CdnFox

Nope. Which is why you couldn't come up with any .Shootings where somebody just goes out and starts shooting people, which is what most people think of when they're talking about mass shootings, are called 'rampage' shootings and represent only about 2% of the national databases mass shooting numbers Here's some actual research Comparison of rampage and non-rampage mass shootings in the U.S.: A 5-year demographic analysis - ScienceDirect And mass shootings only represent something like one percent of shooting deaths. So obviously people on guns for more than one reason, and seeing as yours is broken down by specific reason it's reasonable to assume that most of the rest are primarily for entertainment instead of hunting. I have no doubt that many people who own guns either for hunting or for entertainment also would say that they would use them for home defense should they need arise but that's not why they bought them. And? It's not even so much that I disagree with you, I mean obviously in Canada we have say storage laws and I generally approve of that. But the problem is that you're getting to this conclusion through just honesty. You haven't demonstrated that there is any such need, you've been slightly dishonest about the facts and figures that you've given to say that there's a problem, nor have you offered any indication as to how any changes would actually impact the bottom line. And the problem that gun owners in the states legitimately have is that they watch things like that and they think you've got motives that aren't being driven by logic or reason but rather by ideology. And they're not interested in your ideology. I wouldn't be either That's not actually irony. I believe that people should have the right to drive a car with the proper training and licensing, that doesn't mean that if I get run over tomorrow it's irony. People accept that with freedoms, certain level of risk. We could catch more bad guys if Cops were allowed to search us or listen to our conversations or walk into our house at any time without warrant. But there's problems with that. Freedom it means that there is a certain level of risk. They would be less car accidents if nobody was allowed to own a car and everybody was forced to take public transportation. But is that a world you want to live in. What comes next? Safe storage laws tend to prevent accidents, they don't actually do much for Crime. I still think they're worth it for that and don't see why guns shouldn't be locked up if they're not in use or in your possession. If you want to carry one for self-defense put it on your belt where you can get at it and deny it to others in a proper holster. But everybody knows that people like you and the democrats will never be satisfied with reasonable laws. You're not coming at this from a point of view of being fair and reasonable you just don't like guns. So why on earth would republicans in the states listen to democrats or come to the table to discuss these so-called reasonable regulations knowing damn well that they're just one step closer to losing their firearms?

The nuber of booze related deaths each year in the us is close to 200k Number of alcohol-related deaths in the united states - Google Search But the number of non suicide related gun deaths is only about 19000 according to copilot (16000 to 19000 specifically). Sooo based on your logic why are you not demanding that all booze be locked up when not in use? U one of those so-called "ass of the donkey" dudes when it comes to double stanards?

Pretty much all of that is untrue when you look at it. It's the kind of thing that people who want to hate guns but don't want to look into the issue state Mass shootings, being any shooting involving four or more people, have been going up mainly due to criminal violence. Gang members shooting gang members, that sort of thing. If you take the number of "crime-related" shootings out of the equations the US isn't actually that bad, and the increases are the same or lower than population growth. The problem isn't guns. The problem is there are a number of people usually with mental health issues who have decided it's okay for other people to get killed. They use guns in America because that's what gets the headlines, but lots of people don't use guns and some of the biggest mass killings around the world and America haven't involved any. What's the common denominator between the killings involving guns and the killings involving cars and the killings involving bombs? The killer. That's what needs to be focused on. And it's the citizens love of guns. The vast majority of guns are purchased either for hunting or other Wildlife Control or for fun. Only a small portion of guns are purchased for self protection and even then rarely out of fear. That's like saying that Automotive Insurance is bought by people that are afraid to drive. Maybe stop listening to anti-gun propaganda and actually learn about this stuff yourself a bit

LOL and not only can you not refute any of it, you're SOOOO butt hurt that all you have is to make fun of my nickname here LOL you are such a broken little man and obviously you know i' m right based on your response At least you didn't take the time to prove i'm right this time No the tax dollars are yours. The gov't does not "own" the taxes it collects, it's job it to manage them. Of course, i forgot for a moment you're an actual communist so i can see where you'd get confused LOL well you might want to save that criticism's for when you're right, and not wrong.

Which is what I've been saying all along. Glad you finally figured it out kiddo. That was pretty pathetic. you: " Y U NO UNDERSTAND PP CANT WIN NOT POPULAR!!!!" me: "Popularity is not deterministic, he can be unpopular and still win. That happens frequently." you " UHHH UHHH THAT"S WRONG BECAUSE POPULARITY ISN"T DETERMINISTIC YOU KNOW!!!!! DERP!" LOLOL. well. ya got me there kid Now that you've answered your own question with my answer, go try your math homework. Maybe you're on a roll LOL How popular or approved of that Poilievre is is not a tremendously relevant question. It's of interest and it's something that should be monitored but it is not deterministic when it comes to elections. There are other factors that are significantly more importance.

The problem is they don't. As noted in this one and has been commented before, all of the other studies are extremely unuseful. Very small subject groups over very small periods of time. You didn't read this did you. Let me guess, you figured it would say something you didn't want to hear so you ignored it in an effort to maintain your confirmation bias, and then accused others of confirmation bias .LOL seriously dude.

well, as i often said while being a world renowned neurosurgeon travelling the wilds of africa to save the rare and magestic fufu tribe from extinction by inventing the internet, Yes.

True. Also, HBO would like to talk to you about acquiring the rights to your diary.

Carney announces creation of Canada's first sovereign wealth fund | CBC News So here's the short version He's going to give $25 billion of your tax dollars into this fund. Then he's going to hope that other people like banks and so ones so forth and pension funds and individuals put money into their fund as well Then he will decide if a project, In his opinion, is in the national interest, whether it's windmills or a lesbian dance University or a battery Factory or A manufactured home facility owned by a Brookfield subsidy. if so he will 'invest' the money into that venture to make it "easier" for his buddies that private entity to proceed with that project, which means our money will fund projects that WOULD have been funded by the private sector entirely if only they got useless regulation and taxes out of the way in the first place This is basically a filter. This will guarantee that groups and projects he's not fond of don't happen while friendly organizations and projects he likes and can tap for money proceed

Two things can be true.

Except that i'm right Except as i pointed out, that's not what happened. Nor it it what happened for Carney either where many who said they approve of him didn't vote for him PP got 41.5 percent of the vote. I'm right, you're looking stupid again And yet they got about the same number of votes in the eleciton. HMMMMM,,,, so in other words popularity doesn't translate to votes! I wish i'd thought of that sooner. Oh ... wait..... So basically what you've proven is that despite the fact that Connie had a much higher approval rating than Poilievre, they got almost the same number of votes. Which is what I said. And once again, you up kept your long-standing tradition of taking the time to prove me right make yourself look like a complete ass clown LOL you're such a tard Favorability is an interesting indicator but in no way does it reflect the votes someone is going to get, or who's going to win. If it does it's more by accident and it's rare. Harper always had lower approval ratings than his results would indicate. LOL this would be more fun if you let ME beat you up instead of doing it yourself

"Why are we even talking about this" is a hugely popular tactic on the left and one of Mike's personal favorites.

That's because that was just a dream you had one night. He didn't show up when you were being chased by the swamp monster with a face like your mom either.

Thank god the gun hating democrats can't actually hit anything they shoot at If they ever actually learn how to use guns we might be in trouble

Which means absolutely nothing in reality with regards to the economy. Made up terms that people who don't understand the economy throw around. Essentially those tend to work out fine if the economy is strong, not the other way around. A strong economy allows people to focus on those things and provides enough forward momentum to overcome any drag those things tend to produce. In short, they're what you get to have when you HAVE a strong economy, not what GIVES you a strong economy.

That would be you. You're the 'usual suspect' who supports that liberal policy. Literally everything hinges on the economy. Our ability to deliver social programs hinges on the economy. Our ability to protect ourselves hinges on the economy. Our ability to attractive investment of developed or purchase better technology hinges on the economy. That affects every single thing from education to healthcare to the military Economics isn't just "not a trifling matter", it is the primary matter upon which all other things depend If you're okay with canceling all social services then we don't need to worry so much about the economy. People will fend for themselves. If you want to have social programs the economy matters a great deal. There's a ton of people in DC right now claiming that they're going to suffer horribly due to NDP cuts because the economy is so bad. That's what you get

You absolutely said that me personally and others like me were killing trans kids all the time. That is exactly what you said precisely. Now you're mad because you're getting called out for it and you know I'm right and you're angry You're the one with no credibility kid. Not one person here takes you seriously, as I have said to you before you the comic relief And I never troll. I'm just correcting the lies you've told in the past It is absolutely cruel to transition kids, in fact you called me a killer for pointing out. Transitioning is not always helpful and in fact frequently harmful and we have to remember that these are mental health issues and not just personality issues These things are true. The truth makes you angry. Sorry for your bad luck

Me: But yeah, he lost and he has to own that. You: SINGING HIS PRAISES!!!! SINGING HIS PRAISES!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE LOL do you actually sit there and TRY to find ways to look more stupid with each post?!?! I honestly don't know how you manage it Net approval rating has rarely mattered in elections. Harper frequently had a lower approval rating than his opponent. And again... he came within 1.5 percenf of carney or thereabout. So approval ratings aren't reflective of how people will vote. If they were it would have been a landslide majority. People don't need to LIKE him to ELECT him, and that has always been the case with Canada. Sorry your lack of education required me to explain that. Again, and pay attention this time... i'll go slow..... there's very little connection between approval rating and votes. Never has been. IF they're similar it's a total coincidence. almost 60 percent of people did not vote for carney. Yet his approval ratings were higher than that. Carney was at 48 percent approval yet he didn't get near that percentage of votes. Hmmm . I know math is hard for you, but surely even you can see that approval ratings don't translate directly into votes.

Yeah. Sadly our political leaders right now don't have "AI". Or any kind of "I". The only "I" they care about is " Me Myself and I"

The vast majority of homes being built and occupied now are apartments and townhouses and that's been true for many many years Dominance of Multi-Unit: Rental and condo apartments (multi-unit) have continued to lead new construction, often making up over 80% of all urban starts in major cities. Number of Condominiums built in Canada versus number of detached homes - Google Search As of a few years ago, multi unit housing grew to more than 50 percent of the occupied dwellings in Canada and that's increasing. And for the majority of people living in major metros that is ALL they can afford. Period. And most can't even afford that. Sooooo.... As usual you're completely out of touch. "That" market IS the majority of the market and growing, and you're still a lying tard.

Awww, Triggered leftie is triggered again

I love that this imaginary lead keeps getting bigger every time you guys lie about it LOL he never had a 30 point lead over ANYONE. He had about a 24 point lead over justin trudeau. And he never had a lead over carney once carney won the leadership. I'm sure next week it'll be "HE BLEW A 36 POINT LEAD OVER CARNEY!!! MAYBE 40!!!!!" LOL, hey kid, i've told you before if you have to lie to make you're point, you don't have a very good point There's no doubt that leaders are responsible for their campaigns, and the problem for PP is he got lazy in the last 6 months of 2024 and made it all about justin and all about the carbon tax. Then the libs used some dirty tricks and said 'justin's gone and the carbon tax is gone (sort of)" And PP had no plan for that and the libs won. But he didn't "blow" any leads Having said that, PP came within about 1.5 percent of Carney, and did better than any conservative (and almost all liberal) leaders going back to mulroney. But yeah, he lost and he has to own that.

I'm sorry but you did. I can understand you being embarrassed about it now but that doesn't change the fact. Not only that but you constantly say we're terrible people for not following the science. Well as we can see and as you were told the science tends to support us You literally said that me and people like me were killing trans kids. There was no misunderstanding, you said it several times. That I and people like me were literally killing trans people. Uh huh Sure sweetie. Well, considering you're the one that's having a problem with reality I'm afraid you'll have to tell us You: YOU"RE KILLING TRANS PEOPLE!!!! YOU AND YOUR KIND KILL THEM EVERY DAY!!! AHHAHH!!" me: No, in fact the experts say we shouldn't transition kids. And look, here's a study that shows it may actually make things worse. It's wrong to say I'm killing people. You: "REEEEEEEEEEE I NEVER SAID YOU WERE KILLING PEOPLE GOD WHAT A DRAMA QUEEEEEEEEEEN!!! DERP!" Lol! Ok there little girl, I think it's time for you to back off on the hormone treatments Experts around the world are recognizing that transitioning may cause more problems than it solves and should not be done with children. Now funny enough i spent time last night with some parents of a couple of kids i grew up with, one of which transitioned a number of years ago. THAT kid was a mess, constantly into massive troulbe, bipolar, constantly miserable and life was just not working as a girl, and there was serious gender dysphoria. They found a good psychiatrist and worked with some doctors and determined that trasitioning was the right thing and now his life is vastly improved and he's a functional and happy person They're still doing well after all this time so it worked for him So obviously, in conjunction with other treatments and counseling, it can be a solution for some people. But. we do it too much, too readily, and we should never be doing it for kids except in the most extreme or rare situations.

Which would still be better than yours, That's true of charities registered in canada. But international charities can be different And trustees are like executives, and most international charities are set up so that board members are trustees. "Yes, trustees of an international charity can be paid," And better yet, while board members they get listed as 'consultants' and paid for their 'services' and so on as well, and get paid that way. Even if they basically provide none, it's just a retiainer Not to mention the charity will often pay huge bucks for their 'speaking events'. And you forgot all the corporations while you're at it They get paid, kiddo, and they make a lot of money. There is ALWAYS a way with these people, hell carney made a living finding loopholes to help people avoid taxes in canada. Sorry kiddo, this stuff is WAY over your head and you're just not good at it. Sadly poverty is worth a lot of money.

Yeah, things are pretty good. Bullshit. You vote for the guys doing it. And you defend them here daily