It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: Students hurt in French car attack near Toulouse

page: 3
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

I understand the point you're making but I'd like to point out a flaw in your argument.

seatbelts, airbags, speed limits, licensing .... these are all regulations on the automobile. A more valid comparison would be regulations on the gun and not the potential victim.




posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp


Tracking mass shootings is meaningless. You need to track the total number of murders, since "gun related murders" aren't more important than other types of murder.

Canada has ~50% the murder we have. But you have far stricter gun laws, and you only have ~35 million people in your country!

The US has 324 million citizens! Almost ten times more than Canada! Yet we only have TWICE the murder rate as Canada? Still feeling high and mighty, strongfp?

If Canada's population was scaled up to the United States, your murder rate would be an astonishing ~27.0/100,000

edit on 11/10/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

Well that just changes everything. . . .



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Eshel


I understand what you mean, and I may have phrased/worded that argument poorly. I am just looking at measures people take to protect themselves from unwanted consequences of things.


Good point though
edit on 11/10/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Yep.

Though something tells me the folks from page one won't be returning to the thread to own up to how hard their knees jerked.




posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Scaling up numbers is arbitrary. It makes no sense to do so.
And I don't want to get into a "ban gun" debate here. Because I am not for banning guns like you have already assumed I am.

I am just stating facts that Canada has far less mass shootings, and that says a lot. You even said it yourself, mass shootings are somewhat an outside exception. But it's one that cannot be ignored.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp


I apologize if I implied you were advocating banning firearms, as I did not mean to put any words in your mouth. I was using a "straw man" argument to demonstrate something we both agree on (looking at the totality of murders, and mass shootings/murder is a rare-ish exception). I probably could have went about doing so in a more productive way though


I'm not totally against regulation of firearms, and I feel we already have significant legislation in place. That being said, there are loopholes which could be closed, background checks expanded (private sales, gun shows, etc) as well as some other really intelligent/practical suggestions I've read on here (and elsewhere). I even read a really well thought out suggestion about tying in military weapon possession to militia service, regulated by private Citizens (serves the "well regulated" requirement, and still stays within the intent of keeping power away from the government->to the people)

I hope I didn't turn you off to the discussion, as I believe your (and others) input is really helpful for the issue as a whole.

I also apologize for how far I've gone off topic in discussing firearms and the second amendment in a thread about violence in France
edit on 11/10/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

That's not how that works. If we scale up, Canada should still have 2.7/100,000. Their murders aren't going to jump up a hundred fold while their population only jumps up ten fold.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

How it scaling to population growth dishonest? They have ~1/10 of our population but only half the number of murders (per 100,000 people).

If their population were to scale ten times (to equal ours, in approximation), their murder rate would also scale. It is helpful to note their strict gun laws (compared to US) as well.

Can you offer up some numbers to support your belief? I am curious to see what they are, if mine are incorrect.
edit on 11/10/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
BREAKING NEWS: Driver rams into crowd of students outside high school in Toulouse leaving two gravely ill after 'voices in his head told him to'


The driver, 28, who deliberately committed the attack, is known to police but was not on a security watch list. While being arrested he admitted to hearing voices telling him to hurt someone.


Just your regular crazy person.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   
The deaths per 100000 equation looking at a petri dish and extrapolating that by factors of 10 does not predict in any way what your implying. There are many reasons for the us/canada difference that may well have less to do with the population size. Things like education, culture, politics play a bigger factor. I propose that canadians on the whole just arent as radicalised by their perception of constitutional rights, and show a more rational civic mindfullness. I seem to find a lot less hatefull ranting coming from the top end than from the middle of the american continent. Not saying it isnt there, just seems like a lot less of it.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Br34kingp01nt

Yet Canada passed a motion against Islamophobia


Canada’s parliament has approved M-103, a non-biding motion that calls on the government to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination,”


globalnews.ca...

When it becomes a bill we will have a shiney new blasphemy law. Since our gov is set to welcome 1 million new Canadians by 2020 we must stifle any dissent.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
The police say the driver is known to them for drug offences. I can't say wether or not any perpetrators of Islamic terror have been known to the police for drug crime. Does anyone else know any previous instance of those particular circumstances?
Well why don't they publish his name??? What's the chance of it being Mohammed???



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Iscool

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
The police say the driver is known to them for drug offences. I can't say wether or not any perpetrators of Islamic terror have been known to the police for drug crime. Does anyone else know any previous instance of those particular circumstances?
Well why don't they publish his name??? What's the chance of it being Mohammed???

Since he seems to be a schitzophrenic, and heard voices prior to the attack, what does it matter?



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: eNumbra

Are you seriously suggesting that the media are telling the truth? Deary me.

If it is just a “mental case”, they should have no problem telling us his name and showing his face. Just like after Jo Cox was murdered, or the incident at the mosque in Finsbury Park; when the media were gleeful to show the face of an evil white man just as soon as they could find a picture.
edit on 11-11-2017 by Br34kingp01nt because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
I don't dispute that possibility. My question was wether or not anyone was aware of an Islamic terrorist having a prior record of drug offences.

a reply to: Iscool



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: fernalley
a reply to: Br34kingp01nt

Yet Canada passed a motion against Islamophobia


Canada’s parliament has approved M-103, a non-biding motion that calls on the government to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination,”


globalnews.ca...

When it becomes a bill we will have a shiney new blasphemy law. Since our gov is set to welcome 1 million new Canadians by 2020 we must stifle any dissent.



That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Are they also planning to pass a motion condemning agoraphobia or arachnophobia? Condemning a fear will not invalidate it or make it not exist.



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: sunkuong


No, it doesn't, at least not IMO. A given population sample is representative of the individuals making up that sample. Therefore, scaling up that sample is totally valid.

Let's assume for one second that your correct though, and I'm totally wrong.

Regardless:

Canada has 1/10th our population but ONLY 1/2 the total murders.

Furthermore, education/culture/politics clearly doesn't play a role in reducing murder - otherwise Canada's extremely small population (by comparison) would have a much smaller murder rate.

Weird also that London, ON was known as the "serial killer capital of the world"
www.theguardian.com...

And if supporting the Constitution VERBATIM makes me a radical, then I'm the biggest and more prolific radical in existence.
edit on 11/11/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Br34kingp01nt
a reply to: eNumbra

Are you seriously suggesting that the media are telling the truth? Deary me.

If it is just a “mental case”, they should have no problem telling us his name and showing his face. Just like after Jo Cox was murdered, or the incident at the mosque in Finsbury Park; when the media were gleeful to show the face of an evil white man just as soon as they could find a picture.

If you believe nothing in the media is true you’re just as ignorant as if you believed everything in the media is true.

The media is a mix of both truths and falsehood and happily plays on the bigoted mindsets of some who can’t be bothered with facts and just run with whatever their emotions tell them is true.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

I could be wrong but I believe you are confusing murder rate for total number of murders.

Total number will increase with population. Murder rate is a bit trickier and doesn't increase, at least not linearly.




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join