Guns and crime

[Master Muse]

Recently there was a poster who assured all that the US had an horrific and rising crime problem and that our cowboy gun laws (or lack of gun laws) were the substantial factor. As proof, he cited the low crime rates in the UK and the European countries.

To that canard, I demurred.

To those who have an interest, please go to the Wall Sreet Journal's opininjournalonline.com site and read the articel by John Lott which debunks, with stats, the myth that guns in the hands of private citizens is a factor in raising the crime rate.

Please, too, note that e are talking about rates here, not any absolute numbers as countries vary in population.

The truth is that more guns equal less crime, just as long prison sentences mean less crime, just as legalized prostitution means less crime and just as decriminalized marijuana means less crime.

[Connie Lingus]

I wouldn't say the article "debunks the myth". Nor were the statistics very in-depth. 15 armed robberies, when there were only 10 last year, is a 50% increase as an example. The author also has had a book out on the subject for about two years. Trying to sell more books?

I'm not disagreeing with you. I think the topic is much more complex than the article can cover. I'd trust the stats a little more if they were based on a per capita basis; e.g., 20 incidents for every 100,000 people.

[vidi vici veni]

The Lott piece on guns and crime rates can be found at:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=105002026

However, I'm not really too impressed with this op-ed piece. It's strikes me as rather smug in tone. Moreover, cross-cultural comparisons can run into all sorts of confounding variables.

Here's another article on the same issue. It makes comparisons between american states that have strict and loose gun laws. I think that's a little more reasonable. There is a common history and culture, for the most part.

For Immediate Release:
1/18/1999


LATEST CRIME STATISTICS REFUTE THE GUN LOBBY: MORE GUNS ON OUR STREETS DO NOT MAKE US SAFER

Crime Rates in States with Strict Concealed Carry Laws Fell Faster Than in States with Lax Laws; Debunks the NRA’s Missouri Strategy

(Washington, D.C.) An analysis conducted by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, comparing the latest drop in crime rates among the states, provides compelling evidence that the gun lobby is wrong: more concealed handguns do not mean less crime. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports, from 1996 to 1997 the nation’s overall crime rate dropped 3.2%, from 5086.6 to 4922.7 crimes per 100,000 population. More telling, crime fell faster in states that have strict carrying concealed weapons (CCW) laws or that don’t allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all than in states which have lax CCW laws. This strongly suggests that, contrary to the arguments made by the National Rifle Association and others, states should not make it easier for citizens to carry concealed weapons in order to reduce crime.

In the 29 states that have lax CCW laws (where law enforcement must issue CCW licenses to almost all applicants), the crime rate fell 2.1%, from 5397.0 to 5285.1 crimes per 100,000 population from 1996 to 1997. During the same time period, in the 21 states and the District of Columbia with strict carry laws or which don’t allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all, the crime rate fell 4.4%, from 4810.5 to 4599.9 crimes per 100,000 population. The decline in the crime rate of strict licensing and no-carry states was 2.1 times that of states with lax CCW systems, indicating that there are more effective ways to fight crime than to encourage more people to carry guns. The research is particularly important for Missourians who face an April ballot initiative which would radically liberalize that state’s CCW system.

Furthermore, the rate of violent crime fell even faster in states with strict carry laws - falling 4.9% in restrictive states compared to 3.0% in lax states from 1996 to 1997. While the rate of violent crime is higher in strict CCW states, a look at the violent crime rates over a five-year period provides even more evidence that we don’t need lax gun laws to reduce crime. From 1992 to 1997, the violent crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 24.8% while the violent crime rate for the lax states dropped 11.4% (the national average is 19.4%). New York and California -- the two most populous states and ones with strict CCW licensing laws -- experienced dramatic decreases in violent crime over the five-year period. New York experienced a 38.6% decline and California experienced a 28.7% decline, both without putting more concealed handguns on their streets.

"These numbers demonstrate what we’ve been saying all along," said Sarah Brady, chair of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence and Handgun Control, Inc. "We don’t need to make it easier for just anyone to (more) carry a gun nor do we need more concealed handguns on our streets to fight crime. The way to fight crime is to punish criminals and to make sure that criminals don’t get guns in the first place."

Lax or "shall issue" CCW laws require law enforcement to issue CCW licenses to virtually anyone who is not a convicted felon. In these states, local law enforcement has almost no discretion in issuing these licenses and, in many cases, getting a license requires little or no safety training or even a demonstration that the applicant knows how to use a gun. States that give law enforcement discretion in issuing licenses (so-called "may issue" states) or which prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons entirely have chosen other strategies to fight crime, resulting in the greatest decreases in crime over the past five years. [snip]

vvv

[luckyjackson]

Hats off to the NRA. The fact there's a widespread notion that this topic merits serious debate, is a feather in the that organization's cap. It is the most powerful lobby in the U.S., and has obviously succeeded in muddying the facts to a ridiculous degree.

Best article I ever read on the subject was in The Atlantic a few years back, (think I still have it kicking around somewhere). The author constructed a very convincing argument against gun control. However, he started from the premise that because there were already so many guns in the U.S., and so many manufacturers, it was unrealistic to write laws aimed at taking them away from the criminal element.

Obviously, the situation is different in countries not already cursed with a handgun in half the homes. It's dead simple. The more guns there are, the easier it is to get one and use it. That is why the U.S. always had, has now, and unfortunately probably will have more handgun murders than any other country any way you measure it. Rates, actual counts, whatever. That's why Toronto might have about 65 murders in a year, (not all with guns), and Washington or Detroit typically have between 400 and 500.

Lastly, this idiot has blatantly spun the statistics to bolster his own whacked out argument to sell more books.

It's not that murder rates haven't fallen in the U.S. -they have - (and the reasons are not More Guns, as this idiot claims), but the U.S. still has higher rates of murder by handguns, than the rest of the world.

[E_B_Samaritano]

Too many times I have seen people attempt to compare Canada demographics with that of the US. Such attempts are comparable to a similar distortion of facts given in articles published by the NRA. Anybody who trots out a major urban center in the US that is plagued by gang violence related crime..i.e. MOST of the victims of murder in DC are not innocent bystanders but are members of gangs. These are not random acts of violence against innocent bystanders or residential killings in the suburbs where most of these people who want to be loaded to the teeth are located. This just demonstrates abysmal ignorance of the state of affairs in the US.

Canada in no shape form or fashion compares demographically, economically or otherwise to the US. Not in per capita income, not in GNP/per capita..nada..nothing. To put things in perspective, your largest city is the size of San Diego. How in the hell are you to compare anything in Canada with the state of affairs in the US? Hell, you have fewer people in the second largest country in the world than we have in California. Do you folks think that just because you speak English that you're on par? Well think again folks.

You lose a few in Afghanistan, we lose a lot and don't bitch. Some idiot who never traveled outside of his own neighborhood gets on the board and reports the fact that the accidental deaths of Canadians was not big news in the US. Nothing could be further from the truth. But in a country this large we actually have our own news to report. We lose men in defense of the western world and don't moan and wail about it. We realize that when we send our military into harms way they are not there to give out parking tickets. Your luxury to send peacekeepers anywhere comes at the expense of those of us who will fight the war the preceding war. Anybody think to ask what idiot in the Canadian military command decided to conduct live fire excercises in the middle of a war zone? Didn't think so. These excercises are dangerous enough in a neutral zone. We lost several men to accidental friendly fire a few months earlier. We lost thousands in other conflicts. You'd think that in a country with so much desolate territory that you'd afford your military a place to practice. But in a country that takes the necessity for military and national defense for granted, I guess that's a little too much to ask.

And BTW..when the US buys 86% of all Canadian exports...HOW MUCH more do you want us to buy? Now that your companies are on the market for firesale prices, we'll just buy those and leave the rest. A lot of your local talent is already working here..wonder why? Guess Canada isn't that paradise afterall..eh?

EBS

[Mack Bolan]

To E_B_Samaritano

"what idiot in the Canadian military command decided to conduct live fire excercises in the middle of a war zone? Didn't think so. These excercises are dangerous enough in a neutral zone."

The PPL is under command of US military while in Afghanistan, as is all other military forces. I hope you understand that US pilot are told that they are very expensive train and that a aircraft cost millions of dollars it can be replaced! As you note it was a live fire excercise zone was used by Canada and other forces currently in Afghanistan. With the purpose getting those men used to the local climate and terrain, which in PPL is important, when you consider that most of those have tained for extreme "cold" weather and they had left in middle of winter.
As for trainning, Canada has many bases that are used by all NATO forces for training! When you want to fly, you go to Canada. I don't have to talk about how little money our goverment spend on our arm forces. It's criminal to have cut the budget to the point it's at now.

As for number of people lost in other conflicts, Canada has lost far more people than the US has lost in the 100 years. Many towns in Canada had lost nearly every male. I don't remeber the how many have died on peace keeping mission over the last 50 years. But they do get killed just the same. It just that this could be the first time that they were killed by "friendly" fire in a training zone.

[Average Joe]

Originally posted by E_B_Samaritano
Too many times I have seen people attempt to compare Canada demographics with that of the US. Such attempts are comparable to a similar distortion of facts given in articles published by the NRA. Anybody who trots out a major urban center in the US that is plagued by gang violence related crime..i.e. MOST of the victims of murder in DC are not innocent bystanders but are members of gangs. These are not random acts of violence against innocent bystanders or residential killings in the suburbs where most of these people who want to be loaded to the teeth are located. This just demonstrates abysmal ignorance of the state of affairs in the US.


Thanks for pointing out that the U.S. is a much more violent country. I'm not saying it's the only reason but don't you think the lack of gun controls might have something to do with it?


Originally posted by E_B_Samaritano
Canada in no shape form or fashion compares demographically, economically or otherwise to the US. Not in per capita income, not in GNP/per capita..nada..nothing. To put things in perspective, your largest city is the size of San Diego. How in the hell are you to compare anything in Canada with the state of affairs in the US? Hell, you have fewer people in the second largest country in the world than we have in California. Do you folks think that just because you speak English that you're on par? Well think again folks.


The population of Toronto is 3.8 million. The population of San Diego is 2.8 million. I don't know about you but that doesn't seem to close to me. Toronto is slightly larger than Dallas (3.5 million) and slightly smaller than Atlanta (4.1 million). There are only 8 cities in the U.S. that are bigger.

No one here said we were on par but you can compare rates.


Originally posted by E_B_Samaritano
You lose a few in Afghanistan, we lose a lot and don't bitch. Some idiot who never traveled outside of his own neighborhood gets on the board and reports the fact that the accidental deaths of Canadians was not big news in the US. Nothing could be further from the truth. But in a country this large we actually have our own news to report. We lose men in defense of the western world and don't moan and wail about it. We realize that when we send our military into harms way they are not there to give out parking tickets. Your luxury to send peacekeepers anywhere comes at the expense of those of us who will fight the war the preceding war. Anybody think to ask what idiot in the Canadian military command decided to conduct live fire excercises in the middle of a war zone? Didn't think so. These excercises are dangerous enough in a neutral zone. We lost several men to accidental friendly fire a few months earlier. We lost thousands in other conflicts. You'd think that in a country with so much desolate territory that you'd afford your military a place to practice. But in a country that takes the necessity for military and national defense for granted, I guess that's a little too much to ask.


When the hell did Afghanistan become a gun control issue?

By the way, if the situation were reversed and we accidently killed some of your men you can be damned sure that our leader would have made an official apology as soon as he heard about it not some off hand comment hours later as he was leaving a press conference. The only thing this guy is missing is a red nose and bright orange hair.


Originally posted by E_B_Samaritano
And BTW..when the US buys 86% of all Canadian exports...HOW MUCH more do you want us to buy? Now that your companies are on the market for firesale prices, we'll just buy those and leave the rest. A lot of your local talent is already working here..wonder why? Guess Canada isn't that paradise afterall..eh?


Not sure how this relates to gun control either.

If you take a look at the trade between our countries you'll find that we buy a lot more from you than you do from us so don't make it sound like you're doing us a favour.

A lot of people may go down to the states to make money but they all come back eventually. I know a number of people who have done that and say they're glad to be back in Canada because, among other things, the health care is better, better education and they don't have to worry about getting shot. Which brings us back to gun control. Fewer guns means fewer gun fatalities.

[KBear]

The crime rates could be dropping simply because the economy is improving in some areas. More people are working instead of wondering the streets trying to figure out ways to make a quick buck. Murder rates could be dropping because paramedics & hospitals are getting better at keeping people alive after they have been shot.

Guns are easily available in Canada too. Not too long ago anyone could just walk into a store and buy a rifle, (I believe a handgun too). Now you can buy rifles and handguns in Canada if you file an application, take a course and qualify.

The idea that your family is safer if you have loaded guns ready for action in the house is false. The chances are slim that you will have the gun, in the right place at the right time, so that you can go looking for a gunfight late at night, in order to protect your family. However, the chances are very good that one of the kids in the house will find the gun and start playing with it.

[vidi vici veni]

Originally posted by KBear The crime rates could be dropping simply because the economy is improving in some areas. More people are working instead of wondering the streets trying to figure out ways to make a quick buck. Murder rates could be dropping because paramedics & hospitals are getting better at keeping people alive after they have been shot.[snip]

This debate will never end in the US because, in addition to a never ending supply of firearms, there's a never ending supply of factors to consider with respect to the relationship of guns to crime rates. That supply is limited only by the human imagination and the funding of various interest groups.

In the rest of the world, the debate is pretty much over. I think it's generally accepted that guns do not improve public safety and that societies in general would be better off without them. Partly those attitudes are practical in nature. Most societies don't have to contend with vast numbers of firearms sloshing about within the populace, criminal and otherwise. Perhaps only America faces that very real problem to such a degree and only in America does the debate rage on.

vvv

[Average Joe]

Originally posted by KBear
Guns are easily available in Canada too. Not too long ago anyone could just walk into a store and buy a rifle, (I believe a handgun too). Now you can buy rifles and handguns in Canada if you file an application, take a course and qualify.


It's not that easy. Anyone feel free to correct me if I get any of the details wrong. Also, these rules have been in place for at least 20 years that I'm aware of.

Before you can buy a handgun or any other restricted weapon you need a Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC). This takes a few weeks and includes an RCMP check. Once you have your FAC you can go to a gun store and purchase a hand gun. The store will give you a receipt that you take to your local police station. They give you a temporary carry permit that will allow you to transport the gun from the store to your home. No where else. The permit is valid for that day only and for a limited amount of time.

You then apply for a permanent carry permit to take the gun from your home to your gun club. When you receive that permit you are allowed to carry that gun in a locked box from your home to your gun club and back. You are not allowed to stop anywhere on that route. No stopping for a few drinks after with your friends. No running errands. No detours.

I can't remember where in the process this occurs, probably before you're allowed to purchase your first handgun, but the police come to your home and inspect where and how you intend to store the weapon. Usually this means that the gun and bullets should be stored in different places, a trigger lock must be on the gun with the gun stored in a safe bolted to the floor in the back of a closet. They will also talk to you and may even talk to your neighbours.I understand this part can vary from city to city.

The same restrictions do not apply to shotguns because they are more difficult to conceal but you still need and FAC.

Automatic weapons owned by private individuals are illegal in Canada. This includes weapons that can be modified to go full auto. Also, clips that hold more than a certain number of bullets, I believe it's 10, are also illegal.

By the way, I know a number of people who have handguns and are members of gun clubs. None of them have a problem with the rules. They may be annoying and inconvenient at times but if it saves one person from an accidental shooting or keeps one gun out of the hands of a criminal then it's worth it. Contrary to what the NRA says, most responsible gun owners in Canada understand why the rules are there and accept it as a necessary precaution.

[luckyjackson]

I hope this doesn't sink into 'America bashing'. I am not one of those Canadians that is forever moaning about the big bad U.S. Sure America gets a lot of things wrong, but overall I believe America does more good than bad.

Kbear, I agree with your statement regarding the cause for the crime drop. That's what I was alluding to.

Senhor Samaritano (Good Samiritan?), your comments prove the point I was making about how confused the debate about guns has become in the U.S. You are arguing about the cause of handgun deaths, (i.e. gang related as opposed to other kinds). Don't you think the basic argument should be about whether the presence of guns facilitates the deaths? Doesn't it seem obvious to you that an attempt to kill with a handgun is going to succeed more often than an attempt to kill with a knife a baseball bat or a chair?

Perspective is everything, and I believe this is one issue many Americans no longer see clearly because of the historical and political forces at play.

By the way, your argument about demographics strikes me as bordering on the absurd. Obviously there are differences between even similar sized American and Canadian cities, but to propose that those differences are so great as to make comparisons meaningless - is ridiculous. Where could you possibly find a more similar urban culture to the U.S. than Canada? As to your need to remind us that the U.S. is bigger and more powerful than Canada, well I hope you feel better now that you got that off your chest. I have a feeling it won't bother us much up here, because we so recently beat the shit out of your hockey team, and haven't even begun to exhaust the mileage we'll get out of that event. ;)

[mrbtrain]

In response to what Average Joe's latest post. Some things should be clarified.

It is relatively easy to buy firearms in Canada, to buy any firearm in Canada you need a PAL(Posession and aquisition licence), there is three levels, non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. Non restricted is for long-guns(shotguns and rifles generally), restricted for hanguns( with barrels longer than 4"), and prohibited are short hanguns and full autos. Generally speaking, there are exceptions.

These days the police don't even get involved when you buy a handgun. You get your permits to carry through the canadian firearms centre. You will not get a permit unless you belong to an approved gun club. They have never came to my home, or anyone else I know. The rules don't vary from city to city, or province to province for that matter, it is all under federal law.

Automatic weapons are not illegal in Canada. Those who hold a Prohibited PAL can purchase and posess and use these firearms in a safe manner as long as they have them. This licence is only available to people who already posess these firearms.

And Gun owners may have to understand and accept the rules as you say, But very few agree with what the goverment is currently doing with regards to the long - gun registry. Criminals don't register firearms, they use illegal ones.


Nuff said.

[KBear]

Under the previous licensing system (FAC), for people looking to own handguns the police definitely did come to your home. They inspected your home, storage, chatted you up, and took your wife aside and chatted her up too. The police do not seem to be as “hands on” involved under the new licensing system (PAL), as mrbtrain noted.

When I said > “Not too long ago anyone could just walk into a store and buy a rifle, (I believe a handgun too).” < I meant 20 - 25 years ago.

I do not really have a problem with registering guns, as it can be done quickly and easily online. With people realizing that if there gun goes missing, and latter shows up at a crime seen, they will be more likely to store there guns properly knowing that the gun can be traced back to them if stolen.

I really don’t like the idea of people carrying or having loaded guns stored in the house. However, if I lived in some areas and saw on the news every night that there had been 5 people murdered, 10 home invasions, 10 car jackings etc, my opinion might change.

The best way to survive a gun fight is to avoid it.

[Average Joe]

Originally posted by KBear
Under the previous licensing system (FAC), for people looking to own handguns the police definitely did come to your home. They inspected your home, storage, chatted you up, and took your wife aside and chatted her up too. The police do not seem to be as “hands on” involved under the new licensing system (PAL), as mrbtrain noted.


I didn't realize the policy had changed. That's too bad. I always thought that it was a valuable exercise to have police officers assess potential handgun owners.

[Master Muse]

Whew! I had no intention of opening the debate that has flowered here, comparing the US and Canada in a hosst of ways.

I do, however, take issue with the poster who (violenetly) called me an idiot. High Noon on the High Street? I'll win.

Seriously, this is out of responding control.

As to that lengthy citation from the Center for Handgun Control, the very name tells you of that group's objectivity. It's an anti-gun lobby in D.C. I don't think Mr. Lott is hoping to sell a few more books though. He.'s basically a research professor.

The Yank poster has a real point as to the demographic and volume differences between US and Canada. After all, there are about as many Black Americans as there are Canadians PLUS the Hispanics now outnumber the blacks. Try that in Canada and see what happens. Add, let's see, around 8 million blacks and Hispanics, all concentrated in your 3 or 4 largest cities. In Toronto, that would be around 800,000 to a million blacks and Hispanicx to keep the same ratio, not absolute quantatative parity. Watch the old crime rate then - and, of course, gun sales.



I do think you all will come around someday.

[james t kirk]

Actually, the GTA is the fourth largest municipality in North America. Now, Toronto proper is 2.5 million people, which puts it behind New York, then LA, then Chicago. Metropolitan Toronto is around 5 million people.

To my uneducated american friend samaritano

Here's a link for you.....

http://www.toronto.com/feature/324/8.html?cslink=cs_generic_4_5

Want back up, try this link.....

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/People/Population/demo05.htm[/url]

Now here's the link for the US census for easy comparison....

http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t5/tab02.pdf

San Diego falls in around 1.2 million, sorry, you should really do your homework before you spout off.

I hope this allows you to easily compare my uneducated american friend samaritano.


Toronto has about 50 or so murders a year, Washington which is considerably smaller (at around 572,000 people by your own census) has over a thousand murders a year. (See US census link)

Now, I don't know how you can rationalize that one, but knock yourself out.

With regard to my uninformed and uneducated american friend.....

The only country to ever attack this country is your country and you lost. In fact we burned the White House to the ground, and your president Madison ran away in women's clothing and hid.

He he.

But all that aside, in WWI and WW2 combined canadian casualties (however grim that might be) were approximatly 116,000 souls, now combined US casualties were in the area of 180,000 souls. In fact, of all the wars the USA has fought in, the worst casualties were suffered in the american civil war.

Don't believe me, check it out...

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=collections

http://collections.ic.gc.ca/books/books.htm

If you look at pure population, the USA being 10 x's that of canada, even a fool can see that Canada bore a far higher level of sacrifice than that of the USA.

But when compared to Russia, which in WW2 alone lost over 20 million.....

As far as the Canadian military goes, it has been slowly brought to shamefull levels by our gov't, no doubt about it. But there is a proud tradition there, and most will agree that the few soldiers that we do have are professionals.

American military history is usually one of dubious claim to honour and glory. More often than not, the American military is used to back up American political / financial interests than any noble cause whatsoever.

With regard to my oh so uninformed and uneducated and ignorant american friend....

With respect to the unfortunate deaths of 4 canadian sevicemen in afghanistan, our silly american friend is somewhat misinformed. My understanding of it is that the excercise was approved by American command, and carried out in a designated allied training area. (Night training occurs all the time.) Furthermore, it is my understanding that the pilot was instructed not to fire, but went ahead and did just that. Also the pilot in question is a reserve pilot, not a reg force pilot. Obviously, his training was lacking. I think it far more likely that the American pilot made a collosal mistake that I am sure is haunting him at this very moment, and will most likely haunt him for the rest of his life.

You my friend Samaritano are incredibly disrespectful of those men who died.

[luckyjackson]

Master Muse,

Since I'm the only one who used the word "Idiot", I'm assuming it's me that you're talking about.

If you'll read my post a little more carefully, you'll see I was referring to the author of the article, Mr. Lott. So unless you're him, (which may be since you're having trouble keeping the facts of this argument straight ;) ), I did not insult you.

By the way, nice touch challenging a guy who doesn't own a gun, to a gunfight. Man, do you Americans like to win!
JTK, good post.

[vidi vici veni]

Originally posted by Master Muse
[snip]As to that lengthy citation from the Center for Handgun Control, the very name tells you of that group's objectivity. It's an anti-gun lobby in D.C.[snip]Nonetheless, an interesting view is expressed and one that is not dispatched by simply noting that that organization (founded by Reagan's former press secretary) is on one side of the argument. The stats are there and ready to be refuted. I wasn't able to find anything that did so. Perhaps you can?!

vvv

[bear.23]

Having just skimmed through all the posts I figure I'll throw in my two cents....

As a verifier, a firearms training instructor, a competative target shooter and firearms owner...

I can tell you this....

Automatic weapons are not illegal but the 669 people in Canada licensed to posses them are highly regulated and inspected at regular intervals (and for this inspection the police do not need a warrant)

Restricted wepons also cover a number of firearms the Goverment call ugly guns, AKS-47, AR-15s certain shorter barreled guns (like a camp carbine) and other guns they just didn't like the look of...

Our governemnt has admitted to spending nearly $700 million dollars on the "new" registry and has not even implemented the critical phase (long gun registration)... They have registered less then 1/4 of the guns they believe that are out there and they have changed that number downwards 5 times in order to make it look better... The Firearms community feels that the governments numbers are about 70% of the real number.... Is it really worth over a billion dollars to register Grandads duck gun??? If you say that guns are dangerous compare the number of guns out there versus the number of deaths and the number of cars out there and the number of deaths... Maybe we should start to regulate cars they kill 10 times more people and injure 100 times more...

From the governments own numbers the registry is so flawed that it is useless to police... I have friends that have more 5 of six licenses becuase the CFC can't get it right...

I know people who have had wrong pictures on their licenses, wrong firearms registered in their names... Firearms misclassified...

Did you know that their are some 50 air guns that are now classed as firearms and if you haven't registered them you are guilty of a crimes punishable by a minimum of 8 years in jail....

As well the database has been compromised so not only are gun owners stripped of certain rights private information is now in the hands of organized crime... Who knows how many shopping lists are being created....

Think about it this way... Gun control is a myth it cannot ever prevent a crime... By it's nature it will not even help solve a crime... It may solve where the gun came from if it is registered and stolen... but a requirement is to file a police report if the gun is stolen so the registry still serves no purpose....

Criminals do not register their guns ( unless you are "Mom" Boucher and the government gives you a license)

Gun Control is people control... And the Liberals have it in their mind to spend a billion dollars to control the firearms community becuase they feel it is safer and they are brain washing the big city folks that it works...

But in England where guns have effectively been outlawed crimes with guns are up 440%
in Austrailia where guns are again outlawed gun crime is way up...
in Europe (France, Germany and Switzerland) again where there is tight gun control they are having mass murders...

People always say the US is rash with gun crimes... take a look at where.... California (they have the strictest gun control going) Washington???? Same story.. In the states that have CCW(Concealed carry) they have very low crime rates and they rates started to drop once the CCW laws were enacted....

[james t kirk]

Dear bear,

Perhaps you could post some links to reputable sites to back up your claims. (And by that I don't mean any site that has anything to do with guns and amo (NRA et al), rather a gov't site with raw data and statistics)

Otherwise, your post, as nice as it is. is just another opinion.

I feel safer walking down a street in Toronto than I do a street in Washington.

Another big part of the equation is accidental shootings, and heat of the moment shootings. If there was no gun in the house, none of these would occur.

Murder has been with us since Caine and Abel, I am not so naive to think that it will disappear by outlawing gun ownership but I see no sense in making it any cleaner or easier.

I see the gun lobby as a bunch of boys who don't want to have their toys taken away. Fine, but you can keep them at a gun club and play with them there.

[KBear]

james t kirk, I bet if you somehow found yourself walking down a dark street at nigh, in Washington’s inner city, you would be wishing you were packing one of the biggest, nastiest looking guns available :)

[clipper]

James t. Kirk would be too SMART to walk down a dark street in Washington.

If everyone has a gun, the fact that you have one too does not make you safe.

If you wanna play with your six-shooter go south young man, the Yankees love that gun-porn.

I have no quarrel with the sensible use of guns for hunting or target shooting. It's not my thing but ok for others. The idea that private citizens should be allowed to carry handguns in a non-rural environment just strikes me as dumb, dangerous and
a violation of others rights to a safe environment.

[james t kirk]

Clipper brings up another interesting point.

Violence porn vs. sex porn.

How ironic that if you shoot a woman in the breast, that's ok, but by god, if you kiss her nipple, that's obscene.

I am stilling that analogy from someone, i just don't remember who she was.

In the good ole us of a, you can walk down to ye old gun shop and buy a semi automatic weapon specifically manufactured and sold for killing people, but if you sell a woman a dildo to pleasure herself in several states, you are going to get your ass thrown right in jail.

Something is wrong with that picture.

[luckyjackson]

bear 23.

Love your post. Just because it's so chock full of all the bad logic gun advocates use.

No matter how many slanted stats you cite, it doesn't change the basic fact that more guns means more killing. If you don't first acknowledge that the U.S., - where there are more guns- has a much bigger problem than other areas of the world, then it's hard to take your subsequent arguments seriously.

Besides the few used for target shooting on a range, what possible use is there for a handgun other than to kill someone? By your logic, the world would be a much safer place if a law requiring everyone to carry a gun were passed. That way, if everyone knows that everyone else is armed, there'd be no killing. That isn't the way human beings work though. When something's available, guns, porno, churches, anything no matter how silly - we use them.

Doesn't it make much more sense if no one had a gun? No guns, no shooting.

[gramage]

As far as guns and violence, the Royal Canadian Air Farce summed it up as well as can be IMO:
"Guns don't kill people. IDIOTS kill people. so lets not register guns lets register idiots."
Let's be honest. Most attempts at gun control are useless as most guns used in crimes are illegal or stolen (no stat, just logic), so making my grandfather register his rifles however many different ways really wont make a difference, if somebody steals it and shoots someone with it your still at square 1 as far as finding him. only solution I can think of is one that noone would agree with. Mass destruction of all firearms, new ones issued to army and police, an exact count kept and rechecked regularly (daily at police stations) and if someone's found with a gun they get life in prison. people will still kill each other it will just take more effort (stabbings, beatings, building bombs etc.)

[Master Muse]

For those of you who have shown such sincere interest in this thread, which admittedly draws serious and honest differences, perhaps this link will help:

www.stats.org/crime.htm

I think that the Center for handgun Control, like the NRA, is a place, but not the place to go as each is an advocate for its poit of view.

As to the poster whom I challenged to a High Noon event, I was happy to observe that he'd seen the movie, unhappy to not have him take up the challenge, embarassed to say he was right and I'd not accurately read his post wherein he did not call me an idiot (though that may change) and that i have had all the posts printed so that i may kind of poke around with PMs answering the various points. This may take awhile but I shall try.

One thing: I regret that some of my countrymen have gone off the deep end as to Canada. Our differences are not at all substantial and, when we merge, as we will eventually do, I am sorry I shall likely have passed on to Paradise, where all the women are clones of Samantha Jones and I am, once again, young.

Cheers, Chaps, as we say down here.

[bear.23]

It doesn't matter what stats you want to look at... a gun doesn't kill... the person does... If you can find stats that contradict my numbers please post your results...

as for what use they serve.... I'm a target shooter and the incident in Orangeville this past weekend is a prime example of where a private citizen could have made a difference. But 50 on lookers watched a women get grabbed pulled into a van and beaten then when she escaped he ran her over, twice.....


Kirk accidental shootings??? 3 in Canada last time statscan updated their site....

Hell it's not worth the effort to take apart each of the post following mine....

Do you folks not think that a billon dollars could be better spent??? Maybe on things like education and healthcare???


From the posts following mine.. I don't think you folks understand what gun control is or the issues around it ..It has nothing to do with saftey.... If you think it will make you safer more power to you...
But if you look at the way the laws are written and realize what powers it gives the politicians and from that what they are doing with other laws you'd realize that we no longer have a democracy....

I won't make anymore comments.

[KBear]

Only 3 accidental shootings in Canada, wow, our gun control system is working better then I thought.

bear.23, do you want everyone that wants to, carrying a loaded hand gun? Given that you are, “a verifier, a firearms training instructor, a competative target shooter and firearms owner”, you know that some of the people going through the clubs are not the people you would want carrying a loaded gun all the time, and you see them when they are sober.

There is no reason for people in suburban Canada to be carrying loaded handguns. Giving the incident in Orangeville as an example of why we should be armed is poor. For one thing, stuff like that is so rare that it is insignificant. The chances that the right person, would be in the right place, at the right time, with a loaded gun, are even more remote. Further, people are beaten up on the subway, and others stand around and watch. What makes you think that an armed good samaritan is going to risk death, by stepping in and starting a gunfight with someone, knowing also that if the law looks at him the wrong way, or he happens to shoot one of the bystanders by mistake, he could be spending many years in jail. It would be much better if we all had to carry cell phones. In emergencies, it is amazing how fast the cops can respond.

Our registry system does seem somewhat pointless, but it will, if nothing else, prompt people to store their guns safely. Also, nothing has really changed for restricted gun owners, so don’t worry, the shy is not falling.

[vidi vici veni]

Originally posted by Master Muse
For those of you who have shown such sincere interest in this thread, which admittedly draws serious and honest differences, perhaps this link will help:

www.stats.org/crime.htm

I think that the Center for handgun Control, like the NRA, is a place, but not the place to go as each is an advocate for its poit of view.

Master Muse: Thanks for the url. If you come across any other useful sites pertaining to these issues, please post them. There's a lot of crap out there and sorting through it is very time consuming.

vvv

[vidi vici veni]

Originally posted by Master Muse
For those of you who have shown such sincere interest in this thread, which admittedly draws serious and honest differences, perhaps this link will help:

www.stats.org/crime.htm

Master Muse:

I think that Iain Murray states a possible common ground for many in his article "Both sides need to pack more truth in gun number". He writes:

"[snip] By moving away from dueling quibbles, we can ascertain what is undeniable. The underlying truth is that there is a serious problem with violence in America. The murder rates suggest strongly that the problem is not nationwide, but concentrated in inner-city minority and Southern white microcultures. It is stupid to deny that guns exacerbate the problem, but whether their stricter control across the board would alleviate it is another matter. Official figures, for example, clearly show that guns are a minor factor in the nation's unacceptably high rate of infant murder (our non-gun homicide rate for small children is four times that of comparable nations - something moms should really be concerned about).

Meanwhile, the gun-related anti-crime programs which have had the most effect are those, like Project Exile in Richmond, Va., which get guns out of the hands of those most likely to abuse them. Untargeted gun amnesties and buy-backs, on the other hand, have little effect, being used predominantly by those uninterested in breaking the law. [snip]"

vvv

[The Challenger]

Ah Canada, we are so much better than our cousins to the south. I almost gagged reading some of these responses on gun control and how the liberal element has so many of you readers believing the propaganda.

Point 1 - Someone is breaking into my garage at 3:00 a.m., the police have been called but don't show as this is a high crime area and they have better things to do. I grab the twelve gauge and head out to protect my property and well being. I warn the culprits to stop and desist and let a warning shot off at the ground. Several pellets richocet and hit said criminals. Who goes to jail? Answer, the gentleman protecting his property. No one went to jail for the B&E given they were young offenders.

In Canada, I feel that we do not have the right to self-defense. The criminals have no fear of reprissal beyond the law and this depends stictly on being caught. I respect Americans on this point - if someone threatens your ass, he has got himself a fight. Canadians on the other hand would whine; "But we are peace keepers not warriors. Take what you want but please don't shoot me."

Another thought on gun control. . . I apolgise for not knowing the actual ammendment number but the right to bear arms arose from the militia and the need to protect government from tyranny through revolution. It is given that this outdated law is steeped in tradition and nonsensical at best. We would never have to worry as Canadians about one party rule where the head of state and the leader of the government were not elected to their position. We also would never have to worry about corruption in government at the national level or the lack of accountability to the voting populace. Our government leaders are not elected for life due to the fact that we have a multi-party system that allows choice. No, definately not.

It is only those totalitarian regimes that require it's citizenry to register firearms. It is only those corupt regimes that would require a database of law-abiding residents to license their weapons and give police the right to kick down your door with impunity. No fellow Terbites, I do not possess a gun by choice and I have no intention to insight revolt but if you ever come through my front door without first knocking I will bust your fucking head wide open with a two by four. Now you liberal idealogues better set up a registry for softwood timber.

[vidi vici veni]

Challenger:

Feeling a little self-righteous today?:p

vvv

P.S. Ah WTF, I shouldn't be so critical. It's an important issue for the citizenry, isn't it? If one can't get worked up about this, what does one get worked up about? Better some heat than some apathy.

[Jay_toronto]

It's beginning to alarm me how far apart Canadians and Americans are drifting on most issues. What is deemed foolish here, is perfectly acceptable, honoured in fact, south of the border.

I used to remember how a David Frum editorial used to make me roll my eyes and laugh out loud. He was such an unabashed right-wing wacko you'd question the sanity of anyone who took him seriously. I lost track of him, I figured that he would find Canada a bit too pinko for his liking and move south.

Imagine my surprise - and unease, when I learned that he had written President Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech! Has the USA gone THAT far to the right?

[The Challenger]

Maybe the more appropriate answer is has Canada moved that far to the left.

We've become a country of victims! You only have to look to the recent newspaper articles on prostitution to see that some in the media would portray women selling their good will as victims - victimized by those with power specifically men and the social system.

Look only to our system of justice. We, in Canada, believe that all people are inheritently good and those operating outside of society's norms can be rehabilitated. Canadians also feel that adolescents cannot make sound judgements and should be forgiven all of their sins prior to their eighteenth birthday. We are victims of abuse at the hands of our fathers, the clergy, the coaches, the hunchbacked uncle from Timmins. It's everyone else that is to blame and we need compassion, an eagle feather, a group sing along. We need to save the Palestinians from the Jews and the Jews from themselves. Be forewarned - if you don't toe the politically correct line then you are an anti-semite, a bigot, a racist or an inbred, knuckle-dragging Neanderthal.

I still feel though that the majority is silent. That there are people that understand right from wrong. That a person from a minority can be evil not because of their skin colour or race but simply because they are a prick and you should have the right to say so. That's what I like about Americans, they want to be the fuckers and not the fuckees, the victimizers and not the victims. They may each have a different handgun for each day of the week but at least they can defend themselves personally and as a nation without hiding behind the skirts of any other country on the planet.

[Jay_toronto]

Challenger I agree.

It's good to be a fucker. Like charging into South East Asia, guns a blazing, and stepping on a Bouncing Betty, that's how Uncle Sam kicks ass. A few irrelevant Canadians got in the way, so what.

[vidi vici veni]

Originally posted by Aldo McDuff
It's beginning to alarm me how far apart Canadians and Americans are drifting on most issues. What is deemed foolish here, is perfectly acceptable, honoured in fact, south of the border.

I used to remember how a David Frum editorial used to make me roll my eyes and laugh out loud. He was such an unabashed right-wing wacko you'd question the sanity of anyone who took him seriously. I lost track of him, I figured that he would find Canada a bit too pinko for his liking and move south.

Imagine my surprise - and unease, when I learned that he had written President Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech! Has the USA gone THAT far to the right? Aldo:
Wouldn't you say that the drift apart on political issues isn't so much between Canada and the US as it is between the US and the rest of the world?

vvv

[luckyjackson]

Look only to our system of justice. We, in Canada, believe that all people are inheritently good and those operating outside of society's norms can be rehabilitated. Canadians also feel that adolescents cannot make sound judgements and should be forgiven all of their sins prior to their eighteenth birthday. We are victims of abuse at the hands of our fathers, the clergy, the coaches, the hunchbacked uncle from Timmins. It's everyone else that is to blame and we need compassion, an eagle feather, a group sing along. We need to save the Palestinians from the Jews and the Jews from themselves. Be forewarned - if you don't toe the politically correct line then you are an anti-semite, a bigot, a racist or an inbred, knuckle-dragging Neanderthal.

Extremus....is that you?

[bear.23]

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Civitas.htm

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breitkreuzgpress/GunControl59.htm

[Master Muse]

1. Challenger: It's the Second Amendment, NOTE: Right after Freedom of speech/religion - the First Amendment - the Founding Fathers posited the Second. One purpose, inter alia, was to preclude the government from having the only force in town. That is consistent with the First A. which denies the Government the right to curtail speech of a citizen or one's religion. As a private citizen, I can discriminate as I wish so long as the goverment isn't involved. Once the government (ANY level thereof) is involved, no discrimination. E.g., because I need a state license to serve alcohol, I must serve all, not just thirsty or horny Canadians.

2. Aldo McDuff: Which war are you referring to? If Vietnam, we should have ddone it right or not at all. If Afghanistan, what do you want us to do when they blow up our people? Suppose it happened in TO? and you lost several thousand Canadians. Would you turn the other cheek? Go to the UN?

And who would be the first non-Canadians in TO helping out with people, doctors, use of hospitals across the lakes, helicopters etc etc?

You know the answer to that one, don't you. It wouldn't come from London or Paris with that speed, quantity, quality or anything else.

You know, if our military had the relative strength of Canada's, we'd all be speaking Russian, even the Quebecois. You guys can get away without a heavy-duty military because we do it and you can get in under the umbrella. Okay; that makes you smart and lucky. But then don't complain about ours. What would you all have to gear up to were we, say, Mexico?

[james t kirk]

More sanctamonius american crap.

The second ammendment, how it get's twisted and used by the far right.

The right to bear arms (or is that arm bears). Isn't there something in there about the public, raising militias in times of conflict, blah blah blah.

The second ammendment does not say that thou shalt have the right to carry a concealed semi automatic handgun.

Speaking russian, or Quebecois that's funny.

Tabernack.........

Tu pense que je ne peux pas parler francais maintanant.

J'etudie francais en ecole, et maintanant, je travail a Quebec quelque fois.

J'aime quebec beaucoup aussi.

Mengez du la merde mon ami Master Muse

Ka-leese.

:D

[vidi vici veni]

I can't claim to be bilingual but YIKES!

vvv

[Jay_toronto]

Master Muse:

I don't have a problem with the war in Afghanistan, in fact I support it. Had Bush Sr and Clinton not left the country to the not-so tender mercies of Pakistan, the World Trade Centre would still be standing, today.

I resent Challenger's implication that Canadians are pussies. Nothing could be further from the truth! In WWI,we were slugging in the trenches and winning significant battles while the USA remained neutral. In WWII, you had Bataan, we had Hong Kong. And, there's nothing in American military history like the suicide raid on Dieppe. So cut Canada some slack, we are not the enemy.

I used the "Bouncing Betty" analogy to rebuke Challenger's cock of the block routine. It's a Viet Min booby trap that, when stepped on, sends up an explosive waist high. I was told about it from the American branch of my family, which has two Nam vets within it.

Aldo

[Master Muse]

Dear Mr. Kirk: (rhymes with ?)

The "sanctimonious American (capital A to you) crap " is a sure sign you have no argument. I have no problem with one taking issue but when the response reaches the level of your cheap jingoism, you've simply disqualified yourself from serious consideration. You might read the amendment below; certainly your post shows ignorance of what it says and how it is applied.

Further, you should learn something about handguns; there are no other types of handguns than semi-automatic. One trigger pull equals one round. That's semi-automatic. Virtually every non-military rifle is the same: one trigger pull, one round. An automatic handgun would be impossible to use with accuracy; they're tough enough to use with precision. Filing down the sear gets you one blast, no second chance and you better be right on top of the target. Automatic weapons - machine guns e.g., have to be sandbagged and heavy to keep stable from the kick of the explosion in the chamber and the action of the bolt.

For those Canadians who've never read the Second Amendment and I can't think of why you should), here it is in its entirety, one single sentence:

"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."

There are 27 amendments to the original U.S. Constitution. The first ten - known as The Bill of Rights - were added en masse (see Kirk, we all speak French) on 15 December 1791 (some of us even speak English). The reason for the Bill of Rights was that the Founders determined that the Constitution was not strong enough in protecting the People from the Government. Thus, after free speech and religion, they kept the government from confiscating or precluding the People from having weapons. This has been interpreted as allowing reasonable registration and nobody in the U.S. has been allowed a machine gun or other automatic weapon since the mid-1920s. They were popular around Chicago then.

As to your French, well, of course I understand. I had a home in Paris for some 7 years. Mengez (menger?) must be Quebecois as it's not a French verb. However, the sense is clear. Crude, Kirk, simply crude. And not much of an argument.

[clipper]

Yeah. Ya gotta love the militia movement in the US. They seem to be using the right to bear arms to wage armed conflict with the ATF. Seems to me a few innocent bystanders got blown away in these shootouts, but a little chaos must be the price of freedom, right. You'd think after McVeigh all this gun-shit would go away, but I guess Sept 11 got everybody's trigger finger itchy again.

The US today is able to overthrow any country anywhere without paying much of a price. We are only "under the umbrella" to the extent that the US needs our resources.

Americans have to be armed to the teeth, there are so many unregistered weapons floating around that it's everyman for himself. These guns may be useful in mowing down your fellow citizens, but the idea that a bunch of yahoos with handguns is
going to be able to control the US government should it
become opressive is a pipedream.

I'd suggest investing in voting machines that work rather than yet more guns.

BTW semi-automatic weapons are apparently easily converted to full automatic, so the auto weapons ban is just window-dressing.

[james t kirk]

c

[james t kirk]

Originally posted by Master Muse
For those Canadians who've never read the Second Amendment and I can't think of why you should), here it is in its entirety, one single sentence:

"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."


As to your French, well, of course I understand. I had a home in Paris for some 7 years. Mengez (menger?) must be Quebecois as it's not a French verb. However, the sense is clear. Crude, Kirk, simply crude. And not much of an argument.

Ah friend muse......

Funny, when i read your second amendment, i read from start to finish. When i do so, my take on it is that it allows for "states" to have militias, which they did quite a bit back then.

(Not to be confused with the more whacked out militias you guys have today like the michigan militia. You know, tim mcveigh's friends. The guys that distrust the american gov't so much, they decided to blow up a federal gov't building in Oklahoma and kill a few hundred poor slobs just trying to make a living and their kids in day care.)

If the "founding fathers" wanted to guarantee gun ownership, why didn't they merely write, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It would have been so much more straight forward now wouldn't it.

The gun lobby tends to read either backwards, or focus on only that one aspect of the second ammendment.

The "founding fathers" were not pros, nor were they infallible. In fact, one of the strengths of the american consitution is that it can be ammended, mind you, you can never get enough agreement to do it. Then again, wasn't thomas jefferson a founding father?

Why yes he was, in fact, he wrote the bulk of the constitution didn't he. Ooopps, and he was a paedophile on the side too wasn't he now. Great, just great. I heard he kind of liked having sex with 12 year old slave girls he owned. What was her name now???, hmmmm, wait, it's coming to me, yes!, it was Sally Hemmings wasn't it.

Nice....

What a role model.

:p

As to my french, my comments were directed at your statement which inferred that if it wasn't for good ole uncle sam, we'd all be speaking russian or worse, quebecois.

As a person from ontario, i take offense at your slight aimed at my quebec brothers.

I am sorry that I told you to mangez (thanks for correcting my typo) du la merde, i was merely quoting Pierre E. Trudeau. What did nixon (another great american) call old pierre, yeah that was it, "that asshole up north"

I find the american belief that they are somehow responsible for the freedom of Canada most amusing, especially considering that the only country to ever attack this country is your country.

I guess you have been brainwashed by your military leaders that you need the biggest military budget in the world, no, in fact, you need a military budget bigger than EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD COMBINED. And now you are spending 14% more this year in the wake of 911 on more military hardware. Like that will stop future terrorism. Why not spend that money on foreign aid and education in the countries that international terrorism germinates in due to ignorance and lack of oportunity.

Why not try and change your image from that of international oppressor to international educator. (And i am not saying that america is an international oppressor, i don't think that they are, what i am saying is that they are "perceived" as such by much of the world.)

The truth of the matter is that i like americans just fine, i just laugh at the "we are the reason you exist" attitude. This attitude that so many americans have is why you get into trouble so much in the rest of the world. But that's another story.

You can have your toy guns and whatever else you feel the need to own, it really doesn't interest me. I think you would have a hard time drumming up support for gun ownership rights here in canada. It's frankly not an issue here, or in just about any other G-8 country in the world. Only in the us do they care about legislating the right to own guns and legislating the ban on the sale of dildos.

oh brother

[vidi vici veni]

This thread has evolved nicely from an exchange of ideas and information to an exchange of vitriol. Less light and more heat. Oh yeah, gotta love that. A few more postings and perhaps a hockey game will break out.:p

vvv

[luckyjackson]

Yeah, what vvv said,

and btw,


'inferred' means how you take it.
'imply' means how you intend it.

Let's maintain some standards around here ;)

[Master Muse]

Kirk

You are truly slime.

There was a recent furor over DNA, Thomas Jefferson and Sally hemmings having to do with who fathered some chhild over 200 years ago. When the answer finally came out from the laboratory it was totally different from the slanderous sstatement you have alleged. (Yes, I know one cannot legally defame the dead.)

I have never heard even the worst slanderes here allege that Ms. Hemmings was 12 years old or thereabouts.

As to your analysis of the amendment's language, it is puerile and inconsistent with the interpretation of lawrence Tribe, the Harvard liberal lawyer. (he was one of Gore's top two and argued the eleection issue for Gore before the Supreme Court). It is also at odds with the official federal position that the amendment is construed in favor of individual rights, subject to reasonable licensing.

[james t kirk]

Thanks muse.

I guess we were watching different documentaries.

The one i saw, the hundreds of black folks on the show could indeed trace their line back to tommy jefferson. And yes, they did DNA testing to boot. It was a match.

It's a well known fact that old tommy liked the slave girls.

I guess the thing that bugs americans the most about canadians is we don't want to be americans.

I think americans truly see themselves as the greatest society in the world and the american way is the only way.

Here you have a bunch of canadians saying, "that's cool if you like it, but i don't, and i don't want to be part of your country, nor do i think that you have the best form of everything"

Sure there are some things about the states that are great, and for the most part, you are ok neighbours, but there are a lot of things that are totally screwed up.

Americans have been brainwashed to think that everyone else in the world wants to be just like them, or better yet be part of them.

It just isn't the case, and all your wind will never convince me your are even remotely correct.

cheers

james "the slime" kirk

:p

[Jay_toronto]

Hey Tiberius:

As possibly my favorite American, God rest his soul, once wrote:

I'm grossed and perverted.
I'm obsessed and deranged.
I'm the slime oozing out of your tv set.

Aldo - The Roman Celt who's movin to Alberta soon, gonna be a dental floss tycoon.