QUOTE
Does Canada ghettos and slums?
Hey, I think Canada's a great country too, but yes, it ghettos and slums[sic]. But your general argument, that Canada has a better social welfare system, is correct. It kind of flies in the face of your main argument that the US has a higher rate of gun violence because of gun control, and Canada has a lower rate because of maple fairies or unicorns. That social welfare net, a different national character, more interest in downtown areas, a greater emphasis on living together, I could go on and on as to the reasons that Canada has a lower violent death rate per capita, and I would never get to the part about gun availability.
However, the question of gun availability itself is telling of the different national attitudes. In the US it is a fairly common belief that we must answer percieved or possible violence with violence. In Canada it is believed that it's safer to just let the RCMP or what have you handle things. I can honestly say that I would never expect to hear a Canadian citizen arguing that they need an assault rifle to defend themselves, with the exception of fans of the losing side of a hockey game. Especially if it was the oilers and flames. That's the closest to a violent ethnic rivalry I've seen up there.
QUOTE
Canada can afford to take care of its poorest citizens so they don't need to resort to crime mainly due because Canada doesn't have as many people.
what in the name of fuck? poor people in Canada don't need to resort to crime mainly due because it doesn't have as many people? How in god's name does that work?
There are ten poor people in a neighborhood in DC, so they resort to crime, but maybe if there are five poor people in a neighborhood in Toronto they'll just decide to open a Tim Hortons' franchise instead? Why?
I can kind of see what you were getting at. You're either saying that since Canada has fewer people, they can do more for those people (rebuttal A) or that Canada has fewer poor people (rebuttal
A: Overall population has nothing to do with economic and social conditions. We're talking proportionality and such. If there are a million people in Canada, it is safe to assume that the proportion of people living in poverty is the same as in the US. And before you start, no, they don't have more money than the US. indeed they have less tax income due to a smaller population, however I would wager that proportionally that tax income is about the same. It's just used differently. Instead of putting a few billion into building the "Mother of all bombs" as we like to do, they build a shelter for single mothers, which doesnt cost a few billion. Poverty is less serious in Canada because of this, but it probably occurs at the same rate, adn the government probably gains as much money from each tax payer as the US government.
B: Yes, this is true. But proportionally the amounts are probably the same even though that poverty is likely not as severe due, as I stated, to the government's devotion to providing a safety net.
QUOTE
So you break into a house and the first thing you do is locate the owner of the house and kill them so that if you are caught then you go in for second degree murder and not breaking and entering or armed robbery?
Hey look, you produced logical thought. Let's compare that to your previous statement in this very thread.
QUOTE
If someone breaks into my house, the cops aren't going to catch them until they've already shot me in the face and ran off with my TV.
Ok, now in your scenario you're unarmed and relying on the cops. So we'll assume that gun ownership is limited or restricted in some fashion. That means your assailant probably knows you dont have a gun. So why would he bother shooting you? Your statement above applies to your previous statement on page five of this topic.
It does NOT apply to Civ's scenario. Because while an armed criminal has nothing to fear from an unarmed victim of petty theft, he has a lot to fear if that victim is visibly armed. So if you go waving a gun about, or if it's known that there are guns in 100 percent of households (much less assault rifles) then criminals will be far jumpier and much more likely to use lethal force during the commission of their own special enterprises.
And while I'm on hte subject of your previous posts, I missed this bit:
QUOTE
Isn't this the same argument as Prohibition or the War on Drugs?
Prohibition was a resounding failure that caused infinitely more crime than it prevented. The war on drugs is a resounding failure that has caused infinitely more crime than it has prevented AND is largely responsible for the obscene rate of imprisonment suffered in this country (1/100 overall, and in black and immigrant communities the rate rises as high as 1/50)
QUOTE
I am against banning assault weapons in the US because criminals have assault weapons.
Here is a list of other things criminals have:
Heroin
Explosives
Syphillis
Are you against curing syphillis because criminals have syphillis? Etc
QUOTE
As assault weapons are deterrents first and foremost it would be stupid to ban them outright.
Deterrants? To what, the national army of Guatemala? If you have a knife or a revolver that's enough to make most criminals think twice. If you have an assault rifle that's enough to make most militia men think twice if you happen to be in Somalia. No, assault rifles are not a viable deterrent in the US because generally crime in the US is not serious enough that an assault rifle is needed to deter it.
Your fantasy of hordes of crack head zombies converging on your car with a hammer is utter madness, and since that is the only scenario that justifies having an assault rifle, or a chain saw attached to your arm, we must assume that there is no justification for posessing an assault rifle.
Spealing of which, ASSAULT rifle. Made for assaulting enemy positions in a fugging war, or assaulting your local high school at fugging lunch time. One of those uses is (arguably) responsible and legal. The other is not. The difference is that in one usage it is under military jurisdiction at the behest of an (arguably, ideally) competent leader, and in the other usage, the one where it's in civilian hands, it is under the power of a sophomore who has been called a fag one too many times.
This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 18 May 2008 - 02:05 AM