View Full Version : Criminals Obey Canada's Gun Control Laws
Divemaster
07-30-2016, 07:52
...not.
Here are some headlines from our good friends to the north, all dated 29 or 30 July:
Two people shot near Christie Pits Park
http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/two-people-shot-near-christie-pits-park-1.3008904
Police searching for suspects after shooting at hookah lounge in Hamilton
http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/police-searching-for-suspects-after-shooting-at-hookah-lounge-in-hamilton-1.3008894
Man, 21, shot dead in "ambush style attack" in Scarborough: police
http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/man-21-shot-dead-in-ambush-style-attack-in-scarborough-police-1.3007299
Just like the United States they just need more laws for the criminals to ignore.
DJ Urbanovsky
07-30-2016, 14:29
It's just the extension northward of the American bubble. Gen pop is isolated due to land masses and oceans from the rest of the earth, and when you couple that with media narrative, too many people are still sleeping. Which is why they are so shocked when things like Orlando and Dallas happen. Events like these shatter the illusion of safety and normalcy, and the cognitive dissonance that is created makes most folks extremely uncomfortable. What these sleepers fail to understand, and what all of us here do understand, is that bad guys have been here for a long time already, and more arrive daily. And that right now, what we are seeing is just the opening act. History is happening right now, but it's a lot easier to just go on playing Pokemon and catching Fuckashoes rather than taking responsibility for your personal safety and that of your loved ones.
Maple Flag
08-24-2016, 19:38
Yes, we get shootings too, though to put some numbers in perspective,
"According to a report by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, roughly 11,000 homicides were committed using firearms in the U.S. in 2011. Statistics Canada reports in the same year Canada had 158 homicides committed using firearms."
http://globalnews.ca/news/1354803/fact-checking-michael-moore-does-canada-have-more-guns-per-capita-than-the-us/
(Warning - that article also mentions Michael Moore and the crap that comes out of his mouth. Avoid reading on a full stomach...)
To put those numbers in perspective, in 2011, the USA had about 312 million people, while Canada had about 34 million.
To look at it another way, that makes about 38 gun homicides per million guns (estimated 290 million total guns in USA around then) in the USA (not too bad if you look at it like that) vs. about 16 gun homicides per million guns in Canada (estimated at around 10 million in Canada).
Here's the original survey the article referenced:
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/H-Research_Notes/SAS-Research-Note-9.pdf
Criminals are not deterred by laws, by definition. I still don't worry much about crime or shootings, or even domestic terrorism, to the extent that many others I personally know do. The threats are present, but more or less managed.
I worry more about the global state level threats that are growing and seem to be totally unmanaged while our people are distracted. Those will rob not just individuals of their future, but entire nations... and our leaders don't even have them mentioned as key parts of their election platforms. That's what really scares me.:confused:
Badger52
08-24-2016, 20:38
Yes, we get shootings too, though to put some numbers in perspective,
"According to a report by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, roughly 11,000 homicides were committed using firearms in the U.S. in 2011. Statistics Canada reports in the same year Canada had 158 homicides committed using firearms."
http://globalnews.ca/news/1354803/fact-checking-michael-moore-does-canada-have-more-guns-per-capita-than-the-us/
(Warning - that article also mentions Michael Moore and the crap that comes out of his mouth. Avoid reading on a full stomach...)
To put those numbers in perspective, in 2011, the USA had about 312 million people, while Canada had about 34 million.
To look at it another way, that makes about 38 gun homicides per million guns (estimated 290 million total guns in USA around then) in the USA (not too bad if you look at it like that) vs. about 16 gun homicides per million guns in Canada (estimated at around 10 million in Canada).
Here's the original survey the article referenced:
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/H-Research_Notes/SAS-Research-Note-9.pdf
Criminals are not deterred by laws, by definition. I still don't worry much about crime or shootings, or even domestic terrorism, to the extent that many others I personally know do. The threats are present, but more or less managed.
I worry more about the global state level threats that are growing and seem to be totally unmanaged while our people are distracted. Those will rob not just individuals of their future, but entire nations... and our leaders don't even have them mentioned as key parts of their election platforms. That's what really scares me.:confused:This isn't personally directed at you, but the problem with statistics and percentages and likelihoods of being killed by someone with a gun is that it's just that: the odds.
And that is what statists will use repeatedly to justify attempts (nearly always unsuccessful) to "legislate" human behavior and use an inanimate object as the villain.
If there's a 60% chance of rain in your area today, but you're standing there getting soaked then it's really a binary thing - odds have nothing to do with it if it's happening to you and very few will take solace while getting drenched thinking "oh, at least someone else somewhere is enjoying a nice day."
The use of statistics in an argument on the inate right of a free person to defend themselves is, in my opinion, criminally negligent. Progressives always seem to worry about someone's sensibilities being offended about which bathroom someone may have to use but never about 1 person who may have needed to be able to defend their life. To them, they are chaff, useful collateral damage - nothing more.
And, oh by the way, as politely as I can, screw the CDC - they are a federally-funded tool who should be paying attention to the charter in their name. The fact is: Bad people do bad things to innocent people in supposedly safe places. There is safe, and there is "feeling" safe because some legislative critter (with their own personal security detail) wrote a piece of paper that says you ought to. They are vastly different things.
Maple Flag
08-24-2016, 22:16
Agree on your points on statistics, they can be used to tell just about any narrative one wishes.
I think statistics however do have to play role in assessing aggregate risk to help inform on the potential impacts of policy decisions, and obviously much less so when making individual decisions. And of course, the stats mean nothing when being shot at.
My point about homicides per gun is to show that those numbers are not really a strong argument for less guns being the solution, as such a tiny percentage of guns are actually used in homicides, especially if you factor in that some of those guns that are used in homicides account for more than one homicide. Looked at that way, it becomes clear to me that the far better strategy is to remove the few dangerous people that happen to use guns, not to try to remove the vast majority of guns in good and stable peoples' hands that are never used in a homicide, and can do some good in the case of those justifiable homicides. Gun control advocates would not want numbers like that to get circulated I suspect.
In fact, the personal, societal and national security benefits of responsible gun ownership may well (and I believe do) outweigh the tragic but relatively small number of innocent lives that do get lost to shootings (brearing in mind that many of those homicides were in fact criminals dying as as a result of their poor life choices).
And your point on stats being often used to argue away rights I'm completely in agreement with. A society's rights should be defined by morality and values, not by mathematicians, or even politicians.
Badger52
08-25-2016, 05:23
I think we're in agreement on the misuse of statistics.
:cool:
A society's rights should be defined by morality and values, not by mathematicians, or even politicians.One of the problems in rights being defined by society is that most social constructs forget what a "right" is. A right is something that does not depend on the conduct of another human being; it exists even if you were the only person on the planet. One has a right to be secure in their home for example, or to worship as they please, to defend their life, whether it's written down or not. The societal use of the word (thank you FDR) has come to mean "I want, and someone else will pay for it." It's one of the reasons here in the US that many of the founders argued to not even bother actually listing a "bill" of rights because of the potential that it would leave open the opportunity for others coming afterwards to mess with it & assert that they can be modified.
Like computer programs... Elegance in laws written by men governing other men is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to be removed.
Sadly, we're seeing an increasing phenomenon in many places in the world with draconian firearms laws where the unavailability of something to offset disparity of force (a gun in law-abiding hands) will not trump a religious fanatic with a big blade. And the bad people will not go away and, in many cases, are being invited in.
Time to fill the cup & pre-order a GBF mug.
nousdefions
08-25-2016, 10:37
Logic???
The grrl in the picture is guilty of cultural appropriation, white privilege I guess.
Badger52
08-25-2016, 11:26
The grrl in the picture is guilty of cultural appropriation, white privilege I guess.I hear there's an online course that fix that.
:D
Logic???
Logic doesn't play a part in her thinking process. She looks like she is strictly an emotional thinker...
I like dope thus it should be legal...
I hate guns and the awful violence they create so they should be illegal...
After all, we all know that the bad guys obey the laws too....
3 dead after crossbow attack in Toronto
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/3-dead-after-crossbow-attack-in-toronto-1.3044118
"Three people have died after an attack involving a crossbow in Toronto’s east end.
The incident happened near Markham Road and Eglinton Avenue East in Scarborough Thursday afternoon.
Toronto paramedics said two males and one female were pronounced dead at the scene. One male was transported to hospital with minor injuries..."
Crossbow, interesting.
People intent on doing harm to others are going to find a way to do so and a tool to do it with. They have since history began and it won't quit now.
The only things gun laws control are the honest, law-abiding citizens. And, they help the criminal element. But, people who are anti-gun actually think that it's making them safe.
I wonder how that's working for them when someone is picking them off with a crossbow from across the street or knifing people on their bus.
Badger52
08-25-2016, 13:21
Crossbow, interesting.Indeed. From what they describe of the shooting location it seems he was pretty adept at reloads.
Might need a new law on quiver capacity.
bblhead672
08-25-2016, 15:27
Crossbow, interesting.
As I was waiting on the paperwork to finish my recent firearms purchase, I was looking at the crossbows wondering if I should start buying them and stockpiling arrows!
nousdefions
08-25-2016, 20:26
Indeed. From what they describe of the shooting location it seems he was pretty adept at reloads.
Quick, check with Netflix and see who has been bingeing on the "Walking Dead".