[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Not at all. I simply refuse to argue with unreasonable people, as it lowers the debate to their level, which brings about nothing but nonsense and illogical folly.

Now you know why I get frustrated all the time

And as usual, you post a few things, lacking any real cause and effect ties, due to the lack of investigation into those statistics, so it really amounts to nothing.

Sigh.....

Firearms Regulation: Canada in the International Context

Comparisons Between Canada and the United States Studies have also compared the rates of death from firearms in Canada with those in the United States. One of the most well-known studies was a comparison of Seattle, Washington, and Vancouver, British Columbia.16 More recently, the costs of firearms death and injury in the two countries were compared and estimated to be $495 (US) per resident in the United States and $195 per resident in Canada.10 Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. Handguns have required licensing and registration in Canada since the 1930s. Ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right, and several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect citizens from guns.17,18 Handgun ownership has been restricted to police, members of gun clubs or collectors. Very few people (about 50 in the country) have been given permits to carry handguns for "self-protection." This is only possible if an applicant can prove that his or her life is in danger and the police cannot protect the person. As a result, Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 77 million. Although there are other factors affecting rates of murder, suicide and unintentional injury, a comparison of data in Canada with US data suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is slightly higher (1.7 times) than that in Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 15 times the Canadian rate

There are other goodies there to you can read up on.

I have nothing to gain by arguing such nonsense, and to argue against it would validate it, which is not my intention, since it deserves no validation.

Your loss not mine.

Try re-reading. Don't insult my intelligence again if you expect me to maintain a friendly status with you again.

You should realize by now that I have very little care for friendships here... if my opinion dose not match your own, I'm not about to sugar coat it so I can have a couple of online buddies.

Once again.... what is your solution in preventing this from happening again? I'm still waiting.

You are making an argument that people have no right to defense with arms, when I have clearly show it is not only our LEGAL RIGHT, but also our LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY. You have not made a case against those points, nor can you, using logic and reason, so instead you turn to emotion and patriotism.

You speak of legal rights and responsibilities, yet they still have not solved the problems at hand, nor will they.

I don't care two rats tails about what is legal and what is not.... it's about what is right and what is wrong.... what works and what doesn't. The right to bear arms is not improving the security and safety of your streets.

And once again, human emotion is a part of humanity, and although I have yet to even express emotions in this thread topic, but rather what is logical to me and where I live, how things mentally affect people must be put into considderation in collective decisions.

If you make decisions for the collective to follow without calculating exactly how those decisions will affect them mentally and physically, and you don't considder how everyone feels about something.... then where is the humanity? This works all well and good if you want people thinking like machines and a communistic society.....