Alex Jones on Piers Morgan..must watch

[Shakerhood]

Originally Posted by Stangdawg

If I were king for a day, I would ban semi auto weapons. Lever action only and limit the quantity able to be owned and registered a single owner.

Good thing the Founders realized a King was a dangerous idea! Gotta remember that we are supposed to be the boss of the Government not the other way around.

[Shakerhood]

» Piers Morgan and Guests Discuss Shooting Alex Jones Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Idiots!!!

[Raceallday1]

Originally Posted by MFE

...until we don't. Reference the L.A. riots, the London riots, Katrina. Aside from muggings and home invasions like the doctor's family in connecticut a while back, the reality is, as a society, we're only ever a few hot meals from anarchy. When your whole city's power has been out for a few days, when the police have been pulled back for their own safety, when the predators who never gave two ####s about any required background checks and magazine size limits come slithering up your street, armed, numerous, looking to steal your gas and rape your wife, be sure to think about how civilized our society is, and how glad you are that at least you weren't ever silly enough to succumb to some misplaced manly-man desire for a good gun with lots of ammo.

You must be a doomsday prepper.

[Stangdawg]

Originally Posted by Shakerhood

Good thing the Founders realized a King was a dangerous idea! Gotta remember that we are supposed to be the boss of the Government not the other way around.

I'm pretty sure we are way passed the concern of a monarch trying to recapture North America and sending troops our way. And if they did, a local militia is no match for a drone....

You should realize that when I see the typical rhetorhic spewed over and over again by those who need a gun to "feel" safe I roll my eyes. I'm a realist. It will take decades but a massive change in gun ownership in the US will happen. I firmly believe that.

Gun ownership needs to be heavily curtailed and limited to hunting only.

One way to curb it is tax the #### out of them and don't think it won't happen.

[Ehardy1971]

Originally Posted by Stangdawg

I'm a realist.

Thanks , I needed a good laugh this morning!!!!

[Bossnine]

As I said to some idiot liberal friends of mine........lets ban all forms of consumption alcohol as it's only purpose is to kill cells. Oh wait, that's something they like.

[FATHERFORD]

Originally Posted by Stangdawg

Gun ownership needs to be heavily curtailed and limited to hunting only.

Please move to another country if you think that way.

The 2nd amendment reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Lets just go over the purpose of the 2nd amendment:

"A well regulated Militia"
On Dec 15, 1971 the 2nd Amendment was adopted with the rest of the bill of rights. At that time, there was only the "enrolled" militia. The enrolled militia included all able-bodied men between the ages for 17-44.

In May of 1792, the Militia Act was passed. That act distinguished between the enrolled militia and the organized militia.

Legally both militias still exist, but the 2nd amendment only correlates with an enrolled militia. So if you are a male between the age of 17-44 you better have the correct arms to defend your country from a tyrannical government and it's military. A 243 bolt action and a o/u double barrel shotgun won't do much good...

"being necessary to the security of a free State,"
This has nothing to do with hunting. This really needs to sink in. The reason for the 2nd amendment is to protect the people from a tyrannical government, to keep a free state. So if the government ever gets out of control, it's the duty of the citizens of the United States(especially the militia stated earlier) to keep the government in check.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"
Self explanatory. This has nothing to do with the militia, this states, "right of the people". What people you ask?

Everyone! Not just US citizens. This might be hard to sink in, and if I feel like explaining the bill of rights(and how some of the founding fathers thought it shouldn't exist at all) later on I will.

To some it up, everyone has the right to bear arms for protection.

"shall not be infringed"
Aka, don't screw with peoples protection. PERIOD.

To even go further into that, legally we as gun owners don't need the 2nd amendment to own fire arms, The 9th and 10th give us protection also.

9th:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

The founding fathers believed in the "Natural Rights"(this goes back to how some founding fathers didn't want a bill of rights period..so the 9th and 10th were put in to ease them) of the people. The 9th means that any rights not in the bill of rights are not to be denied to the people.

10th:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So any powers not specifically given to the Federal government are not powers it can seize.

In other words, since the constitution does not state the federal government has the right to regulate arms...they can't.

I could go on and on, but I'm done for now... With that said I will leave one quote from James Madison. He is the guy that wrote the Constitution and actually did the work putting together the Bill of Rights.

"The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."

[Stangdawg]

Originally Posted by FATHERFORD

Please move to another country if you think that way.

And your statement is probably more in conflict with the Constitution than anything I have posted.

You do realize you can disagree without name calling and telling people to move to another country.

All the guns we have and yet we have the violence and over 20 kids asassinated. But I guess you call that liberty

[Stangdawg]

Originally Posted by Bossnine

As I said to some idiot liberal friends of mine........lets ban all forms of consumption alcohol as it's only purpose is to kill cells. Oh wait, that's something they like.

Alcohol and guns are not even in the same galaxy. Plus, alcohol generates $$. You could nearly eradicate drunk drivers overnight but we have pu$$ified laws for DWI that amount to a free pass for 1st time offenders.

States make money selling it (many States the government is the retailer), taxing it, and then fining people who get popped for driving drunk. Government gets cash for the whole life cycle of it.

Restaurants make money selling it.

Cops make money off it (DWI, driving schools, overtime for courts, etc)

Judges and prosecutors make money with the case loads.

Defense companies make money.

Towing companies make money

Insurance companies make money of people popped for DWI

Bail bondsmen make money

States make more money when people reinstate their licencse after being busted for driving drunk.

I'm sure I'm missing others in the food chain too.

Make DWI a mandatory sentence on 1st offense of 6 months in the slammer and watch how many people learn to get a cab

[Stangdawg]

Originally Posted by Ehardy1971

Thanks , I needed a good laugh this morning!!!!

Laugh all you want. But my vote carries just as much weight as yours does. I've got some die hard hunter coworkers who even concede laws need to change.

If you can't find any fault with existing gun laws as written, then personally I think you don't have anything of value to add to the discussion.

When 40% of guns are sold with no background check, that's a problem from the start.

It won't change instantly so trying to overreach for what needs to be done in one at-bat is not how politics happens. Chip, chip, chip, and progress happens.

[SATURN5]

Chip... Chip... Chip... and freedoms disappear....

[FATHERFORD]

And your statement is probably more in conflict with the Constitution than anything I have posted.

Obviously you didn't read what I wrote, much less even understand the point of the bill of rights and the constitution.

You do realize you can disagree without name calling and telling people to move to another country.

are you the age between 17-44? If so, by law you should be armed and ready to protect the freedoms of the people.

If you are not abiding by that, you are preforming a illegal act via the 2nd amendment of the bill of rights.

I'm doing you a favor by telling you to move to another country.

Originally Posted by Stangdawg

All the guns we have and yet we have the violence

LOL, yes, because in the countries that don't have guns, they have zero violence. Let's also just ignore EVERYWHERE where guns are completely banned violent crime goes up SIGNIFICANTLY.

and over 20 kids asassinated. But I guess you call that liberty

By a crazed physco path. If he didn't have access to guns, I'm sure he could have just made an IED and done more damage then those guns ever would. Do you remember that guy with just diesel, fertilizer, and a rental truck killed 168 people and injured many more in one foul swoop?

By your logic and reasoning, we should ban diesel, fertilizer, and rental trucks. They are far more dangerous.

over 600 people last year were murdered with blunt objects, just over 300 a tad with rifles. Maybe we should have an assault hammer ban as well.

[Stangdawg]

Originally Posted by FATHERFORD

Obviously you didn't read what I wrote, much less even understand the point of the bill of rights and the constitution.



are you the age between 17-44? If so, by law you should be armed and ready to protect the freedoms of the people.

If you are not abiding by that, you are preforming a illegal act via the 2nd amendment of the bill of rights.

I'm doing you a favor by telling you to move to another country.



LOL, yes, because in the countries that don't have guns, they have zero violence. Let's also just ignore EVERYWHERE where guns are completely banned violent crime goes up SIGNIFICANTLY.



By a crazed physco path. If he didn't have access to guns, I'm sure he could have just made an IED and done more damage then those guns ever would. Do you remember that guy with just diesel, fertilizer, and a rental truck killed 168 people and injured many more in one foul swoop?

By your logic and reasoning, we should ban diesel, fertilizer, and rental trucks. They are far more dangerous.

over 600 people last year were murdered with blunt objects, just over 300 a tad with rifles. Maybe we should have an assault hammer ban as well.

Your post is why we need more gun laws. Whew. Waaaaaacko.

[FATHERFORD]

Originally Posted by Stangdawg

Your post is why we need more gun laws. Whew. Waaaaaacko.

I'll just put this here...

Originally Posted by Stangdawg

You do realize you can disagree without name calling and telling people to move to another country.

I don't need to really say anymore. You have resulted to the only thing you can put in your post is name calling. People can make out with their own minds who is the "Waaaaaacko."

Thanks

[Stangdawg]

Originally Posted by FATHERFORD

I'll just put this here...



I don't need to really say anymore. You have resulted to the only thing you can put in your post is name calling. People can make out with their own minds who is the "Waaaaaacko."

Thanks

Put your whole post that you typed to which I refer to you, and your fantasy idea of "rights" and the 2nd Amendment.

It's not name calling. It's referring to a condition of your mind. Seriously, you aren't even close to accurate. Most of what you've written are myths that have become media fodder and you've swallowed the hook.

[FATHERFORD]

Originally Posted by Stangdawg

Put your whole post that you typed to which I refer to you, and your fantasy idea of "rights" and the 2nd Amendment.

It's not name calling. It's referring to a condition of your mind. Seriously, you aren't even close to accurate. Most of what you've written are myths that have become media fodder and you've swallowed the hook.

Although I said I wouldn't reply anymore, please show me the myths i stated and back up your claims with factual information.

[mmeans]

Originally Posted by TheLegendaryJP

Which brings up a point I never thought of ... why hasn't any victims family brought a suit against her estate yet? Waiting for more evidence of improper storage or leaving access to a known mentally unstable individual maybe.

The lawyers won't bother with her estate as there is not enough meat on the bone. They will sue the state so the taxpayers get to foot the multi-million or multi-billion dollar awards.

Sandy Hook Lawsuit on Hold, for Now | Legal News | Lawyers.com

Those that fund the DNC never pass up an opportunity to stick it to the taxpayers.


Michael Means

[Ehardy1971]

Originally Posted by FATHERFORD

Although I said I wouldn't reply anymore, please show me the myths i stated and back up your claims with factual information.

He won't because he CAN'T. He's continually sidestepped facts others have presented here. Ben Franklin said it best, and it applies to Stangdawg, "Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither".

[Stangdawg]

Originally Posted by Ehardy1971

He won't because he CAN'T. He's continually sidestepped facts others have presented here. Ben Franklin said it best, and it applies to Stangdawg, "Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither".

Your first problem is you don't even have the quote right

Got stuff to do, will check in later......

[SATURN5]

[Ehardy1971]

Originally Posted by Stangdawg

Your first problem is you don't even have the quote right

Got stuff to do, will check in later......

Ahem.....

par·a·phrase

/ˈparəˌfrāz/

Verb
Express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, esp. to achieve greater clarity.

Funny how you want to inaccurately define the 2A, but don't realize when somebody is paraphrasing. Since you want to split hairs, here's the original quote, which has the SAME meaning as I posted....

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

[mmeans]

Originally Posted by Stangdawg

I'm pretty sure we are way passed the concern of a monarch trying to recapture North America and sending troops our way. And if they did, a local militia is no match for a drone....

Someone better tell the Taliban/Al Qaeda; they are not listenting and still remain.


Michael Means

[SATURN5]

The first drone strike on citizens here, would likely be the last, if the airmen flying would even obey such an illegal order.

[Ehardy1971]

Originally Posted by Stangdawg

It's not name calling. It's referring to a condition of your mind.

Oh, I didn't know you were a licensed psychologist. Please continue to diagnose anybody that doesn't believe the same twisted logic you do, as "Whaaaaacko" (is that the clinical term?). It's painfully obvious who in this thread is living in fantasyland.

[MFE]

Gun grabbers always bleat that "there's more gun violence in the U.S. than in most countries". Well DUH, there's more car accidents in places with more cars, too, and both facts ignore the fundamental truth that the U.S. is nowhere near the top in violent crime, and certainly isn't alone in places where madmen create mass havoc with or without guns.

Such bleatings also work the same way as people getting crazy about a big plane crash, while ignoring that transportation fatality rate has been dropping for 40 years straight. In other words, we're safer than we have been in 40 years, but one jetliner crashes and it's worldside news.

Likewise, as a country, we're suffering less violence than we have in 20 years, but one guy mows down 20 people thanks to our slavering appetite for bombastic news, and we point our fingers at guns as the problem.

So...if you can't absorb and synthesize facts, and are just going to say everybody who has them is a "wacko", might I suggest going to motherjones.com where you'll feel more at home. If you CAN absorb and synthesize facts, then read on:

5 Facts About Guns, Schools, And Violence - Reason.com

In the wake of December’s horrific mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Vice President Joe Biden is chairing a panel of experts that will make gun-control recommendations to President Barack Obama by the end of the month. The president has said that enacting new restrictions on guns will be one of his highest priorities.

No one wants to ever again see anything like the senseless slaughter of 26 people – including 20 children - at a school. But as legislators turn toward creating new gun laws, here are five facts they need to know.

1. Violent crime – including violent crime using guns – has dropped massively over the past 20 years.

The violent crime rate - which includes murder, rape, and beatings - is half of what it was in the early 1990s. And the violent crime rate involving the use of weapons has also declined at a similar pace.

2. Mass shootings have not increased in recent years.

Despite terrifying events like Sandy Hook or last summer’s theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, mass shootings are not becoming more frequent. “There is no pattern, there is no increase,” says criminologist James Allen Fox of Northeastern University, who studies the issue. Other data shows that mass killings peaked in 1929.

3. Schools are getting safer.

Across the board, schools are less dangerous than they used be. Over the past 20 years, the rate of theft per 1,000 students dropped from 101 to 18. For violent crime, the victimization rate per 1,000 students dropped from 53 to 14.

4. There Are More Guns in Circulation Than Ever Before.

Over the past 20 years, virtually every state in the country has liberalized gunownership rules and many states have expanded concealed carry laws that allow more people to carry weapons in more places. There around 300 million guns in the United States and at least one gun in about 45 percent of all households. Yet the rate of gun-related crime continues to drop.

5. “Assault Weapons Bans” Are Generally Ineffective.

While many people are calling for reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons – an arbitrary category of guns that has no clear definition – research shows it would have no effect on crime and violence. “Should it be renewed,” concludes a definitive study, “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is as horrifing a crime as can be imagined. It rips at the country’s heart and the call to action is strong and righteous. But as Joe Biden and his panel of experts consider changes to gun laws and school-safety policies, they need to lead with their heads and not just their hearts.

Over the past dozen years, too many policies – the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, the TARP bailouts – have been ruled by emotion and ideology.

Passing sweeping new restrictions on Second Amendment rights won’t heal the pain and loss we all feel but just may create many more problems in our future.

[MFE]

And there's all of this, which I researched and compiled myself.


First, violent crime, including homicides, and including homicides involving guns, is on a downward trend in the U.S. See these tables for the homicide trends, see other tables in the same source for other crime trends:
FBI 2001-2005: Expanded Homicide Data Table 7 - Crime in the United States 2005
FBI 2006-2010: FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
FBI 2011: FBI — Expanded Offense Data

Facts. Provided by our own government.

Furthermore, raw data aside, our homicide rate in 2011 was 4.8 per 100,000 population, the lowest it’s been since 1963, and less than half of 1980’s high mark of 10.2
Secondly, in the meantime, concealed carry laws have expanded to the point where now, only Washington D.C flat-out prohibits it. Even hold-out Illinois legalized it recently but it won’t be implemented until their legislature works out the details.

Bottom line: Violent crime is down, even though concealed carry is up…way up. Easing Restrictions on Gun Permits - Graphic - NYTimes.com

Thirdly, there are hundreds of thousands, and by some estimates well over a million, defensive uses of guns annually in the U.S. Saint Louis University Public Law Review

Fourth, let’s look at the efficacy of gun ownership bans as illustrated by two cities where legal gun ownership is a virtual impossibility, and where, if the national trend were to be observed, violent crime would be going down, but it isn’t: Chicago and Washington D.C. First, Chicago: Crime in Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Despite being one of the hardest cities in the country in which to legally keep or use a gun, its homicide rate is going UP. If gun control worked like its proponents said it did, the trend would be going down, and would be approaching zero. It’s not. In fact, 2012 is set to show the highest number of homicides in 5 years, and I say again, this, despite the fact that civilian gun ownership is tightly restricted and concealed carry is banned.
Next: Washington DC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C. Again, gun ownership is damn near impossible, but the violent crime rate fluctuates, and while it may be sharply lower than it was 15 years ago, it is markedly the same for the past several years. How is this possible, in a place where guns are supposed to be nonexistent?

The only conclusions I can draw are that 1) disarming law-abiding civilians does not get the guns out of criminals’ hands, and does not make the population safer, and 2) The proliferation of guns and of concealed carry have not contributed to an increase in violent crime.

Lastly, if you have the time and further inclination, these are two of the better pieces I’ve seen on the gun control and on the futility of an AWB:
An opinion on gun control « Monster Hunter Nation
Why Not Renew the “Assault Weapons” Ban? Well, I’ll Tell You… « Kontradictions


Researching these things points out the bull#### coming at us from BOTH sides of the debate, and I’ve tried hard to stay away from hyperbolic twists of stats such as those pointing to higher crime rates in U.K. and Australia.

[Ehardy1971]

^Good post. I'm also going to add something here for Mister ban ALL semi-autos.....

Justice Scalia, Opinion of the Court

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER


Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

[J's 89]

The news just mentioned a school shooting in California, but surely they got the location wrong with California having some of the toughest gun laws in the US.

[mmeans]

It's probably California, MD. Wait, no way, there is no conceal carry in MD so why would anyone leave home with a weapon?


Michael Means

[Ordie]

Originally Posted by Stangdawg

Put your whole post that you typed to which I refer to you, and your fantasy idea of "rights" and the 2nd Amendment.

It's not name calling. It's referring to a condition of your mind. Seriously, you aren't even close to accurate. Most of what you've written are myths that have become media fodder and you've swallowed the hook.

I'll do it, You're a ####ing idiot. The SCOTUS even upheld that the ban on Firearms in DC an Chicago were Unconstitutional. The Media fodder is what their incorrect definition of "Assault Weapons" really are and the stats for crimes using them. You fell for it hook, line and sinker.

You still never answered the question if you 17-44 years old have you regitstered for Selective Service? Thats law....

[HIVOLTJ]

Originally Posted by Stangdawg

Put your whole post that you typed to which I refer to you, and your fantasy idea of "rights" and the 2nd Amendment.

It's not name calling. It's referring to a condition of your mind. Seriously, you aren't even close to accurate. Most of what you've written are myths that have become media fodder and you've swallowed the hook.

Just because you are a coward, does not mean everyone else is.

Have you ever had use for your seat belt? I never have, and don't personally know anyone who has.

We view guns the same for defense. You take/wear it for that one time out of 1,000 that you might need it, not the other 999 times.

There are plenty of places that don't allow guns, why don't you move to Washington D.C. If you want to feel safe!

You are ignorant.

[Ordie]

Same can be said for motorcycles. You dress for the crash, not the ride.

[Silver85TC]

Originally Posted by MFE

And there's all of this, which I researched and compiled myself.


First, violent crime, including homicides, and including homicides involving guns, is on a downward trend in the U.S. See these tables for the homicide trends, see other tables in the same source for other crime trends:
FBI 2001-2005: Expanded Homicide Data Table 7 - Crime in the United States 2005
FBI 2006-2010: FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
FBI 2011: FBI — Expanded Offense Data

Facts. Provided by our own government.

Furthermore, raw data aside, our homicide rate in 2011 was 4.8 per 100,000 population, the lowest it’s been since 1963, and less than half of 1980’s high mark of 10.2
Secondly, in the meantime, concealed carry laws have expanded to the point where now, only Washington D.C flat-out prohibits it. Even hold-out Illinois legalized it recently but it won’t be implemented until their legislature works out the details.

Bottom line: Violent crime is down, even though concealed carry is up…way up. Easing Restrictions on Gun Permits - Graphic - NYTimes.com

Thirdly, there are hundreds of thousands, and by some estimates well over a million, defensive uses of guns annually in the U.S. Saint Louis University Public Law Review

Fourth, let’s look at the efficacy of gun ownership bans as illustrated by two cities where legal gun ownership is a virtual impossibility, and where, if the national trend were to be observed, violent crime would be going down, but it isn’t: Chicago and Washington D.C. First, Chicago: Crime in Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Despite being one of the hardest cities in the country in which to legally keep or use a gun, its homicide rate is going UP. If gun control worked like its proponents said it did, the trend would be going down, and would be approaching zero. It’s not. In fact, 2012 is set to show the highest number of homicides in 5 years, and I say again, this, despite the fact that civilian gun ownership is tightly restricted and concealed carry is banned.
Next: Washington DC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C. Again, gun ownership is damn near impossible, but the violent crime rate fluctuates, and while it may be sharply lower than it was 15 years ago, it is markedly the same for the past several years. How is this possible, in a place where guns are supposed to be nonexistent?

The only conclusions I can draw are that 1) disarming law-abiding civilians does not get the guns out of criminals’ hands, and does not make the population safer, and 2) The proliferation of guns and of concealed carry have not contributed to an increase in violent crime.

Lastly, if you have the time and further inclination, these are two of the better pieces I’ve seen on the gun control and on the futility of an AWB:
An opinion on gun control « Monster Hunter Nation
Why Not Renew the “Assault Weapons” Ban? Well, I’ll Tell You… « Kontradictions


Researching these things points out the bull#### coming at us from BOTH sides of the debate, and I’ve tried hard to stay away from hyperbolic twists of stats such as those pointing to higher crime rates in U.K. and Australia.

Click this report from Stats Canada;
The Daily#—#Police-reported crime statistics,#2011

In Canada, both overall volume and severity of crime fell by 6% in 2011....a continuation of a long term trend.
Violent crime fell 4%, again part of a long term trend.
Homicides were 1.7 /100,000, which was a slight increase, however the longterm trend is still decreasing.

Yes, there are varying socio-economic differences between Canada and the US. However, based on my personal experience (I travel extensively to the US for business), the main differences are Americans love affair with guns and no universal healthcare. Other than that, there aren't alot of major differences between the two countries (I do like the climate in the States better though.....especially in the South!).

The point to this post is that Canada has vastly more restrictive gun ownership laws, yet is also seeing a reduction in overall crime in almost all category's.....AND has significantly less murders / 100,000 than the US.

Comments?

Edit: The other big difference between Canadians and Americans is that Americans are WAAAAYYYY more passionate about their politics! (as evidenced in this forum! )

[Dennis]

Originally Posted by Silver85TC

Click this report from Stats Canada;
The Daily#—#Police-reported crime statistics,#2011

In Canada, both overall volume and severity of crime fell by 6% in 2011....a continuation of a long term trend.
Violent crime fell 4%, again part of a long term trend.
Homicides were 1.7%/100,000, which was a slight increase, however the longterm trend is still decreasing.

Yes, there are varying socio-economic differences between Canada and the US. However, based on my personal experience (I travel extensively to the US for business), the main differences are Americans love affair with guns and no universal healthcare. Other than that, there aren't alot of major differences between the two countries (I do like the climate in the States better though.....especially in the South!).

The point to this post is that Canada has vastly more restrictive gun ownership laws, yet is also seeing a reduction in overall crime in almost all category's.....AND has significantly less murders / 100,000 than the US.

Comments?

Edit: The other big difference between Canadians and Americans is that Americans are WAAAAYYYY more passionate about their politics! (as evidenced in this forum! )

#1 This isn't about politics, it's about rights. Rights that you don't have and we don't want to lose.

#2 I could make the same comparison between Iowa and Chicago. Iowa's gun death rate is 6.7 per 100k while Chicago is about 15 per 100k ... and Chicago has restrictive gun laws! We both have the same health system (don't know why that would have anything to do with it) so we are a better comparison than US vs Canada. My data proves exactly the opposite yours does. Point is this: General comparisons like this are worthless. US vs Japan vs Mexico vs Canada, gun laws vs no gun laws, they are all all worthless comparisons. The factor that isn't being considered is the CULTURE. This is the human factor (remember, guns don't kill people, people do) Guess what? In general Canadians are better liked around the world than Americans. I think that may provide a better parallel (not cause/effect) than gun laws and helath care systems.

Edit: Note that Iowa is 2 hrs from Chicago so we pretty much even have the same weather.

[SATURN5]

We've always been passionate about our politics, if we weren't we'd still be part of the Empire...