what is up with crime in calgary

[Quinsonaaa]

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2008/01/19/4781912-sun.html

Homicide cops are investigating how a woman on her way home from work ended up dead behind a southeast church -- the apparent victim of a random murder.

Detectives are trying to piece together the woman's final moments, including what sources say was a frantic phone call to a friend, during which she said she was being attacked before the line went dead.

The woman, believed to be 30 to 45, appears to the victim of foul play, said homicide Staff Sgt. Kevin Forsen.

"The initial reports indicate there does appear to be violence involved," Forsen said yesterday. "It's a very tragic investigation."

Working with a tentative identification, detectives last night were trying to determine the whereabouts of the woman in the final hours of her life -- and hoping the medical examiner's office could confirm her identity.




Cops were interviewing her friends and reviewing surveillance tapes found near where her body was discovered by a woman on her way to work at about 6 a.m.

The body was found in a snow-covered greenspace adjacent to a bike path behind the Grace Baptist church in the 2000 block of Radcliffe Dr. S.E.

Forsen stressed the victim did not engage in a high-risk lifestyle.

Officials do not know how long the woman was there, but said she had no signs of life when emergency crews arrived.

Forsen said it's too early to speculate if the woman was sexually assaulted.

Cops said the woman's office job shift at her southwest downtown workplace ended about 10 p.m. the night before her body was found.

Police said she lived in the area and routinely took the C-train to the LRT station near where she was found dead, and was likely on her way home at the time.

Yellow police tape surrounded the crime scene for hours after the grisly discovery, as a steady stream of commuters parked at the adjacent park-and-ride lot near the Franklin LRT station in the 2800 block of Memorial Dr. S.E.

While they were not releasing many details, cops said the victim was small in stature, possibly Asian, and wearing a black coat and light- coloured slacks.

If declared a homicide, it would mark the city's fourth of the year -- and fifth in three weeks. Anyone with information can call police at 266-1234 or Crime Stoppers at 1-800-262-8477.

[Ben]

Have you been hiding under a rock somewhere in dormant Siberia? This is nothing new.

The city is growing, prospering, and with that brings crime.

[retro-steve]

That and it's illegal for honest citizens to carry guns or any other means of defending themselves from a human attacker.

[nismodrifter]

Originally posted by retro-steve
That and it's illegal for honest citizens to carry guns or any other means of defending themselves from a human attacker.

Which also prevents dishonest citizens from using these same guns and other means from seriously harming others.

[badatusrnames]

More guns is not the answer... look to America to see that the proliferation of cheap and accessible hand guns under the guise of "self defence" has done far, far more harm than good.

Then contrast that with Europe or Japan where hand guns are hard to come by.

Canada is unfortunately somewhere in the middle with the flow of illegal hand guns from the US.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by nismodrifter


Which also prevents dishonest citizens from using these same guns and other means from seriously harming others.

Yeah? Me not carrying a gun means criminals are denied access to illegal guns from across the border? Please explain.

[nismodrifter]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


Yeah? Me not carrying a gun means criminals are denied access to illegal guns from across the border? Please explain.

I'm saying that no one (aside from the proper authorities) should possess a weapon.

Yeah my view is idealistic and doesn't consider the smuggling of illegal guns from america (whose gun laws are barbaric in my opinion). It is obviously a generalized statement and should be treated as such.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by nismodrifter


Which also prevents dishonest citizens from using these same guns and other means from seriously harming others.

LOL, so no one has been shot in calgary? :rofl:

[Maddog55]

Oh man...I can see THIS getting into a 24 page debate on guns vs no guns. :rolleyes:

Just consider two things. right now in Canada...imagine your worst scenario:
You're sitting at home and a couple of guys bust in home invasion style. Happening fairly frequent here now, no? But not often ppl are shot...sometimes, yes. So you think "hey, if I had a gun on me they wouldn't do that"

So NOW...same scenario except the bad guys know that most homeowners are gonna be packin...so NOW the bad guys come in and just start unloading with automatic weapons.....
Do you really think that being able to own and posses a gun would've protected you????

Bottom line is...look at the US murder rate as opposed to Canada's. Guns are allowed there...doesn't seem to prevent murders does it?

I like living in Canada where even the worst cities of crime and murder are about a tenth of those in the US

[Hakkola]

Switzerland has incredibly high gun ownership, but murder rates are low. Your argument has no supporting evidence.

But mine does.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

Switzerland has higher gun ownership rates than Canada but fewer murders.

USA has the highest gun ownership rates, but are 24th on the list of murder per capita.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Switzerland is way down that list.

No direct relation b/w gun ownership and murder.

[Maddog55]

Don't say mine has NO supporting evidence...What a fuckin asshole you are....seriously...shut the fuck up...all you have is one or two stats that are merely blips in the stat world. What a fuckin deushbag. So its that simple eh? If Canada allowed personal gun protection we would solve all our crime and murder problems?

FACT: CCW permits are all over the states..
FACT: Murder rate is 2 or 3 times higher than Canada's...violent crime even more than that....


Jesus fucking Christ...no one can ever make a fucking comment on this fuckin forum without some other fucking moron/asshole/ignorat/arrogant/dipshit just coming back with the exact opposite statement with no other purpose than to just make himself feel superior..


...but mine does... Sound like a fuckin two year old. Want a cookie, asshole?
Fuck....gather a few years of actual life experience..then open yer fuckin yap.

"That car is black"......"no its not...stats show it's dark charcoal"...

Fuck YOU.

[ZorroAMG]

Relax Maddog, you're gonna give yourself a coronary....go watch murder she wrote or something, Sir.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by Maddog55
fuckin asshole fuck fuckin deushbag Jesus fucking Christ fucking fuckin fucking moron/asshole/ignorat/arrogant/dipshit fuckin asshole Fuck fuckin Fuck YOU.

In This Thread: Maturity & Civility.

[sr20s14zenki]

*grabs popcorn* what did i miss? *crunch crunch*

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by sr20s14zenki
what did i miss?

It's Maddog's "time of the month," apparently.

[dino_martini]

This is all a sign of the growth of Calgary. As we become more prosperous as a city we are going to have issues like crime arise. We need more resources out on the street. We are short quite a few police officers. That wont solve all the crime in Calgary, but it sure would help. That and if our justice system wasnt so lax. There are quite a few issues out there, but I think for a city as large as Calgary is, we are a pretty safe place.

[sr20s14zenki]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


It's Maddog's "time of the month," apparently.

i agree with him that only authorities should have guns, BUT, that would only happen in a perfect world....but again, i dont agree with the give everybody guns philosophy....if you look in the US, alot of huge cities there with less population than ours, have more murders. ie. 600,000 population, 300 murders in a year...we look like nothing compared to them. What else is funny, is that guns arent even responsible for a large part of the homicides in calgary for the most part anyways...dont quote me for sure, but i hear knives are more responsible than guns are. :dunno:

[old&slow]

Originally posted by Maddog55
Oh man...I can see THIS getting into a 24 page debate on guns vs no guns. :rolleyes:

Just consider two things. right now in Canada...imagine your worst scenario:
You're sitting at home and a couple of guys bust in home invasion style. Happening fairly frequent here now, no? But not often ppl are shot...sometimes, yes. So you think "hey, if I had a gun on me they wouldn't do that"

So NOW...same scenario except the bad guys know that most homeowners are gonna be packin...so NOW the bad guys come in and just start unloading with automatic weapons.....
Do you really think that being able to own and posses a gun would've protected you????




thats an interesting scenario, B&E's with automatic weapons? Whatcha all keeping in them houses?

[r0g3r]

lol when i read hakolla's post i felt the exact same way Maddogg did. It seems like nobody can just post their own opinions or life experiences anymore without someone bashing it in with "statistics". and plus, i looked at the statistics it says murders per capita, does murders actually mean by guns? or..?

[WiltonKillz]

murders arent only gun crimes

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by r0g3r
lol when i read hakolla's post i felt the exact same way Maddogg did. It seems like nobody can just post their own opinions or life experiences anymore without someone bashing it in with "statistics". and plus, i looked at the statistics it says murders per capita, does murders actually mean by guns? or..?

So intelligent debate is a bad thing, then?

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by Maddog55

FACT: CCW permits are all over the states..
FACT: Murder rate is 2 or 3 times higher than Canada's...violent crime even more than that....


LOL, so what? I don't see any direct evidence supporting that gun ownership results in higher murder rates. The difference in murder rates can be attributed to a number of things, such as disparity between upper classes and the poor, and drug abuse etc. If the only thing different between the two countries was gun ownership, and one country had higher murder rates there would be correlation. However, that is not the case.

I'm sorry for saying your argument had no supporting evidence, your hypothetical situation may count...

As for the life experience, thanks for the tip, but I only take advice from people who display intelligence during conversations. If your life experience has lead to your Forté in making arguments by way of name calling I think I'll pass. Which one of us is acting childish again?



Originally posted by WiltonKillz
murders arent only gun crimes

Exactly, which makes the disparity in the gun ownership vs higher murder rates even greater in the stats provided.

I'm not saying higher gun ownership will lead to fewer murders, I'm just saying that it is not easy to make the argument that higher gun ownership leads to higher murder rates.

[Maddog55]

Originally posted by ZorroAMG
Relax Maddog, you're gonna give yourself a coronary....go watch murder she wrote or something, Sir.

Wow...what a shot Mark....is that the best you can come up with to a guy who's older than you?
What...you think everyone in their 40's curls up in his slippers, watches "murder she wrote" and whistles to himself while listening to Glen Miller?

I guess looking at you, the first thing that pops into my head is is...wow...what a pretty boy...if there ever was a face that I'd like to stick my cock in, that'd be it...

Why dont you come out and party with me sometime, Nancy..i'd out-fuckin-drink you, do bigger 'rails' than you, and then you could come with me to the "American" for a few drinks with the boys...(you should know that bar if you've been around Van)....Then we'll see who's up for a coronary. I've experienced stuff that would leave you in the corner crying for Mommy......"Murder She wrote"...... :rolleyes:

Fuckin rights I'm on the rag......

[max_boost]

Maddog55, relax dude! :eek: The OG's meant no harm in their posts!

[01RedDX]

.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by Maddog55


Wow...what a shot Mark....is that the best you can come up with to a guy who's older than you?
What...you think everyone in their 40's curls up in his slippers, watches "murder she wrote" and whistles to himself while listening to Glen Miller?

I guess looking at you, the first thing that pops into my head is is...wow...what a pretty boy...if there ever was a face that I'd like to stick my cock in, that'd be it...

Why dont you come out and party with me sometime, Nancy..i'd out-fuckin-drink you, do bigger 'rails' than you, and then you could come with me to the "American" for a few drinks with the boys...(you should know that bar if you've been around Van)....Then we'll see who's up for a coronary. I've experienced stuff that would leave you in the corner crying for Mommy......"Murder She wrote"...... :rolleyes:

Fuckin rights I'm on the rag......

Chill, man, we're just kidding around! It's only the Interwebs, gun stuff is just the topic of the hour.

[civicluva]

It'll go down eventually. Everyone will realize it costs half a million dollars to buy an average house and move the fuck out since the standard of living is crazy expensive for an avg. lifestyle.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

back on topic,



These statistics exclude sociological and demographic factors, not a very solid argument there.


Only used to dispute that there is a direct relation b/w gun ownership and murder rates. If that were the case sociological and demographic factors would have no influence and as such are not really relevent to my counter. However, I still stated in my post that there are likely other factors which may contribute to higher murder rates, which would only help my argument. Hence, argument IS solid. ;)

[mark4091]

Originally posted by Maddog55
Don't say mine has NO supporting evidence...What a fuckin asshole you are....seriously...shut the fuck up...all you have is one or two stats that are merely blips in the stat world. What a fuckin deushbag. So its that simple eh? If Canada allowed personal gun protection we would solve all our crime and murder problems?

FACT: CCW permits are all over the states..
FACT: Murder rate is 2 or 3 times higher than Canada's...violent crime even more than that....


Jesus fucking Christ...no one can ever make a fucking comment on this fuckin forum without some other fucking moron/asshole/ignorat/arrogant/dipshit just coming back with the exact opposite statement with no other purpose than to just make himself feel superior..

Sound like a fuckin two year old. Want a cookie, asshole?
Fuck....gather a few years of actual life experience..then open yer fuckin yap.

"That car is black"......"no its not...stats show it's dark charcoal"...

Fuck YOU.
Dude, you said people are going to come in spraying automatic weapons if we allow Canadians to get away with shooting an intruder breaking into they're house.

We are very far away from random B&E's involving this.

[Toms-SC]

Hakkola, please don't discuss other views here. They've watched Bowling for Columbine, they know it all now.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by Toms-SC
Hakkola, please don't discuss other views here. They've watched Bowling for Columbine, they know it all now.

All Hail Moore. Without Him, We Are Knowledgeless.

[googe]

Originally posted by Maddog55


Wow...what a shot Mark....is that the best you can come up with to a guy who's older than you?
What...you think everyone in their 40's curls up in his slippers, watches "murder she wrote" and whistles to himself while listening to Glen Miller?

I guess looking at you, the first thing that pops into my head is is...wow...what a pretty boy...if there ever was a face that I'd like to stick my cock in, that'd be it...

Why dont you come out and party with me sometime, Nancy..i'd out-fuckin-drink you, do bigger 'rails' than you, and then you could come with me to the "American" for a few drinks with the boys...(you should know that bar if you've been around Van)....Then we'll see who's up for a coronary. I've experienced stuff that would leave you in the corner crying for Mommy......"Murder She wrote"...... :rolleyes:

Fuckin rights I'm on the rag......

but none of that matters, because at the end of the night, the ladies are on his arm :bigpimp:

[whiskas]

Originally posted by Quinsonaaa
Yellow police tape surrounded the crime scene for hours after the grisly discovery, as a steady stream of commuters parked at the adjacent park-and-ride lot near the Franklin LRT station in the 2800 block of Memorial Dr. S.E.

That area is more NE than it is SE if you know what I mean.

[Xtrema]

Single female should not be anywhere near LRT after dark.

Guns won't help.

[ZorroAMG]

Originally posted by Maddog55


Wow...what a shot Mark....is that the best you can come up with to a guy who's older than you?
What...you think everyone in their 40's curls up in his slippers, watches "murder she wrote" and whistles to himself while listening to Glen Miller?

I guess looking at you, the first thing that pops into my head is is...wow...what a pretty boy...if there ever was a face that I'd like to stick my cock in, that'd be it...

Why dont you come out and party with me sometime, Nancy..i'd out-fuckin-drink you, do bigger 'rails' than you, and then you could come with me to the "American" for a few drinks with the boys...(you should know that bar if you've been around Van)....Then we'll see who's up for a coronary. I've experienced stuff that would leave you in the corner crying for Mommy......"Murder She wrote"...... :rolleyes:


Fuckin rights I'm on the rag......

Sit Ubu, sit. Good dog!

LOL I shoulda put some smileys in there cause I was only playing! ;)

But seriously, I worry about you man, I feel like you're gonna hurt yourself even TYPING your rants :D

ALL good, I don't doubt you'd out party me, I'm probably not allowed in the American without a walker anyway, pops!:angel:

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by Maddog55
Wow...

Fuckin rights I'm on the rag......

:eek:

Holy Shit Dave!
:rofl::rofl:

[Daan]

crime rates due to guns in US are mostly due to irresponsabile citizens and lack of fire weapon education. i do appologize, but I do not have studies regarding this on hand.


people are not taught responsability and presented with the concept of legal consequence when they are given a lethal weapon. education should be provided mandatory when receiving a weapon, but it is too expensive to educate a mass of 350 million possible hand gun users in America alone.


God rest her soul

[Redlyne_mr2]

Guns dont kill people... morons kill people and the US has a lot of them.

[5.0]

Originally posted by Xtrema
Single female should not be anywhere near LRT after dark.

Guns won't help.

Its sad, but true.

[97'Scort]

While the gun debate rages here, what do people think about alternative means of self defence?

For example, should women in Canada be allowed to obtain a permit to carry pepper spray?

It's a non-lethal, successfully proven diversion, enough to let somebody gain a few seconds on an attacker, even if the attacker can resist. This can be enough to get out or dial 911.

[MrSector9]

i think everyone should be allowed to carry pepper spray.

on the murder she wrote topic.... i have been watching "in the heat of the night" sometimes at night. im getting old.

[Datsun-Fever]

fuck that pepper spray is used more by pussies that want to beat you up than women in distress...

[Big Dangerous]

Originally posted by nismodrifter


I'm saying that no one (aside from the proper authorities) should possess a weapon.

Yeah my view is idealistic and doesn't consider the smuggling of illegal guns from america (whose gun laws are barbaric in my opinion). It is obviously a generalized statement and should be treated as such.

Sorry pal, this is a bullshit comment and a bullshit attitude that prevents people from even having the fucking OPTION of defending themselves.

Proper training and licensing and I believe people should have the right to carry protection.

It should at least be an option.

Virginia Tech, 0 armed resistance
Taber, 0 armed resistance
Columbine, 0 armed resistance

Need I go on?

I've noticed people in the US states that have concealed carry permits to be quite a bit more polite than the attitude ridden road-rage trash that drive the streets here thinking they're pretty hardcore.

What an awful attitude to have about that, and it's nothing personal, but it's self-defeating and against the idea of self preservation.


Sorry, but that liberal thinking that honest people with guns somehow magically *create* criminals with guns is such a fucking hoax... that has unfortunately swallowed up a lot of people.

I'd rather know that someone might be able to stop a guy that rolls into a mall with the intention of shooting it up and the police aren't around.

[nismodrifter]

Originally posted by Big Dangerous


It should at least be an option.

Virginia Tech, 0 armed resistance
Taber, 0 armed resistance
Columbine, 0 armed resistance

Need I go on?
No, you don't need to go on.

All 3 of those incidents could have been prevented with stricter gun control, the individuals responsible shouldn't have even had access to a gun.

Ever stop to think that maybe guns were the source of the problem here rather than the solution? Thanks for proving my point though.


I've noticed people in the US states that have concealed carry permits to be quite a bit more polite than the attitude ridden road-rage trash that drive the streets here thinking they're pretty hardcore.


What an awful attitude to have about that, and it's nothing personal, but it's self-defeating and against the idea of self preservation.
I've noticed that they have a much higher murder rate. Maybe this is a superficial politeness that you have noticed. What a strange phenomenon.



Sorry, but that liberal thinking that honest people with guns somehow magically *create* criminals with guns is such a fucking hoax... that has unfortunately swallowed up a lot of people.
I love how you throw around the word liberal as if it is some sort of dirty word. Sorry bud, this isn't America.


I'd rather know that someone might be able to stop a guy that rolls into a mall with the intention of shooting it up and the police aren't around. [/B]

The point is to stop the incident before it occurs (aka prevent it) and not stop it after an attack has already taken place.

Thanks though, you definately helped validate my point.

[01RedDX]

.

[Big Dangerous]

You're in Alberta, and I hate to break it to you, but liberal is a dirty word (unless you participate in those wicked college circle jerks).

You go on like the only place to get a gun is by stealing it from someone who legally owns them??

You know damn well if someone had a pistol, they could have ended those slaughters. An untrained pissed off college kid with a pair of glocks would have been no match for someone trained in the proper use of a firearm.

Once a lunatic goes into a place with his guns blazing, your theories of gun control go completely out the window, no matter where the perpetrator got them.

Now it becomes an issue of self defense.



I like how you think a government has the ability to completely snuff out illegal weapons trading. That's sure putting a lot of faith in the wrong place.

All it seems like you want to do is disarm honest people.

As for the US murder rate, you're comparing it to Canada in numbers and not per capita. There's over 300 million people there. Math it up, and their per-capita is MUCH lower than hours.

Every time you throw that liberal rhetoric out, you're making my argument sound better. I appreciate that.

I don't hate you or anything dude..

[boredengineer]

Originally posted by Big Dangerous
I've noticed people in the US states that have concealed carry permits to be quite a bit more polite than the attitude ridden road-rage trash that drive the streets here thinking they're pretty hardcore.


So people are more polite because they are afraid the loony in the next lane will shoot you for merging in front of him with his concealed gun? Wow that really sounds like a AWESOME system! People so afraid their fellow citizens are going to shoot them! Speaks volumes for why we should have guns :rolleyes:

[Big Dangerous]

Originally posted by boredengineer


So people are more polite because they are afraid the loony in the next lane will shoot you for merging in front of him with his concealed gun? Wow that really sounds like a AWESOME system! People so afraid their fellow citizens are going to shoot them! Speaks volumes for why we should have guns :rolleyes: An armed society is a polite society :) It wasn't long ago that people had to consider that they might pay for the way they act with their life.

I'd hate to compromise your ability to have road rage sessions on the way to work though. I apologize.

You guys also don't need to label me a "racist homophobe" because I think people should be able to carry. That's not something that goes hand in hand.

[boredengineer]

As for the US murder rate, you're comparing it to Canada in numbers and not per capita. There's over 300 million people there. Math it up, and their per-capita is MUCH lower than hours.

Every time you throw that liberal rhetoric out, you're making my argument sound better. I appreciate that.

Learn2math you must have no idea what per capita means because PER CAPITA the united states has more gun death than any other developed first world nation...



The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:
U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Estonia 12.26
Argentina 8.93
Northern Ireland 6.63
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31


Care to make anymore fallacious and spacious arguments?

PS: It is not liberal rhetoric it is FACT something that you don't seem to be too big on...

[01RedDX]

.

[Big Dangerous]

Originally posted by boredengineer


Learn2math you must have no idea what per capita means because PER CAPITA the united states has more gun death than any other developed first world nation...



Care to make anymore fallacious and spacious arguments?

PS: It is not liberal rhetoric it is FACT something that you don't seem to be too big on... Absolutely: How many of those people killed by guns were killed in self defense? How many of them were shot by a law enforcement officer? Start bringing in more "FACTS" and your numbers (of undeserving common citizenry) hit the floor, sorry.

I would think an engineer would know that.

Wanna throw more flakey internet sources my way?


Originally posted by 01RedDX


OK, I did 'math-it up' (lol)

Guns per capita: CAN: .25 US: .82 US/CAN 3.3x

Total Firearms Deaths: CAN: 4.3 US: 11.4 US/CAN 2.7x

Murders with Handguns: CAN: 0.23 US: 3.3 US/CAN 14.5x

Must be some kind of 'liberal math' :rolleyes: It really is though.. refer to above. Sorry to burst your little bubble champ :)

Homocides and murders are two entirely different things. ;)

[01RedDX]

.

[Big Dangerous]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
Read one post above yours. It's the PER CAPITA GUN MURDER RATE.
You lost this argument before it began.

Total Firearms Deaths: CAN: 4.3 US: 11.4 US/CAN 2.7x

Hey speaknspell, you QUOTED "Gun Deaths". Argue properly, if at all.

If I need to clear it up for you, bored engineer even quoted
GUN RELATED DEATHS



The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:
U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Estonia 12.26
Argentina 8.93
Northern Ireland 6.63
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31

Nothing like non-specific, rhetoric to beef up a losing argument.

[01RedDX]

.

[Big Dangerous]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
Hey genius, I quoted BOTH total gun DEATHS and gun MURDERS. You lost junior. You've got no real data on actual murders. You've got data on gun-related deaths and a little bit of data on hand gun related murders. I'm sure most people would accept that as real data and go "gee guys, guess I'll buy that, guns are bad... lets go sing coombaya"

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Big Dangerous
You're in Alberta, and I hate to break it to you, but liberal is a dirty word (unless you participate in those wicked college circle jerks).

Well I guess conservative is a dirty word as well (unless you participate in homoerotic clan meetings).

I play for both teams though, socially liberal, economically conservative. Its pretty wild stuff. Lets face it, liberal girls are much more kinky than their conservative counterparts.


You go on like the only place to get a gun is by stealing it from someone who legally owns them??

That's the easiest way. Or buy them from somebody who legally purchased them (most handguns on the streets in New York and gun free zoned are legally purchased in the south).


You know damn well if someone had a pistol, they could have ended those slaughters.

Only if you can actually stop the person before they shoot people.


An untrained pissed off college kid with a pair of glocks would have been no match for someone trained in the proper use of a firearm.

But a disgruntled marine in a tower on a college campus with a shotgun and a rifle can take on a police force.


Once a lunatic goes into a place with his guns blazing, your theories of gun control go completely out the window, no matter where the perpetrator got them.

And the gun lobbies theory of guns acting as a deterrent go out the window the second a person uses one.




I like how you think a government has the ability to completely snuff out illegal weapons trading. That's sure putting a lot of faith in the wrong place.

I like how you think not regulating gun traffic as much as possible is a better alternative. If this were true, the U.S. would be the safest place on earth.


All it seems like you want to do is disarm honest people.

It seems so yes, because it is also the best way to disarm dishonest people.


As for the US murder rate, you're comparing it to Canada in numbers and not per capita. There's over 300 million people there. Math it up, and their per-capita is MUCH lower than hours.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Well this seems wierd. Apparently the U.S. murder rate per capita is still 3 times as high as ours. You must be talking about the gun murder rate. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

Nope, that's an even bigger gap.

Did you actually research your statement or did you just figure "hey, I'll take a shot (pun not intended) and hope its true." Bill O'Reilly would be proud.


Every time you throw that liberal rhetoric out, you're making my argument sound better. I appreciate that.

But apparently your redneck, republican rhetoric makes you sound like quite the scholar. At least TKRIS is eloquent with his pro-gun babble. You're just a walking stereotype.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
Read one post above yours. It's the PER CAPITA GUN MURDER RATE.
You lost this argument before it began.
It seems he's going with the Fox News approach that "if I say 'liberal rhetoric' enough, it means that facts don't apply."

[01RedDX]

.

[Big Dangerous]

Kertejud, those are well thought out responses, witty (sort of) and crafty (to your friends here on beyond). I'd give you a hi five if I was in your camp definitely.. but it's still defeatist and... well... wrong.

There's no denying that a bullet to the head of the gunman at Virginia Tech would have prevented further slaughter. To even attempt to argue that would be cementing your fate as one of the dumber people alive.

You aren't one of the dumbest people alive, so you probably won't argue that anymore.

Maybe if you liken me to george bush enough, you can call me a racist homophobe, denounce me as a purist, and take the easy way out of the argument instead of actually providing and real fact?? I see that a common trait amongst liberals...

[Big Dangerous]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


Just in case you are not really that ignorant and simply missed it, the data I showed you is the actual PER CAPITA GUN MURDER RATE, WHICH IS 15X HIGHER IN THE UNITED STATES.

I am sure that your backward conservative tunnel vision will prevent you from absorbing any real data anyway. Have a nice day :) No. You and boredengineer showed me gun related deaths, not murders. You had a small bit about hand gun murders. Again, you got a silver medal.. deal with it dude :dunno:


Edit; LMAO @ "these people".

Just call me a racist and it will all be over.

[nismodrifter]

Originally posted by Big Dangerous
[B]

There's no denying that a bullet to the head of the gunman at Virginia Tech would have prevented further slaughter. To even attempt to argue that would be cementing your fate as one of the dumber people alive.
And if he didn't have a gun the entire incident would have been avoided. Do you care to argue this?



You aren't one of the dumbest people alive, so you probably won't argue that anymore.
But you are, your prior posting in this section demonstrates this. You will continue to argue something when it is clear to even the stupidest observer that your opinion has been refuted through basic logic.


Maybe if you liken me to george bush enough, you can call me a racist homophobe, denounce me as a purist, and take the easy way out of the argument instead of actually providing and real fact?? I see that a common trait amongst liberals...

Out comes the liberal term again! OMG NOEZZZZZZZZZZ HE IS CALLING ME LIBERAL. I IZ SO OFFENDED BY U

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Big Dangerous
Kertejud, those are well thought out responses, witty (sort of) and crafty (to your friends here on beyond). I'd give you a hi five if I was in your camp definitely.. but it's still defeatist and... well... wrong.

Feel free to point out the wrong bits, especially the whole gun murder rate thing. We're all waiting on that one.


There's no denying that a bullet to the head of the gunman at Virginia Tech would have prevented further slaughter. To even attempt to argue that would be cementing your fate as one of the dumber people alive.

Again, you miss my point. You want to prevent FURTHER slaughter, I want to prevent it from starting in the first place. Sure if everybody had guns it might stop a few people. But because everybody in Austin had a gun, Charles Whitman was able to walk around with a rifle and blood on his pants before unleashing hell on everybody within range.

Or we could just see shooters start to prepare themselves better, much like those bank robbers in LA in the mid 90s who were dressed head to toe in kevlar.



Maybe if you liken me to george bush enough, you can call me a racist homophobe, denounce me as a purist, and take the easy way out of the argument instead of actually providing and real fact?? I see that a common trait amongst liberals...

You are trully unbeliveable. Perhaps I'll give you the facts again.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita


But here's an idea. Why don't you actually give the facts that the U.S. has a lower gun murder rate and back up your own arguments before spouting out the same right-wing rhetoric as always taking the easy way out.

[01RedDX]

.

[Big Dangerous]

Originally posted by nismodrifter

And if he didn't have a gun the entire incident would have been avoided.


But you are, your prior posting in this section demonstrates this. You will continue to argue something when it is clear to even the stupidest observer that your opinion has been refuted through basic logic.



Out comes the liberal term again! OMG NOEZZZZZZZZZZ HE IS CALLING ME LIBERAL. I IZ SO OFFENDED BY U
Yay. I'm done. You've refuted nothing, provided no hard evidence and proven nothing. I'm not dumb enough to understand any of your points. I mean really, how could anyone say that killing someone who is shooting up a college campus would save lives.. or would have saved lives.

Defend your political affiliation, absolutely.. but to admit your guys level of ineptitude is frightening. You won't even accept genuine logic. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: I guess if one sensible person is outnumbered by 3 complete idiots, the sensible person loses?

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by nismodrifter

And if he didn't have a gun the entire incident would have been avoided. Do you care to argue this?

Maybe he would have had a bomb, and Big Dangerous coming in like the hero and shooting him caused it to go off and kills hundreds, even thousands. Thanks to people like Big Dangerous thousands of young children will die.

I wonder if he'd like to argue that one as well.

[Big Dangerous]

Originally posted by kertejud2


Maybe he would have had a bomb, and Big Dangerous coming in like the hero and shooting him caused it to go off and kills hundreds, even thousands. Thanks to people like Big Dangerous thousands of young children will die.

I wonder if he'd like to argue that one as well.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Are you fucking serious? hahahahahahahhaa

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Big Dangerous

Yay. I'm done. You've refuted nothing, provided no hard evidence and proven nothing. I'm not dumb enough to understand any of your points. I mean really, how could anyone say that killing someone who is shooting up a college campus would save lives.. or would have saved lives.

Why was Charles Whitman able to kill so many people despite all the people with guns on campus?

Just shows what a 'responsible' gun owner who put his time in at the range is capable of.

[nismodrifter]

Originally posted by Big Dangerous

Yay. I'm done. You've refuted nothing, provided no hard evidence and proven nothing. I'm not dumb enough to understand any of your points. I mean really, how could anyone say that killing someone who is shooting up a college campus would save lives.. or would have saved lives.

Defend your political affiliation, absolutely.. but to admit your guys level of ineptitude is frightening. You won't even accept genuine logic. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: I guess if one sensible person is outnumbered by 3 complete idiots, the sensible person loses?


Genuine Logic? ROFL.





http://www.gun-control-network.org/International.gif


Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.



Disprove the statistics my friend. If your way of thinking is infact represntative of reality then this should be no problem (IE if your logic is true).

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Big Dangerous


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Are you fucking serious? hahahahahahahhaa
You're the one bringing a gun to a bomb fight. Why do you feel all those children deserved to die?

[nismodrifter]

Originally posted by kertejud2

You're the one bringing a gun to a bomb fight. Why do you feel all those children deserved to die?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

[Big Dangerous]

I laughed and peed.


(Nismo, homocide, by definition is only the killing of one person by another. A police officer killing a gun wielding idiot, is by definition, a homicide)

[nismodrifter]

Originally posted by Big Dangerous
I laughed and peed.

Go on now, tell me why the statistics shown above do not indicate that more gun ownership in society is directly related to higher death and murder rates?

[gaijin]

Personally, I see two issues.

First is the fact that this is, afaik, the first really 'random' murder I've heard of. Attacks aren't unheard of, but most murders have been only people that were targeted for a specific reason (or at least, it was suspected that they were targeted). The idea that you could be walking around and get killed randomly is what makes people feel unsafe.

Second is the idea that people need guns to feel safe. The issue isn't whether or not people should be able to have guns, the issue is that people think guns are necessary to be safe. Rather depressing state of affairs.

[Big Dangerous]

Originally posted by nismodrifter


Go on now, tell me why the statistics shown above do not indicate that more gun ownership in society leads to higher death and murder rates?

HOMOCIDE is not MURDER, by definition.

They are different completely. I've been trying to explain that to your small head for the last hour.

You don't get charged with "Homocide", you get charged with "Murder". If you have reasonable grounds to commit a "homocide", it is not considered "murder".

[Kloubek]

>For example, should women in Canada be allowed to obtain a permit to carry pepper spray?

Why single out Women? If it is allowed, then I would say that men should be able to as well. I'm a well built 225 pound guy, but I still feel better carrying it.

The problem with pepper spray is that although it's non-lethal, it can still be used as a weapon to say, hold up a store... or to incapacitate someone as you rob their house.

I posted something a while back about being stopped by the cops, and they found my spray. AND GAVE IT BACK. The fact is that if you are a law abiding citizen, and you keep it on the dl, you're fairly safe carrying the spray. And for all but the gun-toters, it's a pretty effective defensive aid. So my view on spray: It's kinda a "grey" area right now. The laws are in place to prosecute if they so desire. (ie: If it is misused)

My opinion on guns: Things are fine the way they are. I agree that the proliferation of guns will not at all help our society. Generally, I think in Calgary that guns are usually owned by people who have legal rights to do so. And of those who are getting shot with illegal guns, they generally are involved in drugs/gangs. Anyone notice how many people get stabbed here instead? (Not that it's much better.)

Bottom line: A large city has large amounts of crime. That's just the way it is with any large city. If you look at it on a per capita basis, it isn't much worse than anywhere else.

[01RedDX]

.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Big Dangerous


HOMOCIDE is not MURDER, by definition.

Other way around, if we want to get all technical. All murders are homicides, not all homicides are murders.


They are different completely. I've been trying to explain that to your small head for the last hour.

Without facts or numbers, just truthiness.



You don't get charged with "Homocide", you get charged with "Murder". If you have reasonable grounds to commit a "homocide", it is not considered "murder".

So if you don't get charged with homicides, then the murder rate stats we've given must only count for murders, no?

[Big Dangerous]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


But them's liberal statistics. You see how the fonts in the graph are all hippy defeatist-like?
But seriously, show him death rates, he'll ask for homicide rates. Show him homicide rates, and he'll ask for murder rates. Show him murder rates and he'll call you a liberal.




Good points, but the fact that random murders are so unheard of in Calgary may illustrate another point... Don't start backtracking. Ho's backtrack when they're about to get pimp slapped. Gun deaths are situation specific. You have no supporting data, so now you take a dive into ad-hominem. Classic Chretien.

[Big Dangerous]

Originally posted by kertejud2


Other way around, if we want to get all technical. All murders are homicides, not all homicides are murders.



Without facts or numbers, just truthiness.



So if you don't get charged with homicides, then the murder rate stats we've given must only count for murders, no? ...you've given gun related death rates.. again.

Wow, I'm rad. I feel like a spartan who just kicked 4 idiots into the hole of death.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Big Dangerous
...you've given gun related death rates.. again.

And you haven't given anything, which is somewhat puzzling.

But just toss out a couple sites with facts supporting your claim, they must be easy to find.


Wow, I'm rad. I feel like a spartan who just kicked 4 idiots into the hole of death.

The Spartans liked having sex with eachother, just so ya know. They took the circle jerk to whole new levels.

[Big Dangerous]

Originally posted by kertejud2


And you haven't given anything, which is somewhat puzzling.

But just toss out a couple sites with facts supporting your claim, they must be easy to find.



The Spartans liked having sex with eachother, just so ya know. They took the circle jerk to whole new levels. Who cares, their bitches were hot.

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/selfdefense/CSD-JCJ-JFP-8-3-99.pdf

All up in that ass. Read the whole thing. It goes on to cite relative statistics around page 7.

[01RedDX]

.

[Big Dangerous]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


I have a comparison for you too! We have refuted every single nonsense argument you've made so far, and backed it up with actual data, something you have failed to do. You ignored the data, and in a classic display of hypocrisy actually accused us of not providing it. Then, you wrote the argument off as an ad hominem attack. Classic Bush. :rofl:

You've refuted nothing! The data you provided was accurate, but it didn't support your arguments at all!

You can't just quote randomly and not be prepared to scrutinize your source. I didn't even attack the credibility of your source, I went on the fact that your data didn't represent actual murders, they represented homocides. You people can't sort out the difference between a murder and a homocide. As I said before, delve into the specifics of each case, factor out Law enforcement, self defense and other reasonable use of force situations, and your "per capita" numbers will tank significantly.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Big Dangerous
Who cares, their bitches were hot.

Perhaps you didn't understand. The soldiers liked to have sex with eachother. Helped them become one or something.


http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/selfdefense/CSD-JCJ-JFP-8-3-99.pdf

All up in that ass. Read the whole thing. It goes on to cite relative statistics around page 7.

Ahh yes, the facts it cites:

Murder rate in U.S. in 1993: 10
Murder rate in Canada in 1993: 2

What a brilliant read (naturally I just skimmed it, but used the find function for 'murder' 'guns' and even 'violent crime' None provided a gun murder rate, nevermind one that showed a higher rate per capita in Canada. The facts in that article go AGAINST your argument (i.e. violent crime rate in 1993 was more than twice as high in the U.S. than in Canada).


Perhaps YOU should read the articles you site then do a bit of thinking on how it could affect your argument.

[HondaRice]

i bet they would of took her more serious if she was white or in the SW not SE even though Albert Park is consdiered desirable.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Big Dangerous


You can't just quote randomly and not be prepared to scrutinize your source. I didn't even attack the credibility of your source, I went on the fact that your data didn't represent actual murders, they represented homocides.

You're the one who was preaching logic, so here's one for you. The U.S. murder rate is much higher than Canada's. The U.S. gun homicide rate is much higher than Canada's. Logically, the U.S. gun murder rate would be much higher than in Canada.

When you provide a source that illustrates that, we'll be happy to look it over. But be sure that a source you cite actually has the facts you want.


You people can't sort out the difference between a murder and a homocide. As I said before, delve into the specifics of each case, factor out Law enforcement, self defense and other reasonable use of force situations, and your "per capita" numbers will tank significantly.

The burden of proof is on you. You're the one claiming that the U.S. gun murder rate is lower than in Canada but you haven't done anything to prove that claim.

If the rate would drop in the U.S. significantly, its also reasonable to think it would drop in Canada as well, and there's quite the gap to overcome.

[Heff]

I'll voice my opinion and simply state that I'm not in favour of a gun-escalation culture in Canada.

[Big Dangerous]

Originally posted by HondaRice
i bet they would of took her more serious if she was white or in the SW not SE even though Albert Park is consdiered desirable.
Must be a colour thing, I mean, it's not all over the news right now is it :rolleyes:

[Schwa]

Why are you guys even arguing with a guy who can't spell homicide correctly. Obviously he hasn't read enough papers.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by Big Dangerous


Virginia Tech, 0 armed resistance
Taber, 0 armed resistance
Columbine, 0 armed resistance

<Snip>

I'd rather know that someone might be able to stop a guy that rolls into a mall with the intention of shooting it up and the police aren't around.

So instead, of one homicidal shooter loose in a mall shooting from one point of origin (which is bad enough as it is), you want to have multiple shooters shooting from multiple locations potentially with bystanders in the middle. Yeah, that makes the world SO much safer.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong about this, but didn't the shooter(s) from two of the three incidents commit suicide after their rampages? Thus, showing a disregard for their own lives. Thus, showing that their own real intent was to take as many people with them as possible. Sure, you can argue that armed bystanders may reduce the shooter's body count, but then you have to account for the body count of those caught in a crossfire between the shooter and the armed "do-gooders."

[97'Scort]

Originally posted by Kloubek
&gt;For example, should women in Canada be allowed to obtain a permit to carry pepper spray?

Why single out Women? If it is allowed, then I would say that men should be able to as well. I'm a well built 225 pound guy, but I still feel better carrying it.

The problem with pepper spray is that although it's non-lethal, it can still be used as a weapon to say, hold up a store... or to incapacitate someone as you rob their house.

I posted something a while back about being stopped by the cops, and they found my spray. AND GAVE IT BACK. The fact is that if you are a law abiding citizen, and you keep it on the dl, you're fairly safe carrying the spray. And for all but the gun-toters, it's a pretty effective defensive aid. So my view on spray: It's kinda a &quot;grey&quot; area right now. The laws are in place to prosecute if they so desire. (ie: If it is misused)



Ahh, finally somebody reading another side :) Ok why single out women: I'm going to imagine (although I have no proof, just experience) that women are statistically less likely to use pepper spray as an offensive weapon to, say, commit robbery. I'm also going to imagine that (again no proof, but let's roll with this) that women are more frequently the victims in rape or harassment, the type of attack where pepper spray would be handy.

So by creating a permit system where somebody would have to register to carry spray (say, have no criminal background), a regulated distribution could be carried out, and women would have a better means to defend themselves. Since men can be seen as aggressors in almost all of these cases, I would argue against permits for men.

Sure you'd still have a few cases of spray going into the wrong hands, as it would be stolen just the same, but it's currently available in most army surplus stores anyways as a defence against aggressive dogs. You can also get bear spray, which is about the same thing.

I have a feeling that, even though you have the spray, you'd be less likely to need it than your average woman.

[Big Dangerous]

Originally posted by sexualbanana


So instead, of one homicidal shooter loose in a mall shooting from one point of origin (which is bad enough as it is), you want to have multiple shooters shooting from multiple locations potentially with bystanders in the middle. Yeah, that makes the world SO much safer.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong about this, but didn't the shooter(s) from two of the three incidents commit suicide after their rampages? Thus, showing a disregard for their own lives. Thus, showing that their own real intent was to take as many people with them as possible. Sure, you can argue that armed bystanders may reduce the shooter's body count, but then you have to account for the body count of those caught in a crossfire between the shooter and the armed &quot;do-gooders.&quot; blah blah blah, easy there Tac team leader. If someone plugged them even half way through the rampage, there would be that much less grieving families and friends. You're arguing just to make friends on beyond, not because you possess any REAL input.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Big Dangerous
blah blah blah, easy there Tac team leader. If someone plugged them even half way through the rampage, there would be that much less grieving families and friends. You're arguing just to make friends on beyond, not because you possess any REAL input.

he has been on beyond since the start, pretty sure he has enough "beyond friends"

his argument is valid

[Big Dangerous]

Originally posted by finboy


he has been on beyond since the start, pretty sure he has enough &quot;beyond friends&quot;

his argument is valid Oddly enough, you've been on beyond forever. Doesn't make it valid at all.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Big Dangerous
Oddly enough, you've been on beyond forever. Doesn't make it valid at all.

you were the one who brought up the fact that he was just posting in this thread to make friends, his post about adding guns to a situation is valid towards the argument of gun control

you = fail

[01RedDX]

.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by sexualbanana


So instead, of one homicidal shooter loose in a mall shooting from one point of origin (which is bad enough as it is), you want to have multiple shooters shooting from multiple locations potentially with bystanders in the middle. Yeah, that makes the world SO much safer.



If we're going to delve into hypothetical situations, I'll create one myself.

Let's say for example, that I've been bullied and I hate the world. I want to kill myself and take as many people with me as possible. I can not get my hands on a gun. I am however able to buy various chemicals and I have access to the internet. I make a bomb and take far more people out with me than 1 person with a gun will.

At the end of the day, it is the people that are the problem, not the weapons. If someone wants to kill, they will do it anyway they can, with or without guns. IMO.

[Big Dangerous]

Originally posted by finboy


you were the one who brought up the fact that he was just posting in this thread to make friends, his post about adding guns to a situation is valid towards the argument of gun control

you = fail Okay, you guys are friends, I get it. Hypothetical speculative bullshit aside, sure.. totally valid.

The sad thing is, I would hate for any of you to have to go through a situation that would make you see it my way. (Not a head up ass sort of situation either)

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Big Dangerous
If someone plugged them even half way through the rampage, there would be that much less grieving families and friends.

And if somebody thought it was weird that Charles Whitman was sawing off the end of a shotgun and carrying a rifle to a college bell tower, there wouldn't be any grieving friends and family.

Then we're left to the other question, how can we limit just "honest" citizens to being able to protect themselves? Doesn't EVERYBODY have the right to own a gun for their own protection? And why shouldn't EVERYBODY be allowed to possess whatever gun they wish for their protection? If somebody comes into the U of C with an AK-47, shouldn't it make sense that the responsible citizen is better armed?

And you never actually answered what you would do in my bomber scenario. I think that if we all walked around with bombs strapped to our chests with our thumbs on the trigger nobody would want to harm anyone. Mutually Assured Destruction is a deterrent, not guns.

[Big Dangerous]

Originally posted by kertejud2


And if somebody thought it was weird that Charles Whitman was sawing off the end of a shotgun and carrying a rifle to a college bell tower, there wouldn't be any grieving friends and family.

Then we're left to the other question, how can we limit just &quot;honest&quot; citizens to being able to protect themselves? Doesn't EVERYBODY have the right to own a gun for their own protection? And why shouldn't EVERYBODY be allowed to possess whatever gun they wish for their protection? If somebody comes into the U of C with an AK-47, shouldn't it make sense that the responsible citizen is better armed?

And you never actually answered what you would do in my bomber scenario. I think that if we all walked around with bombs strapped to our chests with our thumbs on the trigger nobody would want to harm anyone. Mutually Assured Destruction is a deterrent, not guns.

Bombs? I would go into their home and take all of their milk. :rofl:

I don't know what discussion you're in, and I see what you're trying to do (since you can't win the gun argument) but I'm talking about guns.

Classic Chretien again. Edit, wanna see my golf balls?