Guns in Alberta

---

Anonymous August 3, 2012 9:54 am (Pacific time)

When rights are trampled upon, the proper course is to work with those who peacefully oppose that repression, rather than concoct justifications from afar for why the dictator really knows best. For example, Stephen Kinzer accuses Human Rights Watch of imposing western values on impoverished or war-torn countries. Yet his argument rests on a paternalism that treats the people of such countries as if they do not value, or know how to exercise, their fundamental human rights. Like many who view the world through the lenses of outside observers, Kinzer's lack of real world experience demonstates how that inexperience taints and misleads. Just because of large book sales, often promulgated by organizations like the New York Times, it does not mean that one is getting anything more than propaganda, and this is all Mr. Kinzer provides. I suggest talking to people who are refuges from Iran who lived there in the 40's and 50's, then came here to America (or the west) recently to get their interpretation of events, not from an inexperienced interloper. Do this same procedure for any geographical location Mr. Kinzer writes about. You will be amazed at how this writer is quickly exposed as a propagandist, and that is why his appeal is to those who lack scholarly independence and embrace mental lassitude. Mr Kinzer, a Jew, does he follow the Christ-hating Talmud? That is an easy one to answer. As my home window cleaner queries: "What is he really trying to do?"

Kinzer has published seven books. Here he is described in Wikipedia:

 Stephen Kinzer is a United States author and newspaper reporter. He is a veteran New York Times correspondent who has reported from more than fifty countries on five continents. During the 1980s he covered revolution and social upheaval in Central America. In 1990, he was promoted to bureau chief of the Berlin bureau and covered the growth of Eastern and Central Europe as they emerged from Soviet rule. He was also New York Times bureau chief in Istanbul (Turkey) from 1996 to 2000. He currently teaches journalism and United States foreign policy at Boston University.

 Kinzer has written several non-fiction books about Turkey, Central America, Iran, the US overthrow of foreign governments from the late 19th century to the present and, most recently, about Rwanda's recovery from genocide. He has spoken out widely against a potential U.S. attack on Iran, warning that it would destroy the pro-US sentiment that has become widespread among the Iranian populace under the repressive Islamic regime. He is a fierce opponent of US foreign policy toward Latin America.

---

Anonymous August 2, 2012 6:10 pm (Pacific time)

For Stephen Kinzer there are human rights for the developed people and those for the poor, underdeveloped countries. This view undermines the “American Values” concept. Kinzer’s logic may be understood like this: give food, education, clean water to people in underdeveloped countries but arrest or kill them when they ask for partial, just, and democratic institutions, because they cannot be held to American standards! He makes a dicto simpliciter argument by claiming that the aspirations for human rights around the World are a product of the elitist Western societies promoted by out-of-touch human rights organizations. In fact, rights movements, through which people raised up to overthrow undemocratic and tyrannical regimes or oppressors have a long history in Africa and in other so called underdeveloped countries, before Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch were created. The Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, Chaka Zulu were not puppets created by the Western organizations castigated in Stephen Kinzer’s many articles. These human rights and revolutionary movements were not all about food or clean water. They were mostly about freedom, equality, social justice and other values beyond basic human needs. In fact, it is when people are free from the yoke of oppression that good food, clean water, and electricity can be fully enjoyed. The concept of “Secondary rights” is clearly an oxymoron in a society that respects the rights of the citizens. Stephen Kinzer builds his argument on contradictory premises and wedge argument when citing the example of “the right to form a radical newspaper” or “an extremist political party.” The irony in Steven Kenzer crusade against human rights organizations lies in the fact that when Human Rights Watch approved of RPF actions, it was hailed as an example to follow and RPF rolled out the red carpet for the late Alison DesForges, the Human Rights Watch expert on Rwanda. “Human Rights”, like “American Values” are not for Western civilizations or elite only; they are universal. Democratic nations give their “people jobs, electricity, and above all security” and at the same time they do neither limit political speech, nor arrest political oppositions, nor assassinate human rights activists or journalists. Mr. Kinzer reminds me of that cartoon character Mr. Magoo, he has no vision beyond the surface, and it below that surface where the real truth lies Daniel.

I'd have to read some of the articles you're referring to, but my only focus is on his book Overthrow. Have you read it and have an opinion on that? 

---

Anonymous August 2, 2012 11:32 am (Pacific time)

Compare and contrast the quality of life for the average Rhodesian citizen with that of the current Zimbabwe reality. In terms of GOP religious dogma, what is it? What is it in the democratic party? Appears you are reaching deep in the weeds Daniel. Maybe you also need an update on Kinzer, who has many well informed critics, and I am one of them.

Okay, give me an update on Kinzer. (This should be good)

---

Anonymous August 2, 2012 7:17 am (Pacific time)

Editor (Daniel Johnson?): "...But, overall, the US has been a contributor of far more evil in the world than the good it has done..." So if you believe this, what are your plans on dealing with us evil people? As per Iran "coulda, woulda, shoulda" been a staunch "democratic" ally
of ours, well how does Iran define democracy? How do you define democracy? Are you an expert in American treaties? How about the Southeast Asian treaty Organization (similar to NATO)? What is the political/ideological goal of Iran, in the 50's and now? What is the endgame for Communism? The last thing America is, is evil, but then our enemies have generally been feckless in regards to dealing with our ability to destroy their evil intents. The world is far better off because of America, but those who dislike us, especially those who are angry and ignorant, will always be unhappy with those who illuminate their weaknesses. Life goes on, and America will continue to help the weak against the real evil, and generally they are tyrants and those who use ideological covers like marxism and religious dogma.

How is the help coming along for Zimbabwe?  Religious dogma? Have you looked at the GOP lately?

What do treaties have to do with overthrowing governments of small, defenceless countries (Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua)? 

---

Anonymous August 1, 2012 11:02 am (Pacific time)

Daniel sorry you think I am full of myself, but I am well experienced in the ways of the world, and have enjoyed considerable prosperity, as have my family and close friends. Nothing like succes to better appreciate what one has, and I count my blessings constantly. Daniel do you see many American's writing like you about Canada? Your population is very small compared to ours, though we have similar demographics when it comes to criminal behavior. We are essentially tied at the hip economically, though maybe you don't understand how macro/micro economics operate. I certainly do not, but I have close friends who keep me informed about the constantly changing dynamics of the global markets and how it impacts America, and to a far lesser degree, Canada. For example Daniel, current situation: The Olympics have gone smoothly despite -- gasp! -- America's team wearing clothing made in China at the opening ceremony.

"I'm so upset," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Take all the uniforms, put them in a big pile, and burn them. ... We have people in the textile industry who are desperate for jobs."

Here, Reid demonstrates economic cluelessness. It seems logical that Americans lose if American clothing is made overseas. But that's nonsense. First, it's no surprise the uniforms were made in China. Most clothing is. That's fine. It saves money. We invest the savings in other things, like the machines that Chinese factories buy and the trucks that ship the Olympic uniforms.

The Cato Institute's Daniel Ikenson's adds: "We design clothing here. We brand clothing here. We market and retail clothing. ... Chinese athletes arrived in London by U.S.-made aircraft, trained on U.S.-designed and -engineered equipment, wear U.S.-designed and -engineered footwear, having perfected their skills using U.S.-created technology." That's free trade. Trade makes us richer.

While making the clothes in America would employ some Americans, the excess cost would mean that the Olympic committee had less to spend on other products -- many of which are made in America.

Losing jobs like cutting, sewing and working on a loom is a sign of progress because working in factories is unpleasant. It's good for most Americans when factory jobs are replaced by engineering and design jobs. Art Carden, an economist from Sanford University's Brook School of Business, explained that "one could argue that the American uniforms were not manufactured in China, but grown in the soybean field in Iowa. We export soybeans to China. Because we're incredibly productive in the soybean market, we get more uniforms at lower prices (and) the Chinese get more soybeans at lower prices. ... Everybody wins."

Contrary to protectionists like Sen. Reid, if we insisted that everything be made in America, we'd be poor.

There is so much that we think we know -- that is not so.

We're told that "overpopulation" is why countries are poor. But that's nonsense, too.

"The problem is not that there are too many people," Carden said. "The problem is that for the most part they don't have free markets." Right. They have bad governments, kleptocracies that steal people's resources.

The data make that obvious. Poverty in Nigeria and Pakistan is often blamed on "overpopulation." Nigeria has 174 people per square mile! Pakistan 225! But so what? Wealthy Holland has 483 people per square mile. Hong Kong, 6,783. Singapore, 7,252. These are among the richest places in the world. They also have clean environments. When there is the rule of law and economic freedom, more people means more inventions, the cross-pollination of ideas -- and that creates better lives.

Another myth is that we're running out of fuel. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter said gas and oil would be gone in the next decade. Others said by 2000 or 2010. It didn't happen because as oil and gas get expensive, people search for substitutes. When they are free to profit by doing that, they invent new ways to dig deeper, suck more oil out of the same wells, etc. America now has stores of much more oil and gas than when Carter was president.

There are so many myths, urban legends, and distractions out there, we need to have a clearing house to keep our citizens updated. So how is Canada doing in the Olympics?

 

Your understanding of why America is so wealthy is along the same lines as Romney explaining that Israel is more prosperous than the Palestine territories because of the inherent superiority of the Israelis, without acknowledging that Palestine and the West Bank are occupied territories under the iron control of the Israelis.

Similarly, the US is so rich because it has exploited so many other nations and denied them both the rule of law and economic freedom. I’m going to offer a few facts which you can independently verify.

1. Iran could, today, be one of America’s staunchest democratic allies.

In 1953 the people of Iran had a popularly elected prime minister Mohamed Mossadegh, a man with American values and friendly to the US. Iran also had, and still has, lots of oil.

Supported by the people, Mossadegh entertained a foolish fantasy; he believed that the oil resources belonged to the people of Iran, so they were nationalized (at a fair price). The American government (meaning the oil companies) was not amused so, with the help of the British, they sent in the CIA and overthrew the government, putting the Shah back on the Peacock Throne.

The Shah did not tolerate dissent and repressed opposition newspapers, political parties, trade unions and civic groups. As a result, the only place Iranian dissidents could find a home was in mosques and religious schools, many of which were controlled by obscurantist clerics. Through their uncompromising resistance to the regime, these clerics won the popular support that secular figures never achieved. That made it all but inevitable that when the revolution finally broke out in Iran, clerics would lead it.

In that Revolution the US was vilified as The Great Satan. The Iranian people had not forgotten 1953. But the American people with their puerile political attitudes could not understand why they were so hated—they had not remembered.

2. Central America, too, could be a thriving democratic pro-American region, except for what the U.S. government encouraged and supported.

Guatemala is not Iran, but the leader the United States installed after the 1954 coup, Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, followed a repressive course like the Shah’s. In his first weeks in power, he abolished the banana workers’ federation, revoked the Agrarian Reform Law, banned all political parties and peasant groups, and ordered the arrest of thousands of suspected leftists. His secret police chief, who had held the same office under the former dictator Jorge Ubico, outlawed subversive literature, specifically including all works by Dostoyevsky and Victor Hugo. With this burst of repression, the foundation was laid for a police state that plunged Guatemala into a bloody tragedy over the following decades. This repression raged for three decades, and during that period, soldiers killed more civilians in Guatemala than in the rest of the hemisphere combined. The only real winners were the United Fruit Company and its ilk.

3. In 1973 the CIA engineered the overthrow of a popularly elected leader in Chile, Salvador Allende (at the behest of the American multinationals AT&T, Annaconda and Kennecott). Officials of the Allende government were rounded up and sent to a prison on desolate Dawson Island in Chile’s extreme south. The junta abolished the country’s largest labor federation, which had 800,000 members; banned all political parties that had supported Allende; declared Congress in “indefinite recess”; summarily dismissed hundreds of university professors; removed all mayors and city councillors from office; and decreed a new legal code that forbade any appeal of decisions by military courts.

I could go on at length as the US had been overthrowing foreign governments beginning with Hawaii in 1893: Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Cuba, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, South Vietnam, Iraq, to name the best known victims.

The common denominator, wrote Stephen Kinzer in his book Overthrow: “Each country whose government the United States overthrew had something Americans wanted—in most cases, either a valuable natural resource, a large consumer market, or a strategic location that would allow access to resources and markets elsewhere. Powerful businesses played just as great a role in pushing the United States to intervene abroad during the Cold War as they did during the first burst of American imperialism.”

I do not deny that many American individuals have and do much good for others in the world.  But, overall, the US has been a contributor of far more evil in the world than the good it has done.

 In 1993, the House and Senate passed resolutions apologizing to the native Hawaiians for the 1893 overthrow. The entire Hawaiian congressional delegation was in the Oval Office on Nov 22 to watch Clinton sign the resolution. Senator Daniel Akaka said: “One hundred years ago, a powerful country helped overthrow a legal government. We’ve finally come to the point where this has been acknowledged by the United States.”

So, how is the invasion of Iraq going?  

BTW: Because you're so comfortable and well-off, I don't actually expect to hear from you again. 

 

---

Anonymous August 1, 2012 7:09 am (Pacific time)

Canada's tech and the aspect of a "one-trick poney" comes to mind, except I have wonderful Canadian friends, some I met during my university salad days. We certainly have different cultures based on very different experiences, but we essentially are very close, at least closer than any other two countries. Those Canadians who came here young and attended K-12,college, and participated in our culturalization mores simply have no understanding of leftist Canadian viewpoints other than it's based on blind ignorance of just who Americans are. Sure we have a very tiny minority who are disaffected Daniel, and a growing mixture of different foreign cultures (most are here illegally) who will never assimilate with the majority, and that balkanization will in time cause most likely a very violent time, thus these people should assimilate or have an immediate exit plan. As far as our middle class, it is well entrenched, and in some ways stronger than when it came about after WWII, really not that long ago. Those considered poor here, are actually much better off than the majority in Europe, and of course far better than most everyone else on the planet. When power is changed in a few months, and new policies implemented our social and physical infrastructure will rapidly provide relief for those who have been harmed by the current cabal of incompetents. For many decades I have observed our hater's, foreign and domestic, and their major character flaw, is their lack of understanding their own environment, and naturally they simply cannot grasp that most Americans are light years beyond them in literally all aspects of adaption. Time will tell how things will ultimately resolve, but our history provides the template for what will take place. I hope you are still breathing in a few years to see for yourself Daniel. In the meantime, enjoy the technical marvels we provide you, and keep your fingers crossed for a safe landing on Mars. How goes Canada's space program?

You're a walking, talking, writing, example of what is bringing America down: Arrogance, ignorance and hubris. You write that Canadians have "a blind ignorance of just who Americans are". Would you allow that the inverse is true and that Americans have a blind ignorance of who Canadians are?

People like you are so full of themselves and have uncritically bought into the myths of American exceptionalism (which are drummed into your heads even before you start school) that reality passes you by. Middle class is entrenched and stronger? What's your Kool-Aid flavour? 

---

Anonymous July 31, 2012 1:42 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel I see our American Olympic team is wearing uniforms made in China and not made here. I find this quite acceptable because I really do not want to see Americans involved in the types of manufacturing jobs where they are involved in that type of poor paying labor. When the Chinese Olympic team flew to London, and when they fly back home, they will be doing so in the Boeing Jets we manufactured. I like that trade off, and by the way all top goods like that also include Canadians as passengers. Maybe someday Canada will manufacture high tech the world wants/needs, but very doubtful. In regards to upward mobility, from what to where? When you factor for the millions of illegals who cause a downward skew to so many of the various social metrics you seem to enjoy using, we are still quite well beyond everyone else on the planet. So try going about your daily life and not use anything made in America...hope you enjoy the wilderness Daniel.

In the late 1950s Canadian technology produced the  AVRO Arrow which was a military jet far superior to what America could produce at the time. But political pressure on Ottawa by Washington (it was the height of the Cold War) forced the shutdown of AVRO. 

From what  to where?  The American middle class has been decimated with no chance for recovery. You're on the way to a two class society, like France in the 18th century. We know what happened there. Good luck.

---

Anonymous July 31, 2012 7:47 am (Pacific time)

It's pretty obvious that when it comes to debating facts, historical facts, and you have one party who is so overcomed by leftist [close-minded] ideology you have no meaningful exchange. The reality is that America's superior accomplishments is prima facie, which just absolutly rankles those on the left, and how lovely that is to observe. America is "We The People"...and we will always triumph over adversity. Obama and his ilk will be but a minor footnote, quickly forgotten, just as will those who opine for Marxism, even though many of them have no idea just what useful idiots they are to Marxist pursuits, a pursuit better characterized as a fool's errand.

Nothing to do with Marx, but rather Wall Street predations and corporate corruption: You obviously haven't noticed but "We the people" are f****d. After the shipping of millions of jobs overseas, Steve Jobs said a few weeks before he died: "Those jobs are not coming back". Your belief in "always" is a look in the rear-view mirror. Times change and America has been unable to keep up.

---

Anonymous July 30, 2012 5:22 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel in Canada your corporate tax rate is 15%, and ours is 35% plus. Large corporate CEO's,like major firearm manufacturer's (who account for about 1/3 of the private work force) have a responsibility to maximize profits for shareholders,as do smaller businesses to keep their businesses and employees productive and profitable. So when the government dials up the tax rates, and various government agencies like the EPA bypass congress and create onerous rules/regs,and when unions make demands that simply cannot be complied with unless some serious compromise is reached, what can they do to maintain their fiduciary and management responsibilities? Our national economy since our creation has had a pattern of up and down cycles, but all of a sudden we have a worst case scenario: A power came to the whitehouse and congress, a power during a down cycle, that simply had no idea how to govern, and somehow we are still keeping out of a real depression. Mainly because of the historical 2010 election change in congress and in dozens of state legislatures. When that power is removed, we will have policies that will stop the slide and turn things around. Please recall that when Reagan took over from Carter we had a nearly 11% unemployment rate and a money/capital cost at approx. 22%. Reagan's policies stopped the decline, and in time he created millions of jobs, while also rebuilding our military. Which by the way is still much smaller that what it was during the peace years of the late 50's and early 60's. At any rate Daniel, the OWS movement, at least here in the states has been taken over by some very bad people, so when they start to act out in the future, public patience is gone, thus local politicians will act according to their voters inpatience. Law enforcement throughout the country is ready, and the public will be behind them to see that they keep the criminal element from violating our rights, this time. The OWS is an illusion, it is another Marxist flame blown out by freedom loving profit seekers. Without profit, where would you be Daniel? Sure some will do better than others, but in both America and Canada, the opportunity still exists for upward mobility. In most other parts of the world, like England, not so much, and that's why they come here.

Recent studies show that upward mobility is lowest in the United States compared to all other Western developed nations.

And Reagan: The decline of the middle class began in his first administration and has never recovered. The downward decline of the U.S. is both inevitable and irrevocable no matter what the right wing claims.

A society top-heavy with billionaires may seem like a paradise of upward mobility, but it’s actually closer to being a boneyard of broken dreams for all but a lucky few. Those wanting to give their children a real chance to live the American Dream would be well advised to move to Sweden.

---

Anonymous July 30, 2012 12:46 pm (Pacific time)

Am I one of the 1%? Gee whiz Daniel, just how do you define the 1%? My yougest son sold his home in Marin County, near San Francisco, and his gross for the year will shoot him up just past one million because of that sale. Next year he will be in the low six figures, including his wife's income. Is he in the 1% wealthy to you? I am retired Daniel, but my wife and I contract many different types of services, literally creating several jobs by doing that. If I cut back on those services, along with other people who also contract out the same services, people will lose their jobs, their incomes. The American dream for most has always been to improve their lives, so I have no problem with rich people, I admire them. Considering that 2/3's of all jobs are created by small to medium size businesses (some are incorporated, some are put on an individual's single income tax), then do you have problems with people who make over a million, but plow back the majority of revenue into payroll, inventory, taxes and other expenses? The OWS movement failed Daniel because people simply got wise to the class division arguement and moved on. In many cases you will see a union member, like a teacher making $40-$60,000, while a union boss will be making in the high six figures. Is that fair? Socialism does not work, and though there will always be the disaffected screaming for getting "their fair share", people are wise to their street corner begging. Ergo: Go find a job, and/or vote for someone who will put in policies to create jobs...and the best model of success for that...reduce taxes.

So, where are all those alleged jobs? OWS? It's not finished yet. 

---

Anonymous July 30, 2012 11:29 am (Pacific time)

and its interesting when you are fond WRONG how you change the subject...typical daniel, but its still fun and I actually miss ya when you are not around for awhile. Its fun winning all the time :-)

---

Anonymous July 30, 2012 11:27 am (Pacific time)

I am better than the 1% to answer your question Daniel. But you would not understand, you have been brainwashed by the media you get your info from. And if you think that Canada will make it thru this, as soon as the U.S. goes down, Canada will go right along with it. 50+ states as I have mentioned. Altho, as mentioned, here in the U.S. we may be able to beat the 1% you talk about..No help from canadians tho, we have to do it on our own because canadians are wussies. It only took 3% of the population to fight the queen owned british and canada, and we won. We will do it again, and yet again, no thanks to the canadians for helping, anadians are slaves now and always will be unless those in the U.S. can stop the tyranny, and we just might do it yet. Your welcome.

---

Anonymous July 30, 2012 9:15 am (Pacific time)

Daniel, on the subject of firearm fatalities, how about African deaths via machete. 800,000+ were killed in Rwanda in a very brief period. Note: These mass machete massacres are nearly a daily event on that continent. Would individual firearm ownership actually save lives in Africa, or is this the way it has been for thousands of years over there? Compare the Rwanda death total to American fatalities in our American Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, current miltary deaths, and gun homicides in America (which includes suicides. It has been cited by the FBI that nearly 80% of all gun homicides other than suicides are by gangs). These Rwanda killings were done in a relatively brief period not by modern firearms, but knifes and machetes. We are seeing a massive murder rate increase in American urban areas by those who simply cannot be stopped by adding new laws, but maybe enforcing current laws on the books is the way to proceed. In the meantime we need protection, so we will not give up our firearms. Congress in concert with the majority of American people are the only way the 2nd Amendment can be altered, not by executive order. Even a take over by a liberal majority in the U.S. Supreme Court will not be able to have any real enforcement power if they alter earlier 2nd Amend. interpretations. See how Chicago, DC and other city leaders ignore the current 2nd interpretation. Violence will continue to increase here, and even if more jobs come soon, it will never be enough. Add that to the increasing out of wedlock birthrate coupled with a growing school drop out rate, we are already witnessing a permanent underclass who will have to be dealt with in very serious ways in the not too distant future. If the current political cabal continues, there will be no way to stop this decline into madness. There will not be a lot of advertising revenue out there if Obama is re-elected, but there will certainly be a lot more pain for all of our people. In the meantime, Obama will continue to campaign making the same false promises he made in 2007-08, playing golf more than all the presidents added accumlative total was, and of course maintaining ongoing celebrity parties at the people's Whitehouse, and continued 5 Star+ expensive vacations. The pattern of the last nearly 4 years is the evidence for the above-referenced continued behavior. Gun sales are up and gun crime is down, that's reality, and the super majority of Americans are glad to be Americans, that's also a reality which the progressive left just hates.

The US continues to spiral down the drain. The only economic survivors will be the 1%. Are you one of those? 

---

Anonymous July 30, 2012 7:30 am (Pacific time)

Dan, you will realize that your mental issues have yet to be diagnosed. I just hope that you have no weapons available. Clearly your intellect is harmless.

My mental health issues have been diagnosed; I'm just not allowed out after dark without a leash. 

---

Anonymous July 30, 2012 7:29 am (Pacific time)

You are an complete bozo if you use what I wrote earlier to advocate that their are less killings when there are less guns.

If you read what I wrote, it was clear that there are more deaths due to knives when guns are harder to come by, but the total deaths remain the same. You are one bizarre writer.

Your first two sentences are clear:

"What happens to the homicide stats when guns are hard to get? In Hawaii, knives are used more often to kill." 

Then you conclude: "Hawaii has a homicide rate similar to Oregon, but guns are used less often." 

If guns are hard to get, i.e., fewer guns, then there are fewer gun homicides. It doesn't matter why guns are harder to get.  Question: How many people do you think Holmes could have killed or wounded had be been restricted to knives? Sure, he could have built a bomb but that's irrelevant to the gun issue. He also could have directed his inner rage at himself and just committed suicide in some dramatic way.

And I'll repost what I wrote earlier:

 Gun homicide per 100,000 population:

U.S. -> 3.98

European Union -> 0.06-0.81

 

Gun ownership per 100,000 population:

U.S. -> 88.8

European Union -> 0.7-31.2

You can spin it any way you want but more guns equals more gun related homicide.

 

---

Douglas Benson July 30, 2012 6:27 am (Pacific time)

Isnt it true Dan that the gangs in your country are well armed giving them a huge advantage over the citizens ?
Dont they use this to extort and terrorize ? Last but not least doesnt this just go to show you cant keep criminals being armed in your country no matter what laws you pass ?

Nice to hear from you, Doug. It's been awhile. Yes, the gangs here are well armed. But just because you can't stop the rain doesn't prevent people from using umbrellas. 

---

July 29, 2012 4:37 pm (Pacific time)

What happens to the homicide stats when guns are hard to get? In Hawaii, knives are used more often to kill. Just because you want to make guns the boogeyman means that you omit alternative methods to kill. Those who want to kill will find a way. Hawaii has a homicide rate similar to Oregon, but guns are used less often.

[ See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state ]

Go ahead and use your intellect to find a way to argue against this REALITY. Those bent on killing will find a way.

You've just acknowledged what gun advocates deny: fewer guns means fewer homicides. Thanks for that.

---

Anonymous July 29, 2012 1:44 pm (Pacific time)

Population in Canada is less than one of the 50 states in the U.S., so I suppose comparing Canada to the U.S. is bogus also? And my crime rate stats are not per population but per 1000 people overall. I also mentioned several other states that you did not mention, I did not compare Oregon alone with the U.S. I also mentioned North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, and said these states are only a few, look up the rest yourself. I did not say Oregon alone. You might want to look up Switzerland also. They are required to have a firearm and their crime rate is very low.
It is of my opinion, that it is not firearms that are the problem, but morality is the problem. Banker owned Hollywood movies, banker owned politicians, banker owned education system, banker owned video games, and banker owned pharma drugs. Ban the root of the problems and watch peace and beauty flow. The only time Jesus got angry was at the money changers (bankers), and they killed him for it, and that was 2000 years ago. History repeats itself time and again, and the only way to stop it is to learn history.
History shows, that it is not long after a country/people are disarmed, they become slaves or dead. I could give many examples, but you are the journalist, look it up, I am just a blogger.

You forgot banker-owned NRA and banker-owned gun manufacturers. 

---

Anonymous July 29, 2012 1:10 pm (Pacific time)

The U.S. Justice Department, like many other government and private organizations generally use per capita stats. Gun crimes are based on number# per 100,000. Suffice it's an easy task to look up gun crime data all over the country, including highly populated urban areas and get a clean contrast of data using the same metrics. Those places that have strict gun control and/or they make it very difficult for the average citizen to have a gun legally (under their ordinance, but not federal law) have much higher gun crime rates. There is so much evidence that even gungrabber outfits simply avoid using that arguement, and instead cherry-pick data that is misleading, and easy to refute when looking at data from a macro position. By the way Daniel, Portland is quite urbanized, and it's "metropolitan district" area is easily over 3 million. This also includes a part of southern Washington adjacent to Portland across the Columbia River. This area has regular gang shootings on a daily level now, after many years of relative low gang activity. Looking at Portland's leadership and the surrounding communities, they have hamstrung law enforcement to go out and suppress gangsterism. Just the same Daniel, homicide rates per 100,000 are extremely low and literally nil for those who have concealed handgun licenses, and there is well over 120,000 of them. In nearly 20 years not one CHL has been revoked for a violent gun crime. That type of data is similar all over the country. Suffice, the evidence easily purports that more guns mean less gun crime in comparison to those restricted urban areas mentioned above.

 Gun homicide per 100,000 population:

U.S. -> 3.98

European Union -> 0.06-0.81

 

Gun ownership per 100,000 population:

U.S. -> 88.8

European Union -> 0.7-31.2

You can spin it any way you want but more guns equals more gun related homicide.

 

---

Anonymous July 29, 2012 10:54 am (Pacific time)

http://americafirstsite.com/americafirstcom/?p=632

And keep in mind Daniel, when the stats show USA being high on the homocide rate, its not fair. Here in Oregon, where the gun laws are not so strict the homocide rate is less than Canada. The high homicide rate comes mostly from places that have gun bans such as Chicago, New York, L.A. etc. It is the places where gun bans are that place the U.S. at a high homicide/crime rate. Look it up yourself, it only takes about 20 minutes. Lok up crime rates in states such as Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota where gun laws are not as strict. The crime rates of these states are LESS than Canada.

Oregon is a state of only about four million people and its largest city, Portland, just over half a million. It's good that the homicide rates for the state are relatively low, but comparing it to places like Chicago, LA, NYC, etc, is completely bogus. 

---

Anonymous July 29, 2012 10:03 am (Pacific time)

Here in the U.S. the 2nd amendment was not provided to us for hunting. It was to protect us from the tyranny of government because the founding fathers knew of humanity and big governments. And they were correct, just look around. Sorry for the canadians, they left them alone for the most part. A small population country, cant really fight wars, all they can do is pay taxes and work the resources, but the hammer is about to fall, and they have little to no protection when it does.

Taking down canada will be a cakewalk for them, but they cant take canada until they get the U.S. So, basically, gun owners in the U.S. are protecting the canadians. And will continue to do so. We are ok with the canadians, and we will fight to protect your liberties also. Ya have your rifles still, dont let them taken them, we could use all the help we can get.

I am not anti-government, we need a government of course. I am anti-banking takeover of the western governments. They are evil to the core, and for whoever thinks the governments in the west are not owned by the banking cartel, you are very naive.
I think its called "Stockholm Syndrome"

Check this out Daniel.."three cities rule the world": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEydmE57Vew

You're right that the 2nd Am wasn't set up for hunting. What no one seems to acknowledge is that the reason it was set up for disappeared as a potential a long time ago. The UK is now a solid ally. And as for the U.S. government becoming tyrannical, it doesn't matter how many pop guns that the citizenry has, you wouldn't last five minutes against the military. Remember Waco! 

[Return to Top]

---

©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.