Mass Shootings in the US

But, but, but, strict gun control works in Canada I’m told, gun crime must be down!
How do those stats compare to a similarly sparsely-populated US state?

If the number of reported incidents increased by 116, and this was a near 50% increase across the province, then I think that’s pretty low.

Seeing as only 7,700 were victims of gun violence (note, not homicides) across the whole of Canada, I’d say their gun control laws are working pretty well on the whole.

The only data I could find with a cursory search for the US was for 2011 - nearly 500,000 crimes where firearms were used.
 
If you want to argue an arcane point, so is nazism.

Now, in your own time, explain the basic and fundamental difference between a representative republic and a popular democracy, a form of government the US founding fathers explicitly rejected.
Nonsense. Nazism is first of all a party, not necessarily a system of government. Hitler was elected democratically; he then used a number of excuses (the Reichstag fire etc) to dismantle the very democratic system that elected him.

Secondly, you've moved the goalposts. Before, you said that a representative republic is not a democracy, now you're changing it to a 'popular' democracy, which of course is not the same thing.

And it wasn't just the founding fathers who rejected popular democracy. Before the UK Reform Acts, 'democracy' was synonymous with 'demagogy'. Property qualifications disappear with the universal (male) suffrage at the end of WW1, and British government is now ALSO a representative democracy, albeit one of a different stripe to the US one.

Indeed, a case can be made that the US presidential system is simply a tidied up version of the government of George III.

Though I'm not clear on how you link this to gun control.

I understand you're CS. A 'mainstreamer', presumably?
 
If you want to argue an arcane point, so is nazism.

Now, in your own time, explain the basic and fundamental difference between a representative republic and a popular democracy, a form of government the US founding fathers explicitly rejected.
It's not an arcane point. Representative Democracy is Democracy. Being a Republic has nothing to do with it. I know they like to teach Americans bollocks to make them feel special, but go and learn something.
 
On all but one of those examples you list the government is a virtually non existant cluster **** incapable of enforcing its own laws or so currupt that they are actually contributing to the proliferation of violent crime. So their guns laws are just worthless.

A strawman so big that Edward Woodward could have lost his virginity and raised his family inside it.


Side note: why are the Kiwis topping themselves/ killing someone else more than the Aussies?
 
Nonsense. Nazism is first of all a party, not necessarily a system of government. Hitler was elected democratically; he then used a number of excuses (the Reichstag fire etc) to dismantle the very democratic system that elected him.

Secondly, you've moved the goalposts. Before, you said that a representative republic is not a democracy, now you're changing it to a 'popular' democracy, which of course is not the same thing.

And it wasn't just the founding fathers who rejected popular democracy. Before the UK Reform Acts, 'democracy' was synonymous with 'demagogy'. Property qualifications disappear with the universal (male) suffrage at the end of WW1, and British government is now ALSO a representative democracy, albeit one of a different stripe to the US one.

Indeed, a case can be made that the US presidential system is simply a tidied up version of the government of George III.

Though I'm not clear on how you link this to gun control.

I understand you're CS. A 'mainstreamer', presumably?

Democracy, as described by the founding fathers as ‘The Tyranny of the Majority’.


Representative Republic - rights are written down and cannot be changed for short term political gain.

Democracy - right are not written down and are cast aside for the popular vote
 
Democracy, as described by the founding fathers as ‘The Tyranny of the Majority’.


Representative Republic - rights are written down and cannot be changed for short term political gain.

Democracy - right are not written down and are cast aside for the popular vote

From Merriam-Webster (that's an American dictionary)

"Is the United States a democracy or a republic?
One of the most commonly encountered questions about the word democracy has nothing to do with its spelling or pronunciation, and isn’t even directly related to the meaning of the word itself. That question is “is the United States a democracy or a republic?” The answer to this, as with so many other questions about meaning, may be phrased as some form of “it depends.”

Some people believe that a country calling itself a democracy must be engaged in direct (or pure) democracy, in which the people of a state or region vote directly for policies, rather than elect representatives who make choices on their behalf. People who follow this line of reasoning hold that the United States is more properly described as a republic, using the following definition of that word: ”a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.”
However, both democracy and republic have more than a single meaning, and one of the definitions we provide for democracy closely resembles the definition of republicgiven above: “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.”

So if someone asks you if the United States is a democracy or a republic, you may safely answer the question with either “both” or “it depends.”"
 
NRA gun show in 2007 in Asheville NC, under 12's get in free. Some ******** tried to buy my DPM jacket off my back, he then claimed it was a copy and not worth $30, was then instructed in the ways of the NSN.
99= UK,
00 = US,
12 = Germany.
No, I can't remember the Belgian code.... but they don't really buy a lot of Army gear.
13
 
The 47% relates to a province, not a city.

How do the Canadians define “gun crime”?
Note that the story referred to "gun-related incidents", not homicides, which is the standard of comparison we have been using in discussion up until now. A "gun-related incident" in Canada can be any reportable incident in which a firearm was present or seized. Very commonly this will be things like a domestic violence incident where the firearm was not directly involved, but where the police automatically seize any present in the household as a preventive measure until such time as the issue is resolved. Another example will be where the police conduct arrests following an investigation into the sale of drugs or stolen goods and seize any firearms found at the address in question. The guns may not ever have been involved in the commission of a crime, but they were seized and so get recorded as such.

The news story alludes to this in mentioning that where you find drugs you often find firearms. This doesn't however mean that those firearms were involved in the commission of any crimes, they may simply have been present in the residence when it was raided. Numbers such as these also have to be evaluated in light of what else was going on at the time. If a police force is given a directive to put more effort into making drugs-related arrests, they will as a by-product also seize more firearms if they were present in someone's home when the residence was searched in connection with the arrest. Given that the actual numbers are fairly small, it doesn't take much to increase them in percentage terms. The story notes that violent crime in the city overall was decreasing, so apparently this increase in one category doesn't represent something that is part of an overall crime wave.

Numbers such as these are difficult to compare between different countries because differences in policy and reporting standards may mean there simply are no comparable figures available. With firearms homicides however, which is what we have been discussing up until now, someone is very clearly dead and was shot, so there is much less room for ambiguity as to what was meant.

Two things to note from that news story by the way are that crime overall in Canada has been in long term decline (see the chart). A couple of years of increase may be a short term statistical fluctuation and even the 2017 figures are significantly less than the 2012 figures, let alone the 2004 figures at the start of the chart.

Another point is that crime rates overall on the Prairies in Canada are much higher than in Ontario or Quebec. For example, Toronto (population 6 million) has a crime rate that is less than half that of Regina (population 215,000). The same is true for the provinces of Ontario versus Saskatchewan as a whole. This runs against the notion that crime is more prevalent in bigger cities.
 
Another point is that crime rates overall on the Prairies in Canada are much higher than in Ontario or Quebec. For example, Toronto (population 6 million) has a crime rate that is less than half that of Regina (population 215,000). The same is true for the provinces of Ontario versus Saskatchewan as a whole. This runs against the notion that crime is more prevalent in bigger cities.
Tell that to @LJONESY ..we keep comparing London to WY..maybe this applies to only cities outside the U.S.
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top