Or harderDoctaStrangelove wrote:
Guns do tend to make crime easier.Pug wrote:
sure, it's "good" but will it reduce crime? or will it merely reduce gun crimes?kylef wrote:
No, see. Here's the thing. You guys have one of the highest gun crime rates in the world. Reducing the number of guns is a good thing.
well, on one hand a crime is being committed. on the other hand a crime is being committed.FatherTed wrote:
Whats worse, getting shot, or getting your car jacked?Pug wrote:
sure, it's "good" but will it reduce crime? or will it merely reduce gun crimes?kylef wrote:
No, see. Here's the thing. You guys have one of the highest gun crime rates in the world. Reducing the number of guns is a good thing.
Not equal at all.Pug wrote:
well, on one hand a crime is being committed. on the other hand a crime is being committed.FatherTed wrote:
Whats worse, getting shot, or getting your car jacked?Pug wrote:
sure, it's "good" but will it reduce crime? or will it merely reduce gun crimes?
sounds pretty equal to me
Last edited by Pug (2009-04-02 13:33:46)
Here is my explaination:Pochsy wrote:
...how do you figure people are less likely to commit crimes if there are more guns held by law abiding citizens?
Last I checked Canada's crime rates were a hell of a lot lower than all comparable cities in the United States. Care to explain?
Fairly reliable source on most nations stats:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m … h-firearms
Stats for 3 major Canadian cities:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s … hub=Canada
US government source:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa030500c.htm
(BTW the conclusion drawn in the last section of the US gov. source is seems off. It specifically says the stats given by Canada are per 100,000 people, making all statistics comparable to those given by the US. The size of the countries should mean nothing when compared as such. What am I missing?)
Mitch, stop making D&ST threads that should hinge on statistics without posting any sources.
Uh... you do realize Canada is generally more liberal than America, right?lowing wrote:
Here is my explaination:Pochsy wrote:
...how do you figure people are less likely to commit crimes if there are more guns held by law abiding citizens?
Last I checked Canada's crime rates were a hell of a lot lower than all comparable cities in the United States. Care to explain?
Fairly reliable source on most nations stats:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m … h-firearms
Stats for 3 major Canadian cities:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s … hub=Canada
US government source:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa030500c.htm
(BTW the conclusion drawn in the last section of the US gov. source is seems off. It specifically says the stats given by Canada are per 100,000 people, making all statistics comparable to those given by the US. The size of the countries should mean nothing when compared as such. What am I missing?)
Mitch, stop making D&ST threads that should hinge on statistics without posting any sources.
Because citizens of Canada are not ate up with an entitlement attitude toward life like we are here in the states. In the states, if you want something that you can not afford, you have several options
1. charge it (in which case you can blame the banks for your stupidity)
2. sue for it (hire some crack ACLU lawyer to steal it for you)
3. steal it (you can go out and steal it yourself at gun point)
The notion of actually EARNING it, or WORKING for it,just does not play a part in the liberal/entitlement mindset.
Uhhhhhhhh you do realize liberalism and socialism in America is a different breed than in Canada or Europe don't you? Entitlement in America is the social trendfor liberals here.Turquoise wrote:
Uh... you do realize Canada is generally more liberal than America, right?lowing wrote:
Here is my explaination:Pochsy wrote:
...how do you figure people are less likely to commit crimes if there are more guns held by law abiding citizens?
Last I checked Canada's crime rates were a hell of a lot lower than all comparable cities in the United States. Care to explain?
Fairly reliable source on most nations stats:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m … h-firearms
Stats for 3 major Canadian cities:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s … hub=Canada
US government source:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa030500c.htm
(BTW the conclusion drawn in the last section of the US gov. source is seems off. It specifically says the stats given by Canada are per 100,000 people, making all statistics comparable to those given by the US. The size of the countries should mean nothing when compared as such. What am I missing?)
Mitch, stop making D&ST threads that should hinge on statistics without posting any sources.
Because citizens of Canada are not ate up with an entitlement attitude toward life like we are here in the states. In the states, if you want something that you can not afford, you have several options
1. charge it (in which case you can blame the banks for your stupidity)
2. sue for it (hire some crack ACLU lawyer to steal it for you)
3. steal it (you can go out and steal it yourself at gun point)
The notion of actually EARNING it, or WORKING for it,just does not play a part in the liberal/entitlement mindset.
This isn't about being liberal or being conservative, it's about having cultural unity. In America, diversity is both a blessing and a curse.
We have so many different cultures that we often get the best and brightest people from across the world. This is why we're so innovative.
On the other hand, we also find it difficult to agree on anything. In Canada, they seem to have a better sense of how to work together, and it shows in their lower crime rates and often better public amenities.
Here, we lean more in the "every man for himself" direction. Some of that contributes to entitlement, greed, and sue-happy bullshit.
Not really. The principles are basically the same.lowing wrote:
Uhhhhhhhh you do realize liberalism and socialism in America is a different breed than in Canada or Europe don't you? Entitlement in America is the social trendfor liberals here.
I see, so frivolous lawsuits are rampant in Europe and Canada?Turquoise wrote:
Not really. The principles are basically the same.lowing wrote:
Uhhhhhhhh you do realize liberalism and socialism in America is a different breed than in Canada or Europe don't you? Entitlement in America is the social trend for liberals here.
If anything, you could say American liberalism is actually more moderate than that of Canada or Europe.
Obama would be considered right of center in many European countries.
The only part of American liberalism that is unusual is the fringe that supports bullshit like slavery reparations.
Last edited by lowing (2009-04-02 15:42:13)
If I'm not mistaken, the U.K. is the second most litigious society (behind us).lowing wrote:
I see, so frivolous lawsuits are rampant in Europe and Canada?Turquoise wrote:
Not really. The principles are basically the same.lowing wrote:
Uhhhhhhhh you do realize liberalism and socialism in America is a different breed than in Canada or Europe don't you? Entitlement in America is the social trend for liberals here.
If anything, you could say American liberalism is actually more moderate than that of Canada or Europe.
Obama would be considered right of center in many European countries.
The only part of American liberalism that is unusual is the fringe that supports bullshit like slavery reparations.
Welfare is generally easier to get in Canada and most of Western Europe. More people live off of the system in Canada and Europe than here (as a percentage of the population).lowing wrote:
welfare without proof of trying to better yourself is a common program in Europe?
Yes, I don't doubt that, but the reason why Germans are more industrious is because of culture. They take great pride in work, and they feel shame when they are on the dole.lowing wrote:
From my month in Germany, I was not left with the impression that the people were sponges of the govt. Yes they are socialists but it would appear all contribute toward that goal. In America it is the mindset of what the rich are gunna do for the poor. Since the poor in America are not expected to have to do anything.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-04-02 15:40:33)
Rich people are very generous, ironically ehough it are the liberals who are less giving than conservatives. (unless it is someone elses money)Turquoise wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, the U.K. is the second most litigious society (behind us).lowing wrote:
I see, so frivolous lawsuits are rampant in Europe and Canada?Turquoise wrote:
Not really. The principles are basically the same.
If anything, you could say American liberalism is actually more moderate than that of Canada or Europe.
Obama would be considered right of center in many European countries.
The only part of American liberalism that is unusual is the fringe that supports bullshit like slavery reparations.Welfare is generally easier to get in Canada and most of Western Europe. More people live off of the system in Canada and Europe than here (as a percentage of the population).lowing wrote:
welfare without proof of trying to better yourself is a common program in Europe?Yes, I don't doubt that, but the reason why Germans are more industrious is because of culture. They take great pride in work, and they feel shame when they are on the dole.lowing wrote:
From my month in Germany, I was not left with the impression that the people were sponges of the govt. Yes they are socialists but it would appear all contribute toward that goal. In America it is the mindset of what the rich are gunna do for the poor. Since the poor in America are not expected to have to do anything.
Here, certain people have no shame.
Granted, the same could be said for many rich people.
The problem isn't liberalism or welfare, it's our selfishness. We're more concerned about ourselves than the wellbeing of society. That's the real problem. If we had more shame and compassion, we'd have less people on welfare and live more industriously.
Granted, we'd still have certain people temporarily on the dole and a few people that would freeload, but most of us would be more productive.
Generous is a relative term.lowing wrote:
Rich people are very generous, ironically ehough it are the liberals who are less giving than conservatives. (unless it is someone elses money)
Bottomline I think we agree that liberalism in the states, is not the same as liberalism in Europe. They have work ethic, we do not.
You did hit the nail on the head, "Our lower taxes are why many rich people move here in the first place." I suppose you think we would be better off if we taxed them even harder and drove them away.Turquoise wrote:
Generous is a relative term.lowing wrote:
Rich people are very generous, ironically ehough it are the liberals who are less giving than conservatives. (unless it is someone elses money)
Bottomline I think we agree that liberalism in the states, is not the same as liberalism in Europe. They have work ethic, we do not.
If you took the stats on what rich people give privately in America and then added what they pay in taxes and then compared the same stats on rich people in Europe or Canada, I think you'll find that the rich here keep more of their own money. Our lower taxes are why many rich people move here in the first place.
You seem to be mistaking liberalism with laziness.
Some lazy people are liberal, but this does not equate the two.
Last edited by lowing (2009-04-02 16:18:34)
Well, I'm not saying that, necessarily. I just wanted to put a realistic reason behind why rich people seem more generous. It's because they have more money to work with.lowing wrote:
You did hit the nail on the head, "Our lower taxes are why many rich people move here in the first place." I suppose you think we would be better off if we taxed them even harder and drove them away.Turquoise wrote:
Generous is a relative term.lowing wrote:
Rich people are very generous, ironically ehough it are the liberals who are less giving than conservatives. (unless it is someone elses money)
Bottomline I think we agree that liberalism in the states, is not the same as liberalism in Europe. They have work ethic, we do not.
If you took the stats on what rich people give privately in America and then added what they pay in taxes and then compared the same stats on rich people in Europe or Canada, I think you'll find that the rich here keep more of their own money. Our lower taxes are why many rich people move here in the first place.
You seem to be mistaking liberalism with laziness.
Some lazy people are liberal, but this does not equate the two.
Nope, in America liberalism IS laziness, it is entitlement, and it is all about what others can and should do for YOU.
It seems perfectly natural, that someone who has more, has more room to donate, the difference is, I do not agree that they should be forced to do so at gun point ( by legislation).Turquoise wrote:
Well, I'm not saying that, necessarily. I just wanted to put a realistic reason behind why rich people seem more generous. It's because they have more money to work with.lowing wrote:
You did hit the nail on the head, "Our lower taxes are why many rich people move here in the first place." I suppose you think we would be better off if we taxed them even harder and drove them away.Turquoise wrote:
Generous is a relative term.
If you took the stats on what rich people give privately in America and then added what they pay in taxes and then compared the same stats on rich people in Europe or Canada, I think you'll find that the rich here keep more of their own money. Our lower taxes are why many rich people move here in the first place.
You seem to be mistaking liberalism with laziness.
Some lazy people are liberal, but this does not equate the two.
Nope, in America liberalism IS laziness, it is entitlement, and it is all about what others can and should do for YOU.
I'd give more to charity if I had more cash. Since I don't, I can't.
As for your second part, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because conservatism has many of the same traits. It's just a difference in methodology that they use for getting others to do things for them.
crazy, how so?Pug wrote:
Just to interject - I lived in Canada (Alberta & Ontario), and in the US...south, the midwest, the east coast & the rockies.
I found Canada more conservative in most regards. However, the liberals in Canada were frickin crazy in comparison to the States' liberals.
But that's just my narrow opinion
I do know some criminals. They are afraid of guns pointing at them. You are an idiot if you do not believe that 99.999% of criminals are not terrified of law abiding people with guns. That is the reason that most hardcore criminals end up behind bars rather than resisting arrest and getting shot.Macbeth wrote:
And some of you labeled me a troll
I don't think you know any serious criminals Mitch. If you have a gun or not most of them don't really give a fuck and will still try something anyway or just kill you before you have the chance to.
Last edited by Deadmonkiefart (2009-04-02 19:33:05)
It's also called lobbyism.lowing wrote:
I agree 100% they do have things done for them, it is called handing out a paycheck.
Harmor wrote:
A Bobby in the U.K. says, "Stop or I'll say stop again."
A L.A. Police Officer shoots first and then says, "Stop or I'll fire."
If I were a criminal I think I would worry more about pilfering someone's home in the United States vs. U.K..
Last edited by nickb64 (2009-04-02 19:47:57)
Lobbying is nothing more than legalized bribery, what does that have to do with the liberal mindset of entitlement and my connection that it is that entitlement attitude that causes more crime in the states?Turquoise wrote:
It's also called lobbyism.lowing wrote:
I agree 100% they do have things done for them, it is called handing out a paycheck.
Last edited by lowing (2009-04-02 20:00:44)
Yeah, passengers should be allowed fire arms on an aircraft. hahaha oh wow.nickb64 wrote:
http://www.epicycle.org.uk/images/guncontrol.jpgHarmor wrote:
A Bobby in the U.K. says, "Stop or I'll say stop again."
A L.A. Police Officer shoots first and then says, "Stop or I'll fire."
If I were a criminal I think I would worry more about pilfering someone's home in the United States vs. U.K..
http://www.scottbieser.com/images/Sept11_c540.jpg
Yes, much better to remain helpless while they fly you into a building.AussieReaper wrote:
Yeah, passengers should be allowed fire arms on an aircraft. hahaha oh wow.nickb64 wrote:
http://www.epicycle.org.uk/images/guncontrol.jpgHarmor wrote:
A Bobby in the U.K. says, "Stop or I'll say stop again."
A L.A. Police Officer shoots first and then says, "Stop or I'll fire."
If I were a criminal I think I would worry more about pilfering someone's home in the United States vs. U.K..
http://www.scottbieser.com/images/Sept11_c540.jpg
