Republicans Seek To Criminalize Post Rape Abortion

[Canuckistani]

Ok, but 900 Americans died with the help of a gun in the three week period following the Newtown massacre. You claimed that, on average, two thirds of gun deaths are the result of suicide. Taking your word for that value still leaves 300 gun murders in a three week period.

I guess I'm wondering why you are bickering over the exact number when by your own math the US has a gruesome gun and murder problem that has to be dealt with. A problem that is not shared by other similarly developed nations.

Man, things are getting twisted here. According to Slate, 1200 people died with the help of a gun, and they acknowledge that's not a comprehensive list. The 900 figure is the average of 30 gun homicides a day.

[Guest American Woman]

Ok, but 900 Americans died with the help of a gun in the three week period following the Newtown massacre. You claimed that, on average, two thirds of gun deaths are the result of suicide. Taking your word for that value still leaves 300 gun murders in a three week period.

Yes, it does - which is a vast improvement over average statistics - as I've pointed out.

I guess I'm wondering why you are bickering over the exact number

I'm not bickering over the exact number - I'm pointing out that WWWTT made a false statement. Do you think that's ok? That making false statements is fine? Are you defending that?

I guess I'm wondering why you're bickering with me for pointing out that WWWTT's claim is not true.

But if you think it's about "exact numbers" and you don't think a misrepresentation by 2/3 is that big a deal, and I inflate Canada's homicide rate by that much - and then accuse you of "bickering over the exact number?"

when by your own math the US has a gruesome gun and murder problem that has to be dealt with. A problem that is not shared by other similarly developed nations.

We have a criminal element that has to be dealt with. As I have pointed out time and again, Canada's gun laws would not have prevented the Conn. school shooting. Lanza broke the law. Several laws. As I have also pointed out time and again, banning automatic weapons would not prevent such shootings from happening - proof: the Montreal shootings where the weapon of choice was a Ruger mini-14 (which isn't banned nor even restricted in Canada).

I'm not looking for a 'feel good' solution - because that isn't a "solution" at all. Perhaps banning automatic weapons would make you feel better, but it would do nothing to convince me that this type of thing can't/won't still happen. I have absolutely no reason to believe that it would make any difference at all.

And again, for the record, the U.S. isn't synonymous with "similarly developed nations;" it's the U.S. And for the record, there is no comparable "similarly developed nation."

[Guest American Woman]

Sorry, no. Gun homicides in the US are 11,000 a year = 30 a day. Total gun deaths are 30,000 a year = 82 a day. The latter, of course includes all those 4 yr olds accidentally shooting themselves or somebody else (as you will see in the Slate graphic.)

Try to comprehend this: The stats that WWWTT was quoting were total gun deaths since the Connecticut shooting. It was a specific number, for a specific period of time, involving specific deaths - those that occurred in the days following the Connecticut school shooting.

[Guest American Woman]

Man, things are getting twisted here. According to Slate, 1200 people died with the help of a gun, and they acknowledge that's not a comprehensive list. The 900 figure is the average of 30 gun homicides a day.

o.m.g. Slate updated the number. It said "900 gun deaths" on the day that WWWTT made his claim that the 900 were all 'murders." If you still don't get that, I have to wonder why ....

[Mighty AC]

I'm not bickering over the exact number - I'm pointing out that WWWTT made a false statement. Do you think that's ok? That making false statements is fine? Are you defending that?[/Quote]You pointed out the false statement elsewhere and then continued to harp on that in this completely unrelated thread. You are not simply trying to correct a false statement at this point.

We have a criminal element that has to be dealt with. As I have pointed out time and again, Canada's gun laws would not have prevented the Conn. school shooting.[/Quote]No law completely prevents a crime. However, countries with more sensible gun laws also have much lower murder rates. That suggests that gun laws effectively curb gun crime, even if they do not prevent it.

I'm interested in your idea that Americans are just more apt to be criminals though. In your opinion why are Americans far more likely to become murderers than citizens of the rest of the developed world?

[Canuckistani]

o.m.g. Slate updated the number. It said "900 gun deaths" on the day that WWWTT made his claim that the 900 were all 'murders." If you still don't get that, I have to wonder why ....

And I have to wonder why you want to pick nits once again. On average, 900 is the number of gun murders in a month. To try to claim as you did, that it's less for January (from non-authoritative figures) and this shows gun deaths are declining is just nuts. As usual you invert the telescope because looking thru the the proper end is just too uncomfortable for you.

[Guest American Woman]

You pointed out the false statement elsewhere and then continued to harp on that in this completely unrelated thread. You are not simply trying to correct a false statement at this point.

I'm responding to your posts. I'm correcting you and others who keep insisting that the number says something other than what it does.

No law completely prevents a crime. However, countries with more sensible gun laws also have much lower murder rates. That suggests that gun laws effectively curb gun crime, even if they do not prevent it.

It suggests nothing of the sort. What a simplistic view, looking only at gun laws. You think that's the only difference between the U.S. and these other countries?

And as I said, and I repeat again, Lanza broke gun laws. The same number of deaths can occur with a semi-automatic.

I'm interested in your idea that Americans are just more apt to be criminals though. In your opinion why are Americans far more likely to become murderers than citizens of the rest of the developed world?

In your opinion, why are Torontonians more apt to be criminals and far more likely to become murderers than the residents of my small city?

[Guest American Woman]

And I have to wonder why you want to pick nits once again. On average, 900 is the number of gun murders in a month. To try to claim as you did, that it's less for January (from non-authoritative figures) and this shows gun deaths are declining is just nuts. As usual you invert the telescope because looking thru the the proper end is just too uncomfortable for you.

Good Lord. Thanks for letting me know that you equate "presenting issues factually" with "nit picking." Tells me all I need to know, so do carry on, but I'm not interested in 'discussion' with someone who isn't concerned with things being presented factually.

Edited January 29, 2013 by American Woman

[Mighty AC]

I'm responding to your posts. I'm correcting you and others who keep insisting that the number says something other than what it does.[/Quote] No, guns were not mentioned in this thread until you brought up the subject.

It suggests nothing of the sort. What a simplistic view, looking only at gun laws. You think that's the only difference between the U.S. and these other countries?

And as I said, and I repeat again, Lanza broke gun laws. The same number of deaths can occur with a semi-automatic.[/Quote]Canada and the US have the same movies, same TV shows and same video games. The most notable difference is our gun laws. Like I said, guns laws do not completely eliminate gun crime here, but we have significantly less of it.

In your opinion, why are Torontonians more apt to be criminals and far more likely to become murderers than the residents of my small city?

Hey, it was your idea that guns aren't the problem, Americans just become criminals and kill. So I thought you might be able to expand on that idea.

I don't know where you live, but on a per capita basis Toronto probably does have a lower murder rate. Let's compare Toronto (1.5 homicides per 100,000) to similar sized cities like Chicago (15.2 per 100,000) or even much smaller cities like Detroit (48.2 per 100,000). Winnipeg leads the league in homicide rate in Canada and it comes in at 5.1 per 100,000.

So when comparing two similarly developed countries, with the same violent media, why does the one with gun laws have a much lower murder rate than the one without? You suggest it's not the gun laws...so what is it?

http://en.wikipedia....rime_in_Chicago

http://en.wikipedia....rime_in_Detroit

http://www.thestar.c...micide-reported

[Canuckistani]

For a while, Abbotsford was the murder capital of Canada. Population 170,000.

[Guest American Woman]

No, guns were not mentioned in this thread until you brought up the subject.

And people kept responding - hence I kept responding - to point out the facts. Just as I said.

Canada and the US have the same movies, same TV shows and same video games. The most notable difference is our gun laws.

I would say the most notable difference is our population - almost ten times greater yours. Another notable difference is that you only have one country bordering yours. Another notable difference is the variance in geographical features. Another notable difference is the dispersion of our population. To name but a few.

Like I said, guns laws do not completely eliminate gun crime here, but we have significantly less of it.

And my small city has significantly less gun crime than Toronto does, in spite of Toronto's stricter gun laws.

Hey, it was your idea that guns aren't the problem, Americans just become criminals and kill. So I thought you might be able to expand on that idea.

That's not what I said at all.

I don't know where you live, but on a per capita basis Toronto probably does have a lower murder rate. Let's compare Toronto (1.5 homicides per 100,000) to similar sized cities like Chicago (15.2 per 100,000)

No, let's not. Let's compare it to my small town, where the murder rate is basically 0. But since you mentioned Chicago, are you unaware that Chicago already has strict gun laws?

So when comparing two similarly developed countries, with the same violent media, why does the one with gun laws have a much lower murder rate than the one without? You suggest it's not the gun laws...so what is it?

When comparing two cities from similarly developed countries - mine and Toronto - and any number of small cities in the U.S. (and let's compare them to Vancouver and Winnipeg while we're at it) - why do the small U.S. cities have a much lower murder rate than the ones in Canada with stricter gun laws? And why do some Canadian cities have notably higher murder rates than others? They are all bound by the same gun laws, after all; so if gun laws are the main determinant for murder rates, shouldn't all Canadian cities have very similar murder rates? Yet they don't. How do you explain that?

[Mighty AC]

When comparing two cities from similarly developed countries - mine and Toronto - and any number of small cities in the U.S. (and let's compare them to Vancouver and Winnipeg while we're at it) - why do the small U.S. cities have a much lower murder rate than the ones in Canada with stricter gun laws?

Can you show me the murder stats for, or the names of, the small US cities you're referring to? If you are arguing that population is the issue, why do Cities like Toronto, Chicago, Vancouver, and NY have lower murder rates than Detroit, Oakland, St. Louis or Cincinati? Your argument that the population Can-US population difference is the cause doesn't hold water.

And why do some Canadian cities have notably higher murder rates than others? They are all bound by the same gun laws, after all; so if gun laws are the main determinant for murder rates, shouldn't all Canadian cities have very similar murder rates? Yet they don't. How do you explain that?

Why do you believe that a law would be equally adhered to across an entire nation in a given year? That idea is absurd. Obviously murder rates will vary over time and by location. However, that being said murder rates in Canadian cities do stay close to the avg of the 10 largest cities which is 2.32 per 100,000. That's a rate the US would kill for.

[Guest American Woman]

Can you show me the murder stats for, or the names of, the small US cities you're referring to? If you are arguing that population is the issue, why do Cities like Toronto, Chicago, Vancouver, and NY have lower murder rates than Detroit, Oakland, St. Louis or Cincinati? Your argument that the population Can-US population difference is the cause doesn't hold water.

It holds as much water as your argument does. I can name any number of small U.S. cities that have much lower murder stats per capita than Canada's large cities. I could name, as well, many small Canadian cities that have much lower murder stats per capita than Canada's large cities. Yet all of Canada's cities are bound by the same gun laws. So why is it that the larger cities tend to have higher average per capita murder rates than by far most small cities?

Why do you believe that a law would be equally adhered to across an entire nation in a given year?

I don't. However, you seem to believe that a law would be equally adhered to in an entirely different nation; you seem to believe that gun laws are the greatest determinant of murder stats. So I'm asking you to explain it. Which, evidently, you can't.

That idea is absurd. Obviously murder rates will vary over time and by location. However, that being said murder rates in Canadian cities do stay close to the avg of the 10 largest cities which is 2.32 per 100,000. That's a rate the US would kill for.

I'm not so much interested in overall averages across the nation which is why I singled out specific comparisons to point out that even within nations there are great variances - which means there are factors other than gun laws at play.

But ponder this - Canada's murder rate went up 7% in 2011 - as the number of killings committed with a firearm had dropped to its lowest level in almost 50 years.

It's not all about guns. And one doesn't need a gun to kill. And one doesn't need an automatic weapon to cause a lot of deaths.

I've asked you to explain how stricter gun laws would make a difference in the U.S., how it would prevent mass shootings/lessen the occurrence, and you can't seem to do that. I've pointed out that Lanza broke several gun laws and that one can kill many people with a Ruger min-14 as with an automatic weapon. You just keep pointing to other nations, who are different in many ways from the U.S., as some sort of proof. Expecting the same laws to have he same results everywhere, even as they don't within one's own nation, is, to use your word, "absurd."

[WWWTT]

What does that have to do with anything? If something is living, the fact some people choose not to give it any rights is irrelevant. Stop ignoring science.

Man you like to prove your ignorance in spades don't you Shady!

I'm not going to continue to debate this with you if you do not understand that not all living things in our society are entitled to the same rights.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

No, it isn't. Murder is the unlawful taking of another's life. And it's against the law. Suicide is not.

Really. So we have someone who wants to die and makes that decision regarding their own life - and we have someone who doesn't want to die and someone takes their life. And you see them both of those situations as the same?

I find it totally disgusting how you are taking the fact that I pointed out that suicide isn't murder and turning it into a personal attack.

Fact is, suicide is not murder - and I'm sure Canada had it's share of suicides since the Connecticut school shooting, too. I dare say, in light of the fact that Canada's suicide rate is comparable to ours, that just as many Canadians took their lives during that same time period as did Americans. Where's your outrage? Your horror? Your deep sadness? I seem to have missed it, as I've seen you go on and on about gun deaths in America.

Better check your facts AW

When I last checked suicide is against the law.

Furthermore,when the death penalty existed in Canada,that was the max. penalty for suicide!

Suicide is also against the law in many other countries.

Murder is ending someones life!

How you justify that taking your own life somehow is not taking someones life is beyond me!

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

Better check your facts AW

When I last checked suicide is against the law.

Perhaps you haven't checked recently enough: Suicide is no longer a crime in Canada as it was removed from the Criminal Code of Canada in 1972 by the Parliament of Canada.

Murder is ending someones life!

As I already stated, murder is the unlawful killing of another person.

How you justify that taking your own life somehow is not taking someones life is beyond me!

I'm not "justifying" anything; I'm pointing out the fact that taking one's own life is not taking another person's life. Suicide is not "murder."

Have you never noticed that suicides aren't included in murder statistics? There's a reason for that ....

Edited January 29, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

hey thanks for correcting your earlier claims that Canada's suicide rate is higher...

I don't know what Canada's suicide rate is most recently, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt, saying that they are similar, even though from 1970 - 2007 Canada's suicide rate was consistently higher than the U.S.'s.

[guyser]

.

As I already stated, murder is the unlawful killing of another person.

It isn't .

Culpable homicide is murder

• 
  (a) where the person who causes the death of a human being
  

[Guest American Woman]

It isn't .

Culpable homicide is murder

• (a) where the person who causes the death of a human being
  

Yes, it is:

A person commits the crime of murder if with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of that person or of another person,or under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person other than himself, and thereby causes the death of another person.

http://definitions.u...l.com/m/murder/

Definition

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and nonnegligent manslaughter as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html

Edited January 30, 2013 by American Woman

[guyser]

[/indent]

Yes, it is:

Considering the references made were to Canada, then no it isnt.

[Guest American Woman]

Considering the references made were to Canada, then no it isnt.

Yes, it is. We went through this ridiculous song and dance regarding whether anyone is ever at home when a burglary occurs, too, and you were wrong - though you never acknowledged it. Obviously the reference to a "human" is to specify murder doesn't apply to 'animals;' murder is against the law, suicide isn't against the law, and suicide statistics are not included in murder statistics. And that all applies to Canada. At any rate, since these are gun death statistics in the U.S., and the FBI can comprehend that murder of a "human being" means another human being, and I'm guessing that the Canadian government has the same comprehension abilities since suicide is neither illegal nor considered in murder/homicide statistics, I'll let just let you and WWWTT carry on.

But for the record, here's the rest of your definition:

Culpable homicide is murder

(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being

(i) means to cause his death, or

(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;

(b ) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or

(c ) where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.

There's no mention of "self;" it reads "means to cause him bodily harm" ... not "himself bodily harm.

This lawyer seems to get it, too:

In Canada, charges relating to the death of another individual generally fall under three categories: murder, manslaughter, and criminal negligence causing death. The classification of an offence will largely depend on the intent and mindset of the accused.

http://www.accused.ca/murder.htm

-----------

How ridiculous is this??

...when the death penalty existed in Canada,that was the max. penalty for suicide!

So the penalty for someone who killed him/herself was death. Interesting to see how they carried that out. If you're referring to attempts that didn't work out, then the penalty would be what the person was going for in the first place. The state would carry it out for them. That would certainly be a deterrent.

[guyser]

Yes, it is. But for the record, here's the rest of your definition:

Nope sorry.

Two of three definitions posted shows a human being. Not another person and thats all I said. The reference was Canada.

Thats all.

[Guest American Woman]

Thats all.

Indeed.

It's so frustrating not to be able to discuss issues factually. When someone willfully chooses to misrepresent the situation, there's nothing left to be said. Such behavior from some doesn't surprise me at all, while from others, it leaves me rather speechless - but it sure helps explain why seemingly intelligent people can't even begin to get together on these issues - when the issues can't even be discussed factually.

Two of three definitions posted shows a human being. Not another person and thats all I said. The reference was Canada.

Obviously the reference to "human being" was another human being. As I said, the Canadian lawyer I quoted gets it. That you don't, is your problem - and doesn't change the facts at all. I will, however, if I ever get into a discussion with you about the murder rate in Canada, be sure to add Canada's suicides into the statistics; after all, that's the reality in Canada. I have it on the best authority.

[guyser]

.

It's so frustrating not to be able to discuss issues factually. When someone willfully chooses to misrepresent the situation, there's nothing left to be said.

Oh thats true ! ....cough cough.....

Obviously the reference to "human being" was another human being.

It was huh?

Well....here ya go....

'American Woman' ..

Posted Today, 01:15 PM

... try responding to what I say instead of making it about what you think I am trying to do.

[Guest American Woman]

I have no desire to do this with you, guyser - so I will just point out that the reference you quoted had nothing to do with what you said, but with what the site I quoted said. With that I m done. For good.