Canada has gun laws that our opponents in the gun control movement would no doubt love to see here, and yet a mass shooting still happened:
But society as a whole can do more by banning private ownership of handguns. Blair said pistols were obviously used in the devastation on Danzig St., with police recovering one at the scene. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine how this could have happened at all if the shooters didn’t have access to easily concealed handguns.
So do they really expect me to believe if we adopted Canadian style gun laws, and our numbers and political power were subsequently reduced greatly, major political figures would not also be calling for total prohibition? I can see the examples of what happens right before my eyes when gun owners are reduced to what they have been in Canada. No thanks. That’s why when gun control supports say “How can you be against it? It’s reasonable!!” Hell, I’ll admit, sometimes I think it is reasonable. But I’m not giving them anything that could strengthen their hand. I know what the end game is. You can see that end game being pushed in Canada.
It’s not paranoia if everyone is out to get you.
The real question is: are you paranoid enough?
Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws anywhere. Doesn’t seem to be have the desired outcome.
The Brady game of ‘extremism’.
One horrible sound-bite which the Brady bunch have succeeded in embedding into the DNA of the news-media is the notion that the NRA opposes all gun-regulation and therefore the NRA are extremists. This is to bolster the Brady bunch claim that they only want “reasonable” gun-control.
Of course, that is the complete opposite of the truth. The truth is the Brady group never saw an anti-gun measure they didn’t like, whether it was here or abroad. During the 1990’s the Brady group applauded the UK handgun-ban and Australian rifle ban. The Brady group supported extremist handgun bans in Chicago and Washington D.C. when those bans were challenged in court.
It is the gun control movement which are the extremists. Not the NRA.
Of course the fact the anti-gun forces have to rely on such blatant dishonesty and misdirection only exposes the critical weakness of their position. The anti-gun forces can’t convince the public to side with them by using the truth, so they have to lie instead.
The Canadians need to take a much closer look at their own homicide rates. While the US 2010 homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000, breaking that down into demographic groups reveals the homicide rate for Latinos and Hispanics was only 0.7 per 100,000; “whites” 2.7 per 100,000, and for the largely disarmed “blacks” 17.1 per 100,000.
When you correct for demographic groups, Canada’s homicide rates are higher than the United States. And the US rate for Caucasians is much lower than the European rate for Europeans, as well.
Speaking of Mexico, whose 2011 homicide rate is 19.1; the homicide rates for Chicanos en Los Estados Unidos is just 0.9 or about four percent of that demographic in Mexico.
Stranger
Stranger, you should change your handle to liar.
“figures released by Statistics Canada on Wednesday show a homicide rate in 2010 of 1.62 per 100,000 people, a level comparable to that achieved in 1966.”
The Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Oct. 26 2011
Timmeehh, how does what you say counter Stranger’s claims? Your stated fact does not take into account stratification by race/ethnicity, as Stranger claims you ought to do. Heck, Stranger didn’t even provide an overall statistic for Canada!
And, as someone familiar with statistics, Stranger is right: looking at the “strata” is useful, and sometimes even necessary. I cannot remember the name of the effect, but sometimes, when comparing two groups, the total stratified statistic of each subgroup of a given group can be less than the stratafied statistics of the second group, but due to the differing percentages of the subgroups (the United States has a higher percentage of blacks in our population than Canada, for example), the total statistical rate can be higher.
I decided to look it up after all. It’s called Simpson’s Paradox.