«12. . .2,0442,0452,0462,0472,0482,0492,050. . .2,1812,182»
1. People don't kill people unless they have deadly tools. There have been plenty of cases when in the absence of guns there would have been nothing worse than some expletives and bird flipping, or a fistfight at worst.
2. That's true, but that's precisely the issue at hand. Right now the supply is such that even those who want a gun just a little bit get them illegally because they can easily afford it. There would be a lot fewer murders if only those who want a gun bad enough (i.e. were willing to pay thousands of dollars) were getting them.
This is rank demagoguery. It is very easy to bring guns into cities. Why don't you compare countries?
It's always a price issue. The point is that they clearly don't bother to smuggle a lot of guns into England.
Yes, you can. But it is harder, and people usually don't have them at hand anyway. In the movie theater case that I mentioned there would have been no death without a concealed gun. And then I remember a road rage case. Some driver threw a soda can at another car and hit the side. The driver of that car thought that he was being shot at. Probably a similar noise, and it must have been terrifying. Still, nothing much would have happened if he had not had a gun. But he had and shot it in self-defense (as he sincerely believed). So he killed the first driver. Sure, he deserved punishment for throwing a soda can at a moving vehicle - a fine, restitution, mandatory anger management class... But death?! Of course, there's also the infamous case of Trayvon Martin (just for the record, I believe the jury reached the correct verdict). If Zimmerman had not had a gun, there's no way he would have stopped, exited his vehicle at night and started following somebody taller than him whom he believed to be a criminal - and then absolutely nothing would have happened.
Actually.... You can make ammunition..... Either make black powder to use a propellant, or just use ground up match heads. Primers can be made out of caps meant for children's cap guns, and bullets, well bullets can practically be made out of anything. And you can 3d print some parts of a cartridge, such as the bullet (and possible the casing, depending on when caliber you are trying to make). and Hey, I know people under six-teen who can make guns out of junk. You don't have to be a genius to make guns. They are actually very simple, once you figure out how they work.
Sure. It's just that nobody seems to bother in the UK. Or many other countries.
Yeah, moldy numbers in my head, had to go back to sources, which depending who you talk to, there is a range of gun defense claims.
The New York Times puts it at anywhere between 60,000 to 2.5 million.
More professional lobby and law enforcement put it more like 500,000 to 3 million.
Such a politicized subject, and every stat compiler having their own intentions for why makes for such a wide range in the numbers.
One, more crime is prevented than committed, so yeah, there will be higher numbers in defense claims than in recorded crime.
Two, I am ashamed of people who punish the innocent along with the guilty.
Solely a gun problem, eh?
I can load a shotgun and set it on the porch, and let it sit there all day.
Even set a box of shells next to it, in case it gets hungry.
Animals pad up and down the road.
Birds fly over head, including some circling buzzards.
No doubt in anticipation of the inevitable slaughter.
People drive by all day long.
The mail carrier. UPS, Federal Express, pull in and make deliveries.
School bus picks up and drops off the kids.
How many people and critters die around my house on a given day?
None.
That shotgun does not so much as twitch.
Must have a more tranquil personality than most American guns.
Pffft.
Why don't you compare other crimes?
The streets of many other nations are not safer.
Just a different kind of mean.
You may be less likely to be shot, but not less likely to be violently accosted in general.
Even in the sacred EU and commonwealth countries, violence in the street is no less prevalent.
Just of a different character.
You specifically said "logged". Now you are admitting that actually there are no 8 million logged reports, but rather some people just offer a broad range of guesses, with even the upper end of the range being well below your stated number.
In reality there are only a couple thousand cases of legal self-defense with guns per year, period. That's what actually gets reported to police. That's what legal self-defense means by definition. If you threaten someone with a gun, let alone fire it and do not report the incident to police, then you are the lawbreaker. It's that simple. Just think of it: if somebody tries to kill you and you barely escape with your life thanks to your gun, then why on Earth won't you report that to the police ASAP?! Even if somebody merely tries to steal something from your backyard and you scare him away, why would not you call 911 immediately? There's a decent chance they'll catch him in the neighborhood, and you should be concerned that he knows where you live and may want revenge later (even if only by vandalizing your property while you are not home). In virtually all circumstances you should also think about legal trouble for yourself. Brandishing a gun (let alone discharging it in an urban area) is a crime. And someone (or some security camera) may see you doing that without seeing the full picture and report it to the police. By calling them yourself ASAP you establish your good faith and lack of guilty conscience and enter your side of the story into the record as something you volunteer rather than something that perhaps you make up under hostile interrogation in an attempt not to get arrested. The simple fact is that quite a few people pull a gun on others but do not report it to the police precisely because they suspect (or even know) that what they did was in fact illegal (i.e. it was more bullying - often with racial undertones - than self-defense), and yet when asked by researchers about defensive gun usage still claim having used a gun in self-defense.
So spare me all those guesstimates and show me actual police reports. Also, don't you find any figure in the millions absolutely ridiculous, given that there are fewer than 400,000 violent crimes reported annually in the US? Sure, a lot of people use guns in defense of property rather than themselves and others. But should that even count as self-defense? For that matter, if you shoot a kid solely for stealing your Xbox, you are a much worse lowlife than he (and trust me, you won't want me to serve on your jury).
Oh Sh*t, now Trudeau is proposing a national ban on the sale of handguns. This isn't gonna end well...
Divided Wastelands of America, The anarcho-capitalist lands of kool-aid, and Informed consent
It never does, and am surprised it has not happened already.
It is the police state standard of logic.
The best way to preemptively police law breakers is to infringe upon the law abiding.
Anchillas, Divided Wastelands of America, and The anarcho-capitalist lands of kool-aid
This is a good thing
If it was up to me The 82nd Airborne would be Dropping into Ottowa to deliver the bill of rights to the Canadian People.
Along with a Brand new Government.
And if Turdeau doesn't like it he can go live with uncle Raúl.
At this point I think they'd be even be welcomed by some Canadians.
The first significant campaign of the newly formed Continental Army was an invasion of Quebec in June 1775.
Despite initial successes, it was a wonky wilderness campaign that quickly stalled for the poorly provisioned Americans, and they were sent packing in December after a failed siege of Quebec City.
Despite the subsequent democratic overhauls of British commonwealth countries they never strayed very far from the monarchy in spirit, and we have more than enough on our plate already dealing with Americans at home that want to put us back on our knees before a new age throne of some sort or another.
I just wish the People's Party of Canada would make it in office. They had 5% of the votes back in the 2021 federal election, which is a massive achievement for such a new and small party. They truly are right-wing, and don't try to bend their views to the center to get more votes.
FASTERCAT, Federation of American States, The anarcho-capitalist lands of kool-aid, and Informed consent
But just a week ago you denied that you supported ethnonationalism! Yet now you express explicit support for Putin's pals in Canada.
They ain’t no damn ethnonationalists. They are Right Populists. What, in your mind are Right Populists like Trump ethnonationalists? And there ain’t no evidence to support they are Putin’s Pals. Please we know you are neoliberal and probably are anti nationalist, but don’t throw around racism or ethonationalist accusations until you know what they support. Throwing racist accusations towards non-racists diminishes the ability to identify a true racist, as you have just turned racism into a political word instead of a way to identify those who push for inequality.
Federation of American States, Anchillas, Divided Wastelands of America, The anarcho-capitalist lands of kool-aid, and 1 otherInformed consent
No evidence?! https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/canada_should_stay_out_of_the_conflict_in_ukraine
"The West and NATO have horribly managed relations with Russia since the end of the Cold War.
Putin has a point when he says he can’t accept hostile troops and missiles in Ukraine, just like the US did not in Cuba in 1962 and would not if Mexico aligned with China or Russia today.
We could have avoided this war if we had given Russia assurances that Ukraine would not join NATO.
Instead of making empty promises and pushing Ukraine to defy Putin only to abandon it to its fate, the West should have supported this solution in the first place.
The economic sanctions on Russia are destabilizing the global financial and monetary system. We are also pushing the Russians into the arms of the Chinese communist regime.
I believe this is a geopolitical blunder on the West’s part that will have huge economic and military consequences. "
This is verbatim repetition of Putin's propaganda. This is all the West's fault, not Russia. The West made Russia invade Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine. The NATO talking point is especially stupid, given that everybody (including Putin) knew that Ukraine was not going to join NATO in any foreseeable future. What Putin really demanded on that front is for all new members joining NATO to require consent not only of all members but also of Russia. And he knew that such insulting demand could never be granted. The real reason for the invasion had nothing to do with NATO, and Putin actually spelled it out in his announcement of the invasion: genocide. I.e. the purpose of the war is genocide of the Ukrainian nation. The Russians don't want it to exist. So they want all Ukrainians to either become Russians or die. It's that simple. Putin talked of "denazification" (of a country which elected a Jewish president with over 72% of the popular vote), and his propagandists helpfully explained in various publications (e.g. https://ria.ru/20220403/ukraina-1781469605.html - you can Google translate it) that "denazification" means "de-Ukrainianization". Leading experts have recently stated that Russia has violated the UN genocide convention. Of course, the statement above also ignores the fact that the Russians have been in "the arms of the Chinese communist regime" for quite a while, and in fact Putin went to Beijing in February to obtain Chinese approval for his invasion.
Have you ever considered that the PPC is just a national isolationist party? Does isolation policy mean your instantly a Russian/Chinese lover?
Also on many occasions democracy has appeased dictatorships, and failed. What is to say an assurance would of changed Putin’s mind? We will never know, but what we do know is hardball will work eventually. You say it yourself, Putin is an irredentist. An assurance could of simply meant, to him at least, that Ukraine is not western but eastern. My firm belief is that an assurance would of told Putin Ukraine is yours to F with, we will not intervene. Instead this invasion has united the west in ways it rarely does due to general differences that are inevitable, instead of that division we have a common goal. An assurance would of been tantamount to appeasement. So should we just leave Ukraine to the whims of the Russian imperialists? No.
No, I haven't considered that because they repeat Putin's talking points and blame the West rather than simply saying that they don't care. Something along the lines of "Putin is evil but he does not threaten our vital national interests". But no.
We actually do know that no assurances would have changed Putin's mind. He has a long history of publicly claiming that Ukrainians are Russians and that Ukrainian state is therefore illegitimate. Similarly, giving Hitler Danzig would not have prevented WWII.
well of course the Special Operation to Free Canada would have to be After The U.S. Gets it's S**t back Together, but Most of Quebec would Probably need to be Torched....
its Highly Unlikely that would ever happen. they'd Have to Win at least the Toronto and Vancouver Metropolitan Areas.
In the Event that they Achieved enough Votes to get 169 Seats. (you need 170 for a Majority) all of the other Parties would Gang up On them and Create a Establishment Coalition.
Unfotunently Canada Needs a New Constitution including an Electoral College (so the middle and Maritime Provence's can actually have a Say instead of just Ontario, Quebec and B.C. Dictating everything or at the Least it needs the at least these Amendments 1 2 4 5 9 and 10 form the American Constitution. and the only way for that to happen is for America to get its S**t Together and then send a Special Military Operation to Install a new Political System in Canada.
«12. . .2,0442,0452,0462,0472,0482,0492,050. . .2,1812,182»
Advertisement