How do you figure I am a racist?
People aren't all after getting rich and fucking over people. It's just american culture.
People aren't all after getting rich and fucking over people. It's just american culture.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Shooting at CANADIAN School!?
- Thread starter TruthSeeker
- Start date
I don't believe that corruption in America is so out-of-control that you need to carry guns.TimeTraveler said:Do you actually believe there is no corruption in Europe?
Let the police do the crime-fighting?
spuriousmonkey, you sure are a messed up individual. I can't even respond to such ignorance. I'm speechless.
Damn straight. And I've never shot anyone. I don't appreciate being judged by the actions of a few. Or the actions of a Canadian, for that matter. That is what triggered all this hate speech, after all.
a few?
spuriousmonkey said:a few?
i.e. an insufficient sample size to make such hasty generalizations. You've commited what's known as a "spotlight fallacy."
The first american who starts talking about guns has an unfit psyche to handle guns.
Statistically the probability that there are many more is not zero.
Statistically the probability that there are many more is not zero.
I'm not talking about the killer.
hey man you have some major competition from d'ster.J.B said:The killer was not . . . bla, bla, bla, etc. and so on.
The killer was not Canadian.
He was Indian.
The blog, posted on an online hub of goth culture, paints a dark portrait of the 25-year-old man published reports have identified as the trenchcoat-wearing gunman who opened fire on students at Montreal's Dawson College Wednesday, killing one and injuring 19 others.
He writes that he is 6-foot-1, was born in Montreal and is of Indian heritage. His weakness is laziness and he fears nothing. A goal he'd like to achieve by the end of the year is to stay alive.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/09/14/1838464.html
He was Indian.
The blog, posted on an online hub of goth culture, paints a dark portrait of the 25-year-old man published reports have identified as the trenchcoat-wearing gunman who opened fire on students at Montreal's Dawson College Wednesday, killing one and injuring 19 others.
He writes that he is 6-foot-1, was born in Montreal and is of Indian heritage. His weakness is laziness and he fears nothing. A goal he'd like to achieve by the end of the year is to stay alive.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/09/14/1838464.html
J.B said:The killer was not Canadian.
He was Indian.
Being Indian prevents you from being Canadian?
spuriousmonkey said:The first american who starts talking about guns has an unfit psyche to handle guns.
Thousands of American are recent legal immigrants ...do you lump them in with others who have been here for generations? I mean, they ARE Americans, ain't they? Or is it ...as soon as they go throught the swearing-in ceremony, they instantly become frothing-at-the-mouth, redneck, vicious men and women?
Baron Max
Baron Max said:Thousands of American are recent legal immigrants ...do you lump them in with others who have been here for generations? I mean, they ARE Americans, ain't they? Or is it ...as soon as they go throught the swearing-in ceremony, they instantly become frothing-at-the-mouth, redneck, vicious men and women?
Baron Max
Quite soon. Especially when they lay their eyes on you.
Baron Max said:See, Spurious, you're just a frothing-at-the-mouth hater of all things American. How can anyone believe anything that you say? Your bias is sooooo transparent and radical that it's unbelievable.
Baron Max
No, you are biased. It's so obvious nobody can ever believe anything you say.
spuriousmonkey said:No, you are biased. It's so obvious nobody can ever believe anything you say.
Me? Biased? I don't see how you can say that, Spurious, because I hardly ever say anything. I ask a lot of questions, but seldom, if ever, make any statements or assertions.
Baron Max
Baron Max said:Me? Biased? I don't see how you can say that, Spurious, because I hardly ever say anything. I ask a lot of questions, but seldom, if ever, make any statements or assertions.
Baron Max
If you accuse me of being biased and radical you DO make a statement.
Changing where one lives, will not change ones gentic make up.spuriousmonkey said:Being Indian prevents you from being Canadian?
I read that paper neildo.
Where are they getting their stats from?
even this website shows very different stats
All their references are cited also showing the year of the governments stat report. The key difference between our studies is that your links are showing old information. I especially love this part:
even this website shows very different stats
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
Uh, yeah, that website shows very different stats, heh. It shows Australia's homicide numbers from 1994, lol! Most of the countries listed there are from '93 and '94, obviously they're gonna be way different, heh. Try looking at their numbers afterwards and even now. What I find amusing is that the low numbers you cite of Australia, which shows em in '94, they're lower and this was during the years guns were legal. Now that guns are banned, your violent crime rates are worse than before and have finally surpassed the U.S. (barely, but for the UK, it's a lot worse than Australia)! A pity you traded a meager decrease in gun crimes for a larger increase in violent crimes as a whole. I'd love to hear the logic is preferring that. For the longest time though, your violent crime rates have remained about the same, and that's before and after the gun ban which just goes to show, guns don't play much of a factor otherwise there'd be a huge decrease, right? All that's been done is a change of tools to get the job done. Dead is dead and you no longer have the great equilizer of a tool to defend yourself with, opening you up to be an even bigger and more helpless victim.
this site also paints a very different picture
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm
And that one, it's just a website showing an article from '97 and put a timestamp of 2000 on it to make it sound like current news. Yeah, the first year that the gun ban was in place, gun crimes dropped. However, non-gun violent crime rates began to soar. Not only that, but gun crimes began to soon increase once criminals replenished their supply of any confiscated guns. Those types of laws only disarm law-abiding citizens. Criminals don't follow laws. When will you guys get that through your thick skulls? You cannot stop gun crimes. That's not even the important part, you cannot stop violent crimes to begin with! While you decreased gun crimes, you increased violent crimes as a whole. Criminals don't need a gun to commit a crime. Victims sure do need em to defend themselves better though because otherwise the odds will usually always be in the favor of the assaulter.
"There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998."
-- Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Oct 1999
What you show there is mentioned in my study. They both state that. You aren't getting the point of the file I showed you.
The main point of the Frasier Institute paper is that while gun crimes have lowered, violent crimes as a whole have increased big time. So while you lowered gun homicides, you've increased homicides as a whole. Could be part of lack of proper defense that guns gave, or whatever. We do know though that guns aren't such the huge factor in crimes as people make you think. You can get rid of guns, but your violent crime rate won't decrease because of it. The only thing that will change is violent crimes that involve a gun, which even then criminals still have easy access to guns. Nothing will stop a criminal from commiting their crime.
Guns aren't a required tool to kill someone. You can be killed with anything. Knives are the most common weapon used in assaults. Getting rid of guns does not stop crime. More crimes are prevented each year using a gun in a defensive manner than they do being used in a crime. And in case you ask:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/
Firearms are used to commit as many as 650,000 crimes each year. But firearms are also used to prevent crimes as many as one million times each year. In fact, criminals are three times more likely to be killed by armed victims who resist them than by the police.
Guns are the ultimate tool to balance or tip the scales in one's favor. If you take a stronger physical assault vs a wimpier vicitim, the criminal wins. If you take a criminal with a knife vs a victim left with their bare hands, the criminal will most likely win. If you put any weapon in the hands of a criminal yet a gun in the hands of a victim, the victim will most likely win. Even if the criminal is using a gun as well, the odds are more even if the victim has a gun than any other combination of tools between the two, and heck it can even tip the scale in the victim's favor especially when the assaulter doesn't know if the victim is armed or not as they usually aren't.
If you ask a criminal who they fear the most, they don't say the police, they say a citizen with a gun. Criminals don't know whether or not a victim is armed, and since most people aren't armed, they're usually underestimated. Not only that, but police most follow protocol whereas a regular person usually doesn't have to. When a criminal enters someone's home, they usually don't know the layout of the home or if the victim is armed. No need to worry about the police as they won't arrive for a good 5 minutes even in an emergency. But once they hear the warning of the loud crack of a shotgun getting locked and loaded, their ass runs like hell. Someone defending their home isn't going to show a criminal the same mercy as a police officer using protocol.
But anyways, while you state that firearm homicides declined in the first year, they started to get back on the rise, which the study shows. Heck, the UK has more strict gun laws than Australia yet:
Handgun crime 'up' despite ban
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
Results Are In for Britain --- 'Less Guns,' More Crime
http://www.aapsonline.org/jpands/hacienda/comm7.html
Why Britain needs more guns
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm
Face it, gun laws don't work. They don't stop violent crimes from happening. Nor do they even stop gun crimes from happening. Criminals will always have guns. Sure, you may lower the death rate of accidental deaths and whatnot by a law-abiding citizen, but that's left in the dust due to the increase in crime rates now that victims don't have adequate means to defend themselves with, especially vs a criminal with a gun. I'd love to put up a sign that reads "HEY CRIMINALS, THAT HOUSE DOESN'T HAVE A GUN!" and we'll see who gets robbed and assaulted first. Have faith in your local police department in protecting you when the criminal is in your house and you just now called the cops and they won't be there for at least another 5 minutes. You sure you wanna wait that long when the criminal is at your door, or worse, your childs?
I'm also curious as to why you fear guns so much when:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics [2], in 1985-2000, 78% of firearm deaths in Australia were suicides, yet only 5% of suicides involved firearms. The suicide rate has only fluctuated, not stastically changed, from 1993-2003.
4/5 of your firearms deaths were from suicides, not from someone murdering another. And what's amusing is that while most of those firearm deaths were from suicides, only 5% of the suicides involved firearms, heh. Just goes to show you how little firearm homicides there were and how preferred a tool everything else is compared to guns. Exactly why your violent crime rates continue to increase despite your gun control. Crimes will continue to happen regardless, and guns aren't as common a tool as you think.
"It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters?" - Gary Mauser
- N