|
|
|
|
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/5/2008 4:13:27 PM | This is what happens when you get your news from someone with an agenda.
Canada's crime rate has NOT exploded, their economy has improved, not declined. Their Dollar exceeds our's now.
Duh! | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/5/2008 4:15:21 PM | | these stats were from 2 years ago but shows that in no way is Canada the crime free zone that you say because of your gun laws. Hmmmm makes you wonder who has the war in the streets? | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/5/2008 4:28:37 PM | Research is such a wonderful skill. . .
Source: The Geographic Reference Report 2007 (3/2007)
Crime Rates - Selected North American Cities
(per 100,000 population)
Cities Homicides Robberies
Baltimore, MD 43.5 638.5
Detroit, MI 42.1 596.2
Washington, DC 35.8 552.3
Atlanta, GA 25.8 724.6
Philadelphia, PA 22.2 657.4
Dallas, TX 20.1 607.5
Miami, FL 17.9 614.5
Chicago, IL 15.5 552.0
Minneapolis, MN 14.1 597.5
San Francisco, CA 11.6 399.9
Boston, MA 10.5 418.6
Vancouver, BC 3.0 149.0
Toronto, ON 2.0 108.5
Hamilton, ON 2.0 39.0
Montreal, QC 1.5 147.5
Ottawa, ON 1.5 88.0
Sudbury, ON 1.0 53.0
Guelph, ON 1.0 60.0
http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/ooql_602.asp
Wow, a crime spree. . . | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/5/2008 4:55:53 PM |
Research is such a wonderful skill. . .
Research?
Some of the info posted on the anti gun side of this argument is so wrong and misinformed it's downright humorus. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/5/2008 6:07:43 PM | | Why would anyone need a gun in Canada they play hockey and live in ice half the year they like pain. Alaska is not a high crime place either to cold to bother with. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/5/2008 6:25:16 PM |
He also cites the most recent complete data available from both countries that shows that in 2003, the violent crime rate in the United States was 475 per 100,000 people; while up north, there were 963 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The figure for sexual assault in Canada per 100,000 people was more than double that of the United States: 74 as opposed to 32.1; and the assault rate in Canada was also more than twice that of the states: 746 to America's 295 for the people.
Moreover, he cites research that showed the figure for sexual assault in Canada per 100,000 people was more than double that of the United States: 74 as opposed to 32.1; and the assault rate in Canada was more than twice that of the United States: 746 to America’s 295. Also, in 2005, Toronto had 78 murders; that’s a 28 percent increase in homicides since 1995.
Again, research is a good thing. 
Now this thread is about American rights to gun ownership, but this argument is (at least partially) based on the need for self-defense (in this case against fellow America citizens, and not that ominous government that's about to spring tyranny on you at any moment) - but this aspect of the discussion is also related to the overall topic at hand here.
If guns are constitutionally allowed for such reasons, then we may want to see how other societies without such laws (at least directly) manage to control those Mongol hordes about to overrun them at any minute, without such weapons easily available.
So where's Canada , in all this ?
The crime rate decreased 3% in 2006, primarily fuelled by non-violent crimes. Property crimes decreased by 4%, while other Criminal Code offences dropped by 3%. The drop in 2006 was driven by declines in non-violent crimes. Counterfeiting incidents accounted for much of this drop (-29%). In addition, there were about 22,000 fewer thefts under $5,000 (-4%) and 11,000 fewer break-ins (-5%).
There were about 310,000 violent incidents in 2006, resulting in a rate that was similar to the 2005 rate (304,000).
The stability in the overall crime rate in from 2005 to 2006 can be explained by an increase in attempted murders (+3%), aggravated assaults (+5%), assaults with a weapon or causing bodily harm (+4%), robberies (+6%) kidnapping/forcible confinement (+12%), and a corresponding decrease (10%) in the homicide rate and sexual assault.
Following a 4% increase in 2005, the homicide rate decreased by 10%. Police reported 605 homicides in 2006, 58 less than in 2005. The decrease in 2006 follows two consecutive years of increases. The national homicide rate has generally been declining since the mid-1970’s, when it was around 3.0 homicides per 100,000 population.
There were about 31,000 robberies in 2006. The robbery rate was 6% higher than in 2005; however, it was about 12% lower than a decade ago.
Police reported more than 22,000 sexual assaults in 2006. The sexual assault rate decreased by 7% in 2006, translating to 68 incidents per 100,000 citizens, 26% lower than a decade ago.
In 2006, police reported about 1.17 million property crimes in 2006, with theft of $5,000 and less accounting for more than half of all property crimes. The property crime rate decreased for the third consecutive year, dropping 4%.
The rate of break-ins in Canada dropped to its lowest level in over 30 years. Since peaking in 1991, the rate has fallen 50%, including a 5% drop in 2006. There were about 250,000 break-ins reported to police in 2006, of which almost six in ten were to residences. Both residential and commercial break-ins declined last year.
There were over 159,000 motor vehicle thefts reported to police in 2006, a 2% drop from the year before.
http://www.victimsweek.gc.ca/res/r51.html
Without, again, any real weaponry to defend one's property with. People do have firearms, but anyone following regulations here isn't going to have them locked and loaded - remember that. Even a citizen granted a right to carry permit, one of those fifty or so that has that right in the entire nation, only has the legal right to defend HIMSELF with it - and not his property, nor others lives or property.
So this society is actually rather defenseless against criminals, except for this thing we call the police. Without a lot of serious crime going on, any violent crime becomes quite high placed on the priority list.
I work in the business, and dispatch on alarms regularly. I've done this job for twelve years now, and I can count the number of times I've had an actual hold-up alarm that involved a real weapon.
The response time on such commercial alarms, I'd rather not reveal. My response rate promises the actual call is in that squad car in roughly 60 seconds or less. The time on scene is not much more than that, honestly. I'm talking within a few minutes.
A residential attempted home invasion ? I've handled such calls , as well, from my clients. Exceptionally rare, but they do occur. You can count on multiple squad cars, on scene, within a few minutes.
Why ? How can we do such things here ?
Because serious crime is rather rare, and gets quite a massive and quick response, compared to other calls. If someone's broken into your house or business, and left, then the response will be slower - since there's no need to rush, at that point.
I've actually had Montreal police bring in search dogs on some calls, not because they were needed, but because they offered a chance to keep the animals trained - since they were not being used on active crimes enough. If such a situation occurs, and there's an even slightly justifiable reason that an imaginative police officer can find for calling in a dog team - it's done, just for the practice.
This lower rate of crime isn't due to firearms, it's due to social reasons that go far beyond the issue of guns.
As for the contention that weather is somehow a factor, the weather in Toronto isn't that much different than the weather in Detroit. That doesn't seem to make Detroit any safer, does it ?
It's about 250 miles from Toronto to Detroit, and about 500 miles from New York City. That's certainly not that large a difference in climate, if you think about it. The last twenty years or so have featured very mild winters, except for this year that is. It's been rare even to have snow on the ground by Christmas, many years.
Crime didn't increase during that time, it actually decreased.
Now those numbers are pretty hard to hide. A dead body is a dead body, and someone hospitalized due to a violent attack isn't typically going to hide that fact from authorities. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/5/2008 6:35:42 PM | The great thing about research, as almost anyone who has done research knows, is that statistics and research can be twisted and turned and made to say almost anything you want it to say. Part of it is who is looking at the research, part of it is who is interpreting the research. And part of it is who is paying for the research. All research should be questioned. The only way you can get a truly unbiased research study and results is to have it done by robots and non-living entities that lack feeling, emotion, and opinions. Otherwise, all research is open to interpretation.
For example, Bush had a 31% approval rating, and 69% disapproval rating. That also means that 69% of those surveyed approve of the job that Bush is not doing. (Thank you Steven Colbert.) | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/5/2008 6:43:10 PM | However MG you are doing most of your comparisons with the high crime rates in cities in america that have the strictest gun control laws in our nation. This is what I am trying to show here in the fact the cities with the least amount of gun control are actually the ones with the lowest crime. Here at least in America this is what the studies are showing and those numbers arent lying. The states with right to carry laws are the ones with the lowest crime. Go figure. I guess the criminals here dont want to accost someone when there might be a chance he might have a weapon too?
By the way I know those were older stats but all I could find that actually did a comparison between the two countries. There is also one that pertained to the UK as well but havent had the chance to look at it yet. Some of us do have to work you know Besides You drive a big rig for 14 hours a day and see how much time for research you have left 
MG I have to say that even though your a leftie (you know I had to say that hee hee I do like your style and you at least argue or converse without the rhetoric | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/5/2008 6:55:56 PM | Nationwide US crime statistics.
Source = FBI.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html
Nationwide for Canada
(best CANADIAN site I could locate)
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm
sorry... I can't make the data copy-paste in here in a meaningful manner...
But note that the 2004 violent crime rate NATIONWIDE for Canada is DOUBLE that of the US.
You can "cherry pick" cities and make it look like the reverse of that...
Sorry, but I won't let you get away with it.
While Canada's crime rate seems to be on a decline... its only dropping appx 1% per year. At that rate it will be almost 40 years to be as low as the US crime rate.
 | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/5/2008 8:33:31 PM |
However MG you are doing most of your comparisons with the high crime rates in cities in america that have the strictest gun control laws in our nation. This is what I am trying to show here in the fact the cities with the least amount of gun control are actually the ones with the lowest crime. Here at least in America this is what the studies are showing and those numbers arent lying. The states with right to carry laws are the ones with the lowest crime. Go figure. I guess the criminals here dont want to accost someone when there might be a chance he might have a weapon too?
Let's look at this for a moment.
Let's say that cities with higher urban densities are potentially much more dangerous to live in, and perhaps we can add higher rates of poverty, drug alcohol use, higher numbers of criminals in gangs, and other such factors into the mix when we compare urban and inner city environments.
Urban areas are also far more likely to be filled with more stress, on many levels.
So those cities with gun control imposed those laws in a reaction to higher crime rates and gun violence - to start with. The other areas didn't have to do that, as they have historically had lower levels of violence. If you look at those major US cities that have that higher crime rate, I would venture to guess that they always HAVE had such a relative difference from the start.
Now, if we return back to the idea of cultural filters again, we can perhaps see that these also apply regionally, and are part of the reason for those differences between urban and rural life on the streets.
You get bad apples anywhere, but the large urban American inner city is perhaps the perfect orchard for criminals.
MG I have to say that even though your a leftie (you know I had to say that hee hee I do like your style and you at least argue or converse without the rhetoric
You make it sound like being a liberal is some kind of bad thing......
I'm not arguing for banning firearms (here or there) , or gun control (there, since we have it here now) . I do realize the American model is far more complex in regards to the issues of individual rights and firearms. I accept that totally, and (at the end of the day) only Americans can make those decisions. It's really an internal US matter, unlike some of the other ones we discuss here. The only thing I ask is that the USA helps ensure that those firearms THERE , stay there. That's only because that issue impacts on my country directly. Anything else ?
Hey, if you all want to walk around with Glocks in both hands ?
Mazel Tov ! 
fredhh, as per your stats ?
But note that the 2004 violent crime rate NATIONWIDE for Canada is DOUBLE that of the US.
I'm waiting for all the laughter to die down on the Canadian side, before posting.
Look at the FBI definition, on your own source, first. What's a "violent crime" in the USA?
Definition
Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/violent_crime/index.html
So inclusion in this statistic of "violent crime" depends on those factors.
Now look at the Canadian definition, on again your own source, for what "violent crime" is here :
In total, about 300,000 violent crimes were reported to police in 2004, the majority of which were common assault.
Now the FBI uses the legal definition of aggravated assault. That's (roughly) :
A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he or she attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another or causes such injury purposely, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; or attempts to cause or purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon. In all jurisdictions statutes punish such aggravated assaults as assault with intent to murder (or rob or kill or rape) and assault with a dangerous (or deadly) weapon more severely than "simple" assaults.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/aggravated+assault
Now look at the Canadian statistics, and research what "common assault" is.
There are three levels of assault in the Criminal Code. Common assault (Assault Level 1, s. 266) is the least serious of the three levels. A ‘common’ assault has been committed when an individual intentionally applies force or threatens to apply force to another person, without that person’s consent. Major assault is an offence category that includes the higher levels of assault in the Criminal Code: assault with a weapon (Assault Level II, s. 267), aggravated assault (Assault Level III, s. 268), and other assaults (e.g. assaulting a police officer, and unlawfully causing bodily harm).
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-002-XIE/85-002-XIE2008005.htm
Applying force to another person against his will, or threatening to. That's too low standard, in FBI terms, for "violent crime" ......but it isn't here. The FBI's standards (aggravated assault) allows for an artificial gap to appear in those crime statistics.
So out of those 300,000 "violent crimes" , over HALF of those were common assault - which the FBI would not count there.
Realizing that changes that apparent "statistical" revelation back to the reality every Canadian sees every day. That's why you typically don't see strong anti-crime outcries here, except around elections, and when our homicide rate goes up thirty percent somewhere......because six more people were killed.
In 2006/2007, adult criminal courts in Canada processed 372,084 cases involving 1,079,062 charges. The number of cases processed was virtually unchanged from the previous year.
Most cases (88%) had a Criminal Code charge as the most serious offence in the case.1 Crimes against the person accounted for 25%, and crimes against property accounted for a further 24% of the total number of cases. Administration of justice offences constituted 17% of all cases, while Criminal Code traffic comprised 14% of total cases. Other Criminal Code (which includes weapons offences and disturbing the peace offences, among others) represented 8% of all cases.
In 2006/2007, the most frequently occurring cases were impaired driving (11%) and common assault (11%).2 Theft represented 10% of all cases, followed by failure to comply with a court order (7%), breach of probation (7%) and major assault (5%). Taken together, all forms of sexual assault and other sexual offences accounted for less than 2% of the caseload in adult criminal courts. Homicide and attempted murder together accounted for approximately 0.2% of total cases.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-002-XIE/85-002-XIE2008005.htm
Of course those only count those criminals caught and brought to justice, but it does give you some insight as to the validity of my contention that we are much safer here than almost anywhere in the USA.
We might want to consider opening up another thread on Canada/America/Crime , before we cause this one to drift too much onto that topic. I'm willing to come out and play in that one, and I'm sure a few others would love to too.  | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/5/2008 8:47:42 PM |
Ah... so now you want to redefine reality to change the statistics to fit your needs.
Research both legal terms, in each country, for aggravated assault and common assault.
Keep drinking the anti-gun kool aide.
See my previous comments re gun control and the USA, on this and the gun control thread that's a perpetual topic of discussion on POF. I've always made it quite clear there are some great differences between our two cultures, and that you could not have the same gun control laws there as we can here.
There are some rather good reasons for that, as I've mentioned many times - on both sides of the border.
I'm not "anti-gun", at all.
I just like to see them in the hands of people who are background checked, who have clean criminal records, and who are trained in the legal and proper use of handling them and tested to make sure of that fact. I also don't want firearms in the hands of scared people that think they need them for self-defense as a primary reason. Those people can legally use those weapons to kill a potential attacker ( given a serious attack) , but I don't want them eagerly looking forward to blowing off someone's head because they took someone's prize lawn gnome.
That's a very "Canadian" view, and I realize that totally. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/5/2008 8:53:32 PM | Maybe a picture works better for you. See the graph at http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm ? That little country alllll the way at the top is the US.
Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
Eng/Wales (2002)0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0
Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.
The US appears to be doing the BEST when it comes to the homocide/suicide numbers that are gun-related. "The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire." | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/5/2008 9:00:58 PM | Comparing something of this nature - guns and everything it entails - The USA with Other Countries is a moot point.
Reason: What other Nation, on the face of the Earth is more diversified and immigrated to than the US? With that comes conflict. No way around it... Human Nature. It's very very difficult to compare the USA with other Countries on a lot of issues due to the sole aspect of Diversity. I learned that in Sociology 101. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/5/2008 9:14:48 PM | MG love the analogy at the end there lol. You previously posted before on the cultural differences and I agree with you. I also agree that guns need to only be in the hands of those who repect them and can use them properly. In that respect we have those laws already in place to deal with the proper licensing and usage of these kinds of weapons. It may be that those who are north of the border so to speak will never be able to see eye to eye with their southern neighbors on this matter due to those differences. We are rather unique in the world as are other countries all unique in their own way. The data we see can be shown in many different ways as we can tell just from the many statistical pastes we have been shown. One statistic shows one way and another a different way. I suppose it just goes to show that in some respects though the reality is out there it is all in the perception.
Wow That hurt my brain a little I think
Can I still be a right wing nut job?? | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/5/2008 9:17:41 PM |
Reason: What other Nation, on the face of the Earth is more diversified and immigrated to than the US? With that comes conflict. No way around it... Human Nature. It's very very difficult to compare the USA with other Countries on a lot of issues due to the sole aspect of Diversity. I learned that in Sociology 101.
uh... You learned in sociology 101 that we need guns to shoot people of "other" ethnicities with?
Or, in other words....¿qué? | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/5/2008 9:36:11 PM | Speaking of the sole aspect of Diversity: http://www.progressivetheology.org/essays/2003.08.23-Bowling-Columbine-rev.html
The question for which Moore is seeking an answer is, "What is the root cause of the violence?" Although he suggests that part of the answer may be that we live in a constant state of fear, he doesn't offer any simple answer to his question. He does, however, debunk some common myths.
Myth 4: The ethnic diversity of the U.S. is the cause of increased gun violence. While such an argument might fly in Japan, whose population is relatively homogeneous, the same is not true in the other countries. All of the other countries mentioned have large ethnic-minority populations. The number of Arabic speakers in Canada will soon surpass the number of French speakers. Many Algerians and others from North Africa make their home in France. England, Germany, and Australia have large non-European populations as well. Thus, the ethnic diversity argument does not hold water.
I guess if you learned that in Soc 101 then they were mistaken.....apparently there's humans with human nature in other countries too.......go figure. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/5/2008 10:10:09 PM | BUT the Court decision has left intact registration laws and other moderate guidelines to keep the public safe while also allowing qualified persons the right to own a gun. Fair enough.
DW from Smith & Wesson country | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/6/2008 2:35:10 PM | How can I explain this...some examples:
KKK-white redneck/trailer-trash gang members.
Crips & Bloods- primarily poor black gang members
Hermanos de la Frontera & La Grande Raza - illegal Alien Mexican gangs
La Cosa Nostra - Italian gangs
The Winter Hill Gang & The Westies - Irish gangs
Four Seas & FriscoSide Wah Ching - Chinese Tong gangs
Goto-gumi (Yakuza branch) - Japanese gangs
It's not that any particular race is the problem, it's that criminal elements within a race are the problem. Some races DO have more blatently criminal elements than others...and some just have quieter/sneakyer criminal elements. A lot of it is familial...entire families that have decided to live gang life...but there are so many reasons for criminal activity that family is far from the only reason.
There is also the whole "Organized Crime" problem. Well, some cities cut deals with OC's saying "Ok, you can have This Territory as long as These Conditions are followed.." In those areas anyone who was not affiliated with the OC of the area got kneecapped if they committed a crime By The OC's...all in all a more effective method of reducing crime. The downside was that the "protection" monies paid out were usually ursurious and higher than regular insurance...but if you paid, you didn't have to worry about outside criminals robbing you, but if they did, it got Handled. Properly run OC (rare) tends to REDUCE crime in large cities. Because if you don't have OC...you have Disorganized Crime...which is 1000 times harder to track/capture/deal with.
All in all, I prefer to rely on what I can personally to protect me & mine. I practice hard with a variety of weapons, not just guns, but also Archery & Martial Arts. Two degrees in Criminal Justice & plenty of time in Military Service & working as Head of Security for a H.U.D. housing complex gives me a particularly jaded view of criminal activity, but a logical one. I've found out one thing for certain..if you hide in your closet and hope the bad guys don't find you, have a shotgun in it. Police response is WAY TOO SLOW. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/6/2008 4:06:19 PM | | As long as I have my guns, and we have our guns, the rest of all of the things that are lost can be recovered. That is why the people have the right to bear arms. I believe the people should be able to buy whatever they can afford. If the citizens revolted here, there is not enough military to contain the rebellion. Plus, how many would jump sides? This nation is falling apart and I think a revolt is in the works. Washington should be filled with leaders that are all for the individuals in this nation, not for what other nations want us to be. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/6/2008 6:14:45 PM | Stat' posting people? If you want to post data comparing the US with other countries please do that on a per capita base. We have more people then a lot of other places so it is like comparing apples to the great pumkin. Otherwise it is an unfair.
I'm not NRA member but I will not give up gun rights. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/6/2008 7:16:33 PM | Our rights are already being taken. First and fourth are already gone, HEBEAS CORPUS is hanging on by a thread. Your guns didn't prevent that!
I am not a gun control nut, I am a Constitutional Nut. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/6/2008 8:02:06 PM | | Nuts are ok, and it’s good for you to watch dog the rights of the people. I lost my copy of the constitution still I know that both the right and the left are chipping a way at our rights. Our guns, free speech, liberty and pursuit of happiness are all up for grabs. Who is protecting us from all threats foreign and domestic? Who is promoting our general welfare and establishing justice? | |
|
| |
| |
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 7/7/2008 11:45:58 AM |
KKK-white redneck/trailer-trash gang members.
Dictionary:
redneck
(rĕd'nĕk') pronunciation
n. Offensive Slang.
1. Used as a disparaging term for a member of the white rural laboring class, especially in the southern United States.
2. A white person regarded as having a provincial, conservative, often bigoted attitude.
Is it AOK... to use 'offensive slang' for Whites and not other Ethnicities. See anything 'double standard' racist about this?
Now, if you go into the real 'roots' of 'redneck', you will find that it had to with Labor Unions ... not of the South actually. It was the ones who wore a red scarf around their necks during the battle b/w labor unions and non labor unions to identify who was who during gun fire.
Just a tidbit of REAL history... not distorted. | |
|
|
| Page 12 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
