[TheZookie007]

Quote:
notty: Having said that, I hate guns. I can't stand rifle hunting, sport shooting, or any other gun-toting activities the rednecks so enjoy.

I agree. Make love, not rednecks!

Quote:
I find the whole concept of gun ownership repugnant. I also find the concept of a technology that functions solely to kill other organisms repugnant.

You really have to wonder what the psyche of a person who can even find beauty in the appearance of such a technology to the extent that they would want to amass a huge cache of them "just because they can" is like. Guns are not pretty; maybe as a physical object they have some inherent aesthetic value, but in terms of its ultimate utility, they are quite ugly. They help propagate a negative culture, a culture of death, destruction and despair...or as the great Fela Kuti once sang, they bring "sorrow, tears and blood".

[Real]

Quote:
notty said:
So, cities are islands unto themselves, and have no bearing on each other? Toronto is surrounded by...not much. New York is surrounded by...?

But, hey, you're the one who first compared the U.S. to Canada. I'm merely pointing out that it's a bad comparison, and shouldn't be made. If you want to match up the Great White North with another country, try Australia. They are very similar in many ways. But, wait, uhoh, Australia's firearm homicide rate is almost half that of Canada.

   

oh that's all good, im not a mindless reactionary nationalist that gets insulted when people talk about my country.  if its true its true if it isnt it isnt.  imo nationalism is a close cousin of racism but that's a whole other topic.  

but like i said from the start, pick any country but columbia basically if canada doesnt tickle your fancy.  id love if canada had the murder rate of australia (check the higher population density than canada) or any country with less violence. youd think americans would be too, except many are too busy being emotionally defensive about their out of control gun murders.

fact is canada has 1/6 the murder rate with not nearly 1/6 the population density when youre talking about where people actually live, and i never claimed anything more.  one of the 6 million people in toronto doesnt imagine theyre going to not commit a murder because there's an empty forest to the north, just like one of the 1 million people who commits a murder every day in baltimore arent doing the inverse. i mean what is jackson, miss. with far more murders and 1/3 the people surrounded by?  dont mistake, canada is just a small country but a north american city of 6 million is a north american city of 6 million or 4 or 3 or 1 million.  simple to all but the willfully ignorant.  you know you could talk in circles for years on some meaningless anecdotal examples.  its so far from as simplistic as that, as your very own australia example illustrates.

really i try not to argue for the sake of arguing, that's other people(who support then contradict their very own argument in the same post for the sake of being contrarian)'s job...

[Real]

Quote:
TheZookie007 said:
The figure I heard is that 90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the US/Canada border.

yes, and there are about 100 000 of 33 million who live above the 53rd parallel....

[gOOber]

 

Quote:
I agree. Make love, not rednecks!  

What is there not to love about rednecks?

 

[SwitcherX]

Quote:
gOOber said:
What is there not to love about rednecks?

To be honest, that truck isn't thrilling me.

[notty]

Quote:
Real said:
 one of the 6 million people in toronto doesnt imagine theyre going to not commit a murder because there's an empty forest to the north, just like one of the 1 million people who commits a murder every day in baltimore arent doing the inverse.

Please characterize the flow of illicit items and human refuse between Toronto and the forest to the north. Then characterize the flow of illicit items and human refuse between New York and Baltimore...and Boston and Philly and Jersey and D.C. and...well, I think that's sufficient.

Quote:
i mean what is jackson, miss. with far more murders and 1/3 the people surrounded by?

Jackson, Mississippi and Canada. Great comparison! Again! You're on a roll!

Quote:
dont mistake, canada is just a small country but a north american city of 6 million is a north american city of 6 million or 4 or 3 or 1 million.

O rly? Yah, I was in Mexico City once, and I thought to myself, "Holy fuck! This reminds me of Toronto!"

Quote:
simple to all but the willfully ignorant.  you know you could talk in circles for years on some meaningless anecdotal examples.  its so far from as simplistic as that, as your very own australia example illustrates.

Simple? Simple is when someone says, "Gosh, we have a lot of guns in Canada, but we don't kill each other with them as frequently as the Americans, so...we're, like, a good example n'shit?" Since you were unable or **86** to dig any deeper, to advance the argument any further, I did it for you. You are most welcome!

Quote:
really i try not to argue for the sake of arguing, that's other people(who support then contradict their very own argument in the same post for the sake of being contrarian)'s job...

Contradiction? I only set out to prove two points:

1) Comparing gun crime in the U.S. to gun crime in Canada serves no purpose. Check.

2) Canada's gun violence statistics aren't all that peachy upon closer examination. Check.

So, I ask again: contradiction?

[notty]

Quote:
TheZookie007 said:
I agree. Make love, not rednecks!

The only thing rednecks make is more rednecks.

[Dearc]

Quote:
TheZookie007 said:

Quote:
notty: Having said that, I hate guns. I can't stand rifle hunting, sport shooting, or any other gun-toting activities the rednecks so enjoy.

I agree. Make love, not rednecks!

Quote:
I find the whole concept of gun ownership repugnant. I also find the concept of a technology that functions solely to kill other organisms repugnant.

You really have to wonder what the psyche of a person who can even find beauty in the appearance of such a technology to the extent that they would want to amass a huge cache of them "just because they can" is like. Guns are not pretty; maybe as a physical object they have some inherent aesthetic value, but in terms of its ultimate utility, they are quite ugly. They help propagate a negative culture, a culture of death, destruction and despair...

I managed to stay away from this as long as I could, since I chimed in a few pages back, and felt the issue was over with.  I guess others have decided to take up the mantle.

It seems a few of you have come to the conclusion that "guns kill people" so let's get rid of the guns and we'll all be better off.  Yippee-skippee!  Has everyone already forgotten that before there were guns, people were just as easily slaughtered with swords?  Oh yeah, I got one of those, too!  

Now as much as I disagree with such ideas, I won't insult the people making them.  My personal experience?  PROPER gun classes teach you discipline, respect and traditions, no matter what country you're from...unless you're from France!  haha, just kiddin'.

Actually, I don't hunt; don't feel the need nor interest.  I don't own guns because I want to kill people with impunity.  I own them because...well, what difference or business is it of anyone else?  As long as I maintain my permits and attend annual firing ranges-both required by law and my job-there's no problem.  It also helps when I'm legally able to conceal carry in public.  Sometimes, I take it with me when I'm out-n-about.  You can't turn on the TV anymore and not hear about some asshole who suffers a breakdown or just don't give a fuck, and starts plugging people.  I'm always hoping that an armed citizen was on scene, and put the rabid dog down.  But it doesn't happen; too many people are afraid to act, so they wait, and hope or pray, that they live and the cops will take care of it.  This is weakness at it's worst.

For now, handguns, shotguns and semi-automatic rifles are legal.  It's possible the current administration may place bans which will make it harder to buy, own and sell firearms.  I don't agree with this, but if politicians do it, well, it's we the people that voted them in.

Here are a few of my fav' gun lines:

"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them."
"In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance or tactics. They'll only remember who lived. "
"A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone."
"911: gov't sponsored dial-a-prayer."
"If you have a proper firing stance, you're not properly using cover & concealment."

Since some of the previous posts seemed to get a little heated, may I remind you we're all adults (we had to be, to get a login here, right?), so let's remember to respect other people's opinions.  Accusing another of lacking intelligence simply because you disagree with them, may in fact, show your own ignorance.  That's why I didn't befuddle my opinions with useless facts and numbers; there's a level of truth beyond facts, when you believe in something so strongly.

[gOOber]

 

Quote:
 Jackson, Mississippi and Canada. Great comparison! Again! You're on a roll!

I hate Canadians as much as anyone but there's no reason to get personal.

[Real]

i was characterizing your misrepresentation of population density as an overriding factor in gun murders.  then contradicted by your pointing out the the even lower gun crime rate of australia.

its a very thin argument to attribute shootings at such an alarming rate in a place that's not densely populated, except compared to canada.  

of course its ridiculous to really compare all these places, because popluation density is well down the list of contributing factors to high gun crime.  i was going on population density, you know in the context at hand, not just quoting a phrase and changing that context to what cities remind me of when im there or whatever.

as far as crime statistics and gun crime rates, they arent me bragging about being better, theyre actually just facts.  its you who and your constant flawed inferences that just feels like being appalled that a canadian dare say such things lol.  sorry if youre that insecure.  but you can point at me as not as much better than you think i think i am if its so important to putting your mind at ease.  next time ill bring up another country as an example so you dont have to be a spaz lol...

[notty]

Quote:
Real said:
i was characterizing your misrepresentation of population density as an overriding factor in gun murders.  then contradicted by your pointing out the the even lower gun crime rate of australia.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You failed to grasp my argument, or read what I wrote, or both. Cultural and political factors are the overriding factors. However, when cultural and political factors are similar, you must look deeper. The first place you look is population distribution. The second place you look is socioeconomic distribution (don't even want to go there, already wasted enough time on this). And so on. My argument isn't thin, but your head certainly is thick! You're the one attempting to squeeze simplicity from complexity. And, BTW, you stupid fuck, the population density in Australia is less than the population density in Canada.

I have to put you on ignore now. I truly can't afford to spend any more time on this, and I can't not call you out when you say something moronic (which is often). So, yah, I think this is the best option. Buhbye, hoser!

[notty]

Quote:
Dearc said:
 there's a level of truth beyond facts, when you believe in something so strongly.

If everyone felt that way, we'd still be living in the Dark Ages. Then again, you'd probably be right at home in such a world. You could use your swords and axes all day. You'd be happy as a pig in shit!

[Dearc]

Quote:
notty said:

Quote:
Dearc said:
there's a level of truth beyond facts, when you believe in something so strongly.

If everyone felt that way, we'd still be living in the Dark Ages. Then again, you'd probably be right at home in such a world. You could use your swords and axes all day. You'd be happy as a pig in shit!

Dark Ages?  I doubt it.  Haven't you ever believed in something so fiercely that it contradicts logical thinking.  Religious people call it faith.  Being an atheist, well, the word is just as effective for me.  Try believing in something greater THAN yourself, you'd be suprised what you can learn ABOUT yourself.

I'd also consider myself an amateur historian, for my own personal benefits.  The Dark Ages were so violent, full of superstition and distrust, religious dogmatism and demonization of others, the social & economic gaps wider than any ocean, expression of ideas suppresed so hard, they'd make Mao cry.  For me, knowing what I know, it'd be Hell on Earth.

Seriously, what have all your useless facts and brazen attitudes gotten you here?  You're getting all riled up over words, written by people you'll never meet or personally deal with.  Please, what is this intolerable hatred toward firearms, and those who own them?

[Hugeboobfan]

Quote:
Dearc said:
Haven't you ever believed in something so fiercely that it contradicts logical thinking.  Religious people call it faith.  Being an atheist, well, the word is just as effective for me.  Try believing in something greater THAN yourself, you'd be suprised what you can learn ABOUT yourself.

Call me crazy, but I try to avoid believing in things fiercely enough that it contradicts logical thinking.  I would think as an atheist you would be weary of that sort of nonsense.

I have no idea what the last sentence there is supposed to mean.  What is greater than yourself?  Guns?  Have you elevated gun ownership to the level of religious idolatry?

[solvegas]

I'm going to jump in here knowing full well that my stance will be taken wrong or incorrectly. The reason why the founding fathers inserted the 2nd amendment wasn't just so that people could go hunting or shoot for entertainment or anything like that. Thomas Jefferson himself said it was to ensure neither the federal, state or local goverment would have a monopoly of force. The experience they gained from the revolutionary war made them appreciate the fact that a well armed populace was able to get rid of the oppresive yoke of colonial rule. The british did not leave just because we asked them. And the founding fathers did not want a future American goverment to be able to tyranize the citizenry on a future date. Also, they had a tremendous distrust of a standing profesional army and so they also wanted able  bodied citizens to come to the common defense.