO country is like that, and all but a small minority don't want to be.
Anyone that does not fear gov't is an idiot.
BTW, your figures are GARBAGE. First of all, you do not even provide some reference as to what the figures are.....they are not murder rates, as Canada's is cuirrently 1.6 per 100,000, and the US had a rate of 4.7 per 100,000 in 2011. Then you do not cite a source. If you wish to be taken seriously, you could at least cite sources, and tell us what the information is supposed to be......
I just offered a truce, and I am willing to live by it if you are. Calling me an idiot is not keeping by a truce. I wrote that Canadians do not fear Canadian governments like Americans fear US governments. You responded, "Anyone who doesn't fear gov't is a fool." Maybe this is why you don't think you started unpleasantness with me first? You think this kind of reply, calling somebody a fool, is acceptable, yet you are hyper-sensitive when someone contradicts your positions. I am going to move on and interpret the above as simply saying that you disagree about not fearing government. Your position in this respect is fair as far as it goes, I just don't completely agree. If you keep name calling, the gloves will have to come back off. Is that fair?
As to fearing government, I think I understand your position. I fear the US government. I think the US is one of the the most dangerous, unprincipled, war mongering nations on earth. I am not necessarily concerned that America will invade Canada and kill me, although I believe that is possible. My fear is that through its war mongering the US will start a war that will threaten/harm/kill my family, either before or after I die.
The url for my source is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate. The figures are deaths per 1,000 of population (which you seem to have gathered). My apologies. I googled “world shooting statistics”.
As long as you are going to demand that I produce a source when I cite statistics, do you have a source for your position that Canada's murder rate is currently 1.6 per 100,000, and the US had a rate of 4.7 per 100,000 in 2011? My quote is for all shooting deaths, not just murder. Just “murder” could mean just pre-meditated first degree murder, and eliminates all accidents and other non-homicides. My reference is to all homicides – shooting deaths of human beings.
I'll rephrase that for you. ANY CANADIAN THAT DOESN'T FEAR CANADIAN GOVERNMENT IS AN IDIOT.
Yeah, BUT...................................Would someone like Mugabbe be an improvement ya think? -
this topic has gone COMPLETELY toxic and should be shut down.
shame on a couple of you.
It was, at one point interesting.
STOP THE poo slinging-please.
shame on a couple of you.
It was, at one point interesting.
STOP THE poo slinging-please.
I agree with you in that anything that needs to be said already has been and it very unlikely we are going to see any new ideas now. We're simply "sawing sawdust". It's polarized, between people who understand guns and realize that people are the problem, not guns and the people who are afraid of guns and see their elimination as the answer to "world peace", which of course is a misnomer, but regardless further discussion isn't going to change any of that, so I would gladly agree to "shut er down". -
How long have you been on forums?
Shamelessly stolen from another forum;-)
How many forum members does it take to change a light bulb?
One to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed
Fourteen to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently
Seven to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs
One to move it to the lighting section
Two to argue, then move it to the electrical section
Seven to point out spelling/ grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs
Five to flame the spell checkers Three to correct spelling/ grammar flames
Six to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb"
... another six to condemn those six as stupid
Two industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp"
Fifteen know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct
Nineteen to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a lightbulb forum
Eleven to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum
Thirty-six to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty
Seven to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs
Four to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URLs
Three to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group
Thirteen to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add "me too"
Two to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy
Five to say, "Didn't we go through this already a few months ago?"
Nine to say, "Do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs"
One forum lurker to respond to the original post eight months from now and start it all over again .........
There you go!
And the 1911 Edison light bulb was good enough for 100 years or more, so we don't need these new-fangled ones or guns that shoot more than one bullet!:lol:8O
Shamelessly stolen from another forum;-)
How many forum members does it take to change a light bulb?
One to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed
Fourteen to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently
Seven to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs
One to move it to the lighting section
Two to argue, then move it to the electrical section
Seven to point out spelling/ grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs
Five to flame the spell checkers Three to correct spelling/ grammar flames
Six to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb"
... another six to condemn those six as stupid
Two industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp"
Fifteen know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct
Nineteen to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a lightbulb forum
Eleven to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum
Thirty-six to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty
Seven to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs
Four to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URLs
Three to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group
Thirteen to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add "me too"
Two to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy
Five to say, "Didn't we go through this already a few months ago?"
Nine to say, "Do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs"
One forum lurker to respond to the original post eight months from now and start it all over again .........
There you go!
And the 1911 Edison light bulb was good enough for 100 years or more, so we don't need these new-fangled ones or guns that shoot more than one bullet!:lol:8O