segnosaur

Yes I do think this will become more apparent and I certainly think I have enough to begin discussing it. The association between mental illness and gun violence is patently clearer with each and every incidence of mentally incompetent people taking up firearms. Ok, lets see... First of all, you have at no point actually offered any useful statistics at all showing the risk. None. Nada. zip. Zilch. And with millions of gun owners and millions of elderly people, if there were a significant risk the data should be available now, without "waiting for the evidence". Secondly, you pointed to "each and every incidence"... Umm... you know you know pointing to individual cases is basically relying on anecdotes, don't you? And as I've said before, the plural of anecdotes is not 'data'. Now, since you seem to be incapable of actually discussing real statistics, let me do the honors: - According to the CDC, guns are used in approximately 50-80% of adult suicides, depending on the age group. In the case of men, the suicide rate rate peaks in their 70s, and in women in their 60s, and then decrease as the average age increases - Most cases of alzheimer's don't manifest themselves until the person is in their 80s. Other causes of senile dementia don't show up until about the same time (statistics suggest an age range of 71-77 years.). So, if diseases like Alzheimer's are making people "dangerous", then why isn't the portion of firearms-related suicide increasing as more people loose their mental faculties? Instead, the incidents decreases. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Suicides_by_firearm_1999-2005.png and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alzheimer%27s_disease) Here's something else to consider: - For people in their mid-teens to early 40s, the percentage of people killed through accidental discharge of firearms is over 1% (compared to all other causes). For people in their mid-70s and above (you know, when they're most likely to get affected by diseases such as Alzheimer's) the percentage drops to less than 0.2%. Oh, and I should add... the number of people killed by Alzheimer's in the 85 year+ age range is 41 times higher than those killed by firearms. (See: http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html; note that this is not a mainstream source, but the data comes from government statistics.) And just in case you're thinking "Well, its just because older people have fewer guns", that might not be the case... In the 2004 firearms survey, 27% of all seniors owned firearms; This was actually higher than the percentage of 25-44 year olds who owned a firearm. So more seniors owned firearms, but were causing fewer accidental deaths with those guns. (See: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/1/15/T1.expansion.html) Granted, I don't yet have statistics on crime used against others, but so far it looks like a firearm may actually be less likely to result in death than middle age or younger adults.

We register our cars because we tend to operate them on public motorways, where they will be interacting with other people. As such, controlling them properly (and ensuring they are in acceptable condition) is necessary. We register marriages because it is necessary to legally state personal relationships for things like tax purposes, estate planning, etc., all of which affect society at large. On the other hand, a rifle owned by a civilian is unlikely to ever be used on municipal property. (It will likely only be used on the owners property, or on shooting ranges or other private locations. Assuming it gets used at all; many firearms sit unused in closets for decades without ever being fired.) And the other hand, I'd also like to point out that no, we don't "register everything else". I don't have to register who I'm dating (if I'm not marrying them), what type of TV I own, or the type of food I eat. We register things when the possession/use of the item is likely to affect other people or society in general.

It's good to see someone is giving some thought to the issue. Yeah, unfortunately some people react to the issue by A: Confusing anecdotes for actual statistics, B: Misusing facts, and C: mistakenly accepting their opinions as truths grounded in hard data. Kind of like the person who's claiming that an increasing number of elderly people will lead to our old age homes being a shooting gallery, without providing any sort of real statistics to back up that claim. And the people who fought for prohibition in the U.S. pre-1919 probably also had an uphill battle. However, at some point people realized that it was a dumb idea. The point is, just because something is an 'uphill battle', does not mean that the goal (whether it is prohibition or elimination of private ownership/storage of firearms) is something that is worth following through on. No, I cited it as an example of a caregiver at their wits or perhaps financial end. Except that was not the claim that you had originally been making. Back in post 212/222, you had warned about the dangers of the "demented taking up arms". The issue of domestic violence is a different issue. And, it should be noted, this is still just a single case/anecdote. I'm still waiting to see some statistics that show: - Those suffering from senile dementia are more likely to engage in shooting deaths than younger gun owners - Domestic shooting deaths become more common as gun owners age Probably just a small one right now. As it grows with it's incidence it'll just be one more reason to argue for better gun control. I see... you think the evidence will be apparent? You probably think the proportion is small? Those are not the words of a person who actually, you know, has evidence. Here's a little hint... if there really was a real risk, you would not need to "wait for the evidence"... we already have millions of gun owners in North America, and millions of elderly people. All you would have to do is look at the respective rates of gun crimes among elderly and non-elderly people to determine what the future risk will be. The fact that you have not done so suggests that either you are a very poor researcher, or the data (and therefor the risks) do not exist. Ummm... "pretty clear"? You still haven't given any real statistics. How about telling us what percentage of 20-40 year olds use firearms in the commission of crimes and what percentage of 70+ year olds use firearms to commit crimes. Or how about telling us what portion of fire-arm owning care givers engage in murder/suicide, as opposed to non-firearm owning individuals, in both elderly and non-elderly populations? And I find it telling that you would use the phrase "the more I look into this..." You have been calling for "real gun control" for a while, yet the fact that you are changing the reason (i.e. gone from having the demented person themselves be the risk, to the care giver) suggests that you had a pre-existing opinion, and you are desperately searching for a justification to maintain that opinion. Numbers which, even if they were accurate, are not necessarily irrelevant. If an elderly person is less likely than (for example) a 20 year old to use a firearm in a violent situation, then an increase in the number of elderly gun owners is less of a concern. Still waiting for statistics backing up the "association between (senior) dementia and murder/suicide".

Thats like saying.....oh I dunno.....pens cause spelling mistakes . Ummm... the letter that was quoted gave specific reasons why the author felt that it "places lives at risk"... For example, from the letter: The gun registry offers a false sense of security....The gun registry is eating up resources that the RCMP and every other municipal or first nation force desperately need. Do you have any specific counter arguments to those particular claims? Or is your only way to debate the issue is to dismiss it with inaccurate analogies?

You mean, this really isn't a no-brainer? Well, obviously it must be more than just a no-brainer, since you haven't actually, you know, provided proof that people with senile dementia provide a substantially elevated risk for gun violence. You have pointed to articles that talk about the difficulty of removing guns from the homes of such people (a reasonable action), but nothing about just how much "added risk" is caused by elderly people loosing control of mental faculties. The first article talks about the number of guns in the homes of elderly people, and gives guidelines on how to get them to give up their firearms. Nowhere does it give any sort of statistics giving increased risk. The second article talks about how, in the U.S., people who are suffering from Senile Dementia can have a conservator appointed, who would have the right to remove firearms from the home. Personally, I think that's a much saner method than eliminating all private gun ownership and storage. Ummm.... according to that article, the person was responsible for the shooting was not the wife (the one suffering from Alzheimers), but the husband. There's nothing in the article to suggest the husband had lost any of his mental faculties. Yup. And how many of them are improperly using their firearms (causing death/injury)? What proportion of gun crimes are caused by people with senile dementia?

It has a reason to exist as long as it has a set of policies its supporters prefer over those of the Liberals (or other parties). And assuming that just because the NDP are gone that people would "gravitate to the Liberals" is probably incorrect. A large influx of far-left voters would probably cause the Liberal party to become further "left of center" than it already is, and any voters who were in the political center (who would also have been Liberal supporters) may decide to shift their vote to the conservatives. Frankly, the conservatives would probably love for the NDP to vanish; a 2-horse race would probably mean they'd gain power roughly half the time (rather than finding voters electing who they think is "right in the middle" most of the time.)

Ummm... just out of curiosity, what type of 'dementia' are you referring to? Are you referring to the loss of mental abilities in anyone, or are you specifically referring to those affected by aging? If you are referring specifically to those affected by aging, do you have any evidence that those affected by "senile dementia" (or things like Alzheimer's disease) are more likely to engage in shooting incidents than their unaffected peers? And if you're referring to the entire population of dementia sufferers, won't the population of 'younger' suffers grow along with the population (so that we won't necessarily see an increase in the per capita murder rate)?

The Liberals were already the leading party in Urban Toronto (and had parts of Urban Ottawa as well). Many of the other ridings are either strongly held by the NDP, or have a strong rural component. (If anything, I'd have to say the conservatives are more likely to pick up some of those seats than the Liberals.) But as I pointed out before, if Dion (a Quebecer) didn't do that well in Quebec, why do you expect Ignatief to? And keep in mind that at least some polls show the Liberals trailing the Bloc, the Conservatives, and even the NDP in Quebec. http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/12/30/poll-puts-liberals-fourth-in-quebec/

Yes and we all remember what happened to the Conservatives when people finally figured things out. Yeah, they won a second majority.

the dumbness is yours alone I deliberately pointed out it was my experience/anecdotal... Which is the point... Its your experience, but there is no guarantee that it is a universal truth. Irrelevant cherry picked data. We also have anecdotes that "homeopathy" (a sham medical treatment) cures illness (it doesn't... its just water). We also have anecdotes that "Psychic X predicted the future" (they don't... its just a technique called cold reading). We also have anecdotes about the "power of prayer" (no more effective than placebos). That's why scientists perform proper studies. That's why we gather statistics. That's why we try to eliminate variables. And that's why your claim of "stupid people vote conservative" is nothing more than a politically charged "no true scottsman" fallacy.

Yup, the Bloc nullifies Quebec. For the most part, yes. But like I said, there is the possibility to pick up a couple of seats. (Not that I expect the conservatives to sweep the province, but remember, they only need to pick up about a dozen or so seats nationally to win a majority.) At the very least they probably won't loose any. Your right, they do... that's why I will not make any election predictions myself. Which of course is not exactly relevant. PMs call elections when they think they can win (or, rarely, when they have no other choice.) Doesn't necessarily mean that either the government or opposition can gain or loose support. Poll numbers might disagree: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bus-tour-boosts-liberal-support-but-not-ignatieffs-poll-suggests/article1687676/ Michael Ignatieff's summer-long, cross-country bus tour has given a modest boost to Liberal fortunes but done little to improve the Opposition Leader's popularity, a new poll suggests. The Harris-Decima survey conducted for The Canadian Press indicates the Liberals have climbed to 30 per cent support...However, 54 per cent of respondents still registered an unfavourable view of Mr. Ignatieff, compared to only 29 per cent who had a positive view of the leader. Sorry, guess we have a difference of opinion about how to define "problem with english". But then, where exactly do you think the Liberals will pick up seats? You agree that the West wasn't going to vote Liberal regardless. We've pretty much agreed that Quebec is Bloc Territory. They're already the leading party in Ontario. (No real room for growth there). They're also strong in atlantic Canada. I don't really see that much opportunity for growth. On the other hand, there are places the Conservatives can pick away at the Liberals/NDP.

I'm 99% sure what you heard was Nik Nanos. Actually, that sounds very familiar and I think you're right. Dion may have been portrayed as "incompetent", but remember that he was from Quebec, and la Belle province does seem to have a habit of "supporting its own". Granted, the majority of seats are still going to go to the Bloc (so we may only be talking about a couple of seats here and there.) Yes he is. However, when the Liberals had their recent bus tour, Ignatieff's popularity didn't necessarily increase (even though the Liberal party as a whole did.) Granted, this might change if it were an election and he got more media attention, but there's no guarantee of that. And even if he can "speak English", that probably won't help him out west (where the Liberals were on the "wrong side" of the gun registry debate.) And in Ontario, I don't think a speaker's native language has had that much impact historically.

And here's where the irony sets in... You spend all this time talking about "smart" and "dumb" people, then you go ahead and exhibit the biggest example of 'dumbness' by pointing your "lifetime of experience". Its the type of backward thinking that keeps sham psychics and quack medical claims going. Perhaps a quote that you should pay more attention to is "The Plural of Anecdotes is not data". The fact that you yourself may have found that "dumb" people are conservative "in your experience" is irrelevant. Ever consider that perhaps you simply may not have encountered a wide enough variety of people both dumb and smart? Or that your particular experiences are an outlier? There are ~30 million people in Canada, and billions of people world wide; do you really think you've encountered enough of them to make a proper determination to characterize how dumb or smart people vote? The statistics I provided (re: the 2004 U.S. election) may not have been perfect, but the random nature and wide spread distribution of poll respondents makes it a lot more convincing than something based on "your experience". Frankly, I think all this is basically you using the "No true Scotsman" fallacy... i.e. because you have a pre-disposition to support the political left, you will automatically characterize anyone who supports conservative causes as "dumb" regardless of how smart they really are.

Actually, I remember listening to a radio interview of a Pollster who pointed out that the Conservatives could win a majority, if they are able to "regionalize" the election. (i.e. play up election issues that are important on a province by province basis, rather than trying to deal with issues that are national in scope.) In places like the west, that would mean playing up the gun registry (in particular targeting the ridings held by the NDP; there are several rural/small town ridings that the conservatives could indeed pick up). In Ontario, it would involve highlighting Canada's financial success when compared to the U.S. and other countries. In the east, they could highlight increased revenue from oil projects. (Granted, that has more to do with increases in the price of oil, but it still may be effective.) Unfortunately since this was a radio interview, I don't have direct references. (And since I was in my car at the time, I didn't have the ability to write down the pollster's name.) And I certainly don't think its a guaranteed win. (I'm just repeating the arguments that were made; they seemed reasonable.)

Problem is, that's not necessarily a very accurate statement. I don't have any figures for Canada, but in the United States 2004 presidential election, while Kerry did get more support among people who had post-graduate degrees, Bush ended up with more support among those who were collage graduates. In addition, Kerry had slightly more support among those that actually did not complete high school. And it should be noted that in every educational level, neither Candidate got less than 40% of the vote. (So you can't necessarily say "all people voted a particular way".) Granted, having a degree does not make someone automatically "smart", and a high school drop-out isn't necessarily "dumb", but it provides at least a little guidance. (e.g. I suspect the "average" holder of a degree will be smarter than the "average" high school drop out.) But I think its fair to say that "intelligence" doesn't necessarily have a strong relationship with voting patterns. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

I've defended Harper and the conservatives a lot on this board, but I have to admit, I don't think the Tories have that much to do with Canada's weathering the current global financial problems. After all, many of the financial regulations that kept us from the meltdown that the U.S. experienced predated Harper's government. Combine that with the fact that Canada has substantial natural resources (such as oil) and it would be hard not to be successful.

Except when they are? From the link..."The three-justice appeal panel overturned that ruling, saying that both Parliament and the Supreme Court have been very clear that spending limits are the primary tool used to promote Canada's "egalitarian model of elections." Also from the link: Heather MacIvor, a political scientist at the University of Windsor who studies election financing law, said the Tories will have a strong case for appeal. Of course, that is just one "opinion". But the individual does seem to have the expertise to know what she's talking about. Then there's also this: Last January, a lower court accepted the Conservative GST argument...That judgment centred on the application of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles to the campaign books of political parties. So it looks like the conservatives were following accounting principles that would normally be quite acceptable.

but they do, israeli apologist. even though you will not be able to show to everyone when the last rocket was fired... How about December 20th (i.e. today)... From: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hGJKxt-5qoxruSDH3T7mBc95iTsQ?docId=CNG.ee25ddd77a084f6010da206b06b2fe81.7b1 ...Palestinian militants fired nine mortar shells into southern Israel on Monday ... Ok, technically it was a mortar attack rather than a rocket attack. Still a pretty nasty thing to do.

Good catch! Well, it was either that, or the Harry Potter Vibrating broomstick... Broomstick (Ok, well, maybe the Salvation Army was right in not distributing a toy which was supposed to vibrate while wedged into the nether regions of children.)

Maybe we should take up a collection to donate a bunch of "Dora the Explorer Aqua Pet" toys to the salvation army. (Google it... trust me on this.)

The best leaders are always polarising. Funny, he's still chosen as the best PM in Canadian history. Ummm... reference? Chosen by who? And how? And what portion of the 'vote' did he get? I rather suspect that it was less than 50%. Being loved by a minority of people (especially when just as many hate you) isn't as significant as having some people love you, and others be "ok". If he's causing such widespread hatred, perhaps there may be a reason for that. And if you think "the best leaders are always polarizing", then you must have considered George W. Bush to be one of the greatest leaders of all time, considering the polarized nature of U.S. politics in the 2004 election. Sometimes leaders polarize the population because they're not very good, yet manage to maintain a certain level of approval from select supporters. Oh, and by the way, something else to keep in mind: I doubt many people are that familiar with Canada's history for the first few decades. Thus, the 'pool' of people from which people would choose the "best" prime minister is pretty darn small... Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien, and Harper. Everyone else either didn't last long enough to make an impact (e.g. Clark, Martin) or was P.M. too long ago for anyone to really remember (e.g. Pearson, King, etc.)

Actually, there are a lot of secular and/or atheist organizations that engage in charitable work. Just a couple of minutes on google found: - Fellowship of Freethought (humanist organization in the U.S., runs programs to help the homeless as well as community cleanup) See: http://fellowshipoffreethought.org/outreach.html - International Humanist and Ethical Union (stands up for things like Human Rights in the world) - American Humanist Association runs multiple programs (including earthquake relief in Haiti and flood relief in Pakistan) See: http://www.humanistcharities.org/ Perhaps the reason you don't see more 'atheist' charities is because A: There are unfortunately fewer atheists than religious believers in North America, and B: atheists are quite happy donating to "secular" organizations (ones that neither promote nor criticize religion), such as various medical causes, the Red Cross, or The Nature Conservancy.

Not really. The concept of "right and wrong" (that theft, murder, and other victim-oriented actions) should be basic concepts that get instilled in a child from a young age. The decision to smoke however is something that is a bit more complex. It involves the recognition of long-term health risks that may or may not be apparent to someone under the age of majority. What are you suggesting... that we set some magical age, under which a child has no rights and responsibilities (murder, mayhem, anything goes!!!!) and above that age they are fully adult? I see... and did those "experts" that you know actually talk to Kadhr themselves? Or is it a case of "diagnosis via media reports"? Oh, and did it ever occur to you that, given your, ahem, political stances, that your particular circle of acquaintiences may contain people that share your same beliefs? Its a little like talking to union members about labor policies, or the KKK about race relations. Ummm.. first of all, the Taliban was never recognized as the government of Afghanistan by the USA, Canada, or even the UN. (Only Pakistan, the UAE and Saudi Arabia recognized them.) Secondly, the Taliban was overthrown in late 2001... Khadr was not captured until the summer of 2002, long after a new provisional government (recognized by pretty much everyone) was in place. The fact that the Taliban once ruled Afghanistan doesn't necessarily mean that people representing the Taliban should automatically be assumed to be following government orders. It would be like a neo-Nazi in Germany claiming that he is fighting for the government even though the "government" they represent has been out of power for decades. So, by your definition, I can go kill people, and claim I'm a member of the official armed forces of Segnosauria.

Pretty much every modern society has different "ages" when certain rights and obligations are granted... under (I think) 8 and you can't be charged with a crime at all. Over 18 you can be charged as an adult. Legal drinking age is 18 or 19 (depending on province). Age of consent is 16. There is no magic age after which an individual suddenly becomes "responsible" in all things, whereas one day earlier they were considered "not responsible". I don't think its that inconceivable for a teenager to understand "killing=wrong", even if they're not mature enough to make informed decisions in other areas of their lives. Now, whether Khadr was mature enough to actually make that distinction is something I don't really know; however, simply slapping the label "child soldier" on him and absolving him of all guilt may not necessarily be the answer either. and of those many people how many are qualified to make that judgment? extremely few... And are you qualified to judge Kadhr to be "too immature" to accept his actions? Have you actually spoken personally with Kadhr, and do you have an advanced degree in psychology or related field to make the assumption that he isn't old enough? You're right in the fact that probably few people here are qualified to make that determination. But judges do grant "emancipated minor" status to teenagers under 18, and get juveniles transferred to "adult court". This is done on a case by case basis. about 8,000 non us citizens join the US forces every year including canadians, I went to school with one who joined to go the Viet Nam war...you want to play by two sets of rules... Ummmm... go back and read my earlier posting... I specifically stated that the Kadhr was not fighting on behalf of a recognized Afghan government. Those foreigners that were fighting in Vietnam were fighting under the guidance, and while wearing the uniform, of the U.S. army. Kadhr was not fighting "for" the Afghan government; I rather suspect the recognized government probably didn't want him and his group there.

And its also possible that Ted Bundy wouldn't have grown up to be a serial killer had he had a more stable home life. Yes, Khadr had a very poor upbringing. His family is directly responsible for his situation. But somewhere along the line we have to make a decision: is an individual mature enough at this point in his life to make a rational decision. Kadhr spent a lot of time being indoctrinated into a "terrorist mindset" (for lack of a better word); however, he also spent time in Canada, getting exposed to western culture.