US Supreme Court upholds individual right to gun ownership

[Asher]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Here you compare apples and oranges.

The US is far more urbanized.

Bull ****ing ****, more lies from you.

I'm through with you, come back when you could pass a 6th grade debate class.

Percentage of population living in Urban centres in Canada: 77% (http://www.sustreport.org/signals/canpop_urb.html)
Percentage of population living in Urban centres in the USA: 79% (http://www.prb.org/Articles/2003/Fif...alAmerica.aspx)

You are seriously making the claim that a 2% difference in Urban-living rate is why your homicide rate is triple Canada's, assault rate double Canada's, and robbery rate 65% higher than Canada's? Seriously?

[Will9]

I'd attribute the higher crime rates in the states to the higher poverty rates.

[Will9]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles

Just why do we have a police force if this isn't their job?

From the post you were quoting:

Originally posted by Straybow
The police are rarely there in time to intervene directly.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Will
I'd attribute the higher crime rates in the states to the higher poverty rates.

Reducing the poverty rate seems like a much better solution than increasing gun ownership, don'tcha think?

[Theben]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles
You are seriously making the claim that a 2% difference in Urban-living rate is why your homicide rate is triple Canada's, assault rate double Canada's, and robbery rate 65% higher than Canada's? Seriously?

We just aren't as friendly and tolerant as you.

[Will9]

Originally posted by Kidicious




Reducing the poverty rate seems like a much better solution than increasing gun ownership, don'tcha think?

Well I think gun ownership is fine how it is so yes it is.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Theben


We just aren't as friendly and tolerant as you.

They are so fascist they don't even shoot you.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

The idea isn't to fight the army, the idea is to do domestic terrorism versus the political, economical, and social leaders.

JM

A strike would be more effective.

[Agathon]

I just read that some American guy got drunk and ended up trying to get into the wrong flat (he was trying to get to his girlfriend's place), and the owner shot him dead. I've had friends that have been that drunk. As if they deserve to die for going in the wrong gate.

If you think that's reasonable, then may God destroy your stupid country with a pillar of fire.

[Ben Kenobi]

If a guy is banging at my door at 2am in the morning, and is drunk and wasted, my first response is to let him in?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Will
I'd attribute the higher crime rates in the states to the higher poverty rates.

Doesn't even matter.

Here's some more stats.

Approximately 70% of the total murders in the US are committed with firearms, vs. about 30% in Canada

How does poverty come into play here? Given that firearms are undeniably far more lethal than knives or other weapons that murders tend to be committed with, does it not stand to reason that if you had less guns you'd have less murders? Look at the statistic I've quoted and genuinely think about it.

Canada's homicide rate is 1.9 per 100,000 people.
The US' homicide rate is currently 6.3.

This means that homicides with firearms in Canada are 0.57 per 100,000 people, and in the US it is 4.41. That is a massive difference. You can't look at this difference and tell me that guns reduce crime -- that you think without guns (the most lethal weapon), the murder rate would fall.

The current excuse is that the US has poverty and this plays into it. That's fair, right -- poverty can influence crime. The only thing is, it's a myth that Canada doesn't have prevalent poverty. It's not the kind of **** Michael Moore likes to talk about, or Canada likes to talk about, but it's a problem in Canada just like it's a problem in the States.

I'll grant you that the US does have more poverty than Canada, but that alone does not come close to explaining the massive difference in violent crime rates. You have to be completely stupid to ignore the massive difference in how often guns are used in the US vs Canada.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If a guy is banging at my door at 2am in the morning, and is drunk and wasted, my first response is to let him in?

That is your first response? Or sarcasm?

My first response is to yell at him through the door to **** off. I don't let him in, and I don't ****ing shoot him.

[Ben Kenobi]

How does poverty come into play here? Given that firearms are undeniably far more lethal than knives or other weapons that murders tend to be committed with, does it not stand to reason that if you had less guns you'd have less murders?

You would have to compare a jurisdiction prior to banning guns, and that same jurisdiction after banning them. You have to compare apples to apples, and not apples to oranges.

This means that homicides with firearms in Canada are 0.57 per 100,000 people, and in the US it is 4.41. That is a massive difference.

Where is your evidence that the only difference between Canada and the US is based on gun ownership?

Secondly, do both the US and Canada report the statistics the same way? Both the homicide rate in the US and Canada, have trended down dramatically. They have been halved in the last 30 years.

Now, as you have said, the US has guns and Canada does not, but both Canada and the US have seeing their rates decline in lockstep? That to me says that there must be other factors rather then guns.

If guns were the only factor involved, then we would not see similar declines in Canada and the US.

You can't look at this difference and tell me that guns reduce crime -- that you think without guns (the most lethal weapon), the murder rate would fall.

Do you have evidence of this at all? All you have shown is that the rates are different, which raises the question as to why they are different.

Can you explain why the homocide rates have declined so precipitously in the last 30 years in both Canada and the US?

You have to be completely stupid to ignore the massive difference in how often guns are used in the US vs Canada.

I would agree if you could show a jurisdiction where guns have been banned and guns were previously allowed showing a larger drop in gun crimes then elsewhere.

[Ben Kenobi]

To me it seems obviously possible to make a case that there are limits to the right to bear arms. For instance, why can't private citizens own F-22s with Mavericks or buy Tomahawk cruise missiles.

There are limits to free speech. You cannot state libel. There are no absolute rights to anything, and that includes the right to bear arms.

There's a line to be drawn, why shouldn't handguns be one of them?

Where would you draw the line Asher?

Since there is a precedent of a line being drawn, it's just a matter of where it is drawn and the Bill of Rights isn't explicit on that.

The burden is on those who are drawing the line to justify withholding the weapons, not on those who wish to own the weapons. You would have to come up with a compelling case as to why the line drawn should not permit handguns.

This decision draws the line at weapons needed for two purposes, to hunt, and for self defense. This is why you are having trouble here. If you accept both of these the distinction between a revolver and a rocket launcher becomes clear.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You would have to compare a jurisdiction prior to banning guns, and that same jurisdiction after banning them. You have to compare apples to apples, and not apples to oranges.

I am not the one that began to compare the US to Canada. One of your comrades started doing that, and it's massively backfired on him.

Where is your evidence that the only difference between Canada and the US is based on gun ownership?

For **** sakes Ben, learn to read. I never said that. In fact, my post you replied to says other factors are involved as well quite explicitly.

Secondly, do both the US and Canada report the statistics the same way? Both the homicide rate in the US and Canada, have trended down dramatically. They have been halved in the last 30 years.

What wiggle room is there? A homicide is when one person kills another. If you have evidence that Canada doesn't count some murders arbitrarily, ditto for the US, then please provide it...otherwise this is not an argument.

Now, as you have said, the US has guns and Canada does not

What the ****? Honestly, WHAT THE ****.

I've never said this and it's PATENTLY FALSE.

but both Canada and the US have seeing their rates decline in lockstep? That to me says that there must be other factors rather then guns.

If guns were the only factor involved, then we would not see similar declines in Canada and the US.

NO ONE HAS EVER MADE THE CLAIM IN THIS THREAD THAT GUNS ARE THE ONLY FACTOR HERE. YOU ARE STUPID. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY.