• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster?

Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • Depends

    Votes: 11 12.9%
  • No

    Votes: 73 85.9%

  • Total voters
    85
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

So why not with the police who are offering that service?

Maybe in canada the pólice would give them back but I doubt they would in america.

Finders Keepers Losers Weepers
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

Well, for one, we can conclude that you don't understand statistics. Let's compare to the City of Dallas, which is about the same size as Calgary, if we're only including city limits. Dallas had 152 murders in 2012. Calgary had 20.

I am guessing that the City of Dallas is more violent then the suburb cities of Dallas which ever they are. It would be a better comparison to include the metro stats.

Overall though if I am not mistaken the gun death rate per 100 000 is approx. 5 times lower in Canada then the US
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

Well in the case of High River people were being evacuated and that is why the RCMP were going into people's homes, to find anyone who was still in their homes. They would also be under continuous armed watch so I'm sure they would be safe.

Why were the pólice searching peoples homes for weapons? I doubt they were out in the open, so searching had to be done.

Do you agree with the pólice searching your house after a natural disaster?
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

A small snub nose revolver? or small short pistol?

As for carrying it in your home, really? When watching tv, or going to get a drink from the fridge you carry your gun?

Why not? It isn't uncomfortable. Mine actually is so comfortable I just don't take it off when I get home.
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

Protect them from what? Every animal and every human was supposed to have drowned in that universal flood. Who was left to shoot?

Fish?
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

I am guessing that the City of Dallas is more violent then the suburb cities of Dallas which ever they are. It would be a better comparison to include the metro stats.

Overall though if I am not mistaken the gun death rate per 100 000 is approx. 5 times lower in Canada then the US

How can you compare murder rates of a country that has a population of a state within in the US? You don't think there wil be a lot of other factors involved?
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

Well, for one, we can conclude that you don't understand statistics. Let's compare to the City of Dallas, which is about the same size as Calgary, if we're only including city limits. Dallas had 152 murders in 2012. Calgary had 20.

OK, so that works out to about 15 per hundred thousand in Dallas, vs. 2 in Calgary. What is it I don't understand about statistics again?

And what can we conclude from the numbers?
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

OK, so that works out to about 15 per hundred thousand in Dallas, vs. 2 in Calgary. What is it I don't understand about statistics again?

And what can we conclude from the numbers?

My guess? Calgary has better public education, less gang violence, and probably less crime overall. Hell. Aren't drugs less of a problem in Canada?
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disa...

There are 30 million people there. Almost all of them are the same race...or close enough. Who the hell do you have to shoot?

You don't know much about Canada

The Vancouver region is heavily Chinese, Indian/Sikh. It has a nickname of Hongcover due to the number of Chinese there.

Calgary has 140 000 east and south east Asians, probably 100 000 south Asians, 10 000 east Africans

GTA (Toronto) has 500 000 Tamils, large numbers of Asian, Africans, etc.

Montreal has a large number of Hatians

Overall just under 20 % of the population is a visible minority group and the majority of them live in the largest cities.

If you count Hispanics as being white, the difference between the US and Canada is 8%. Which would be predominately because of the much larger African population.

Last but not least.

Who the hell do you have to shoot?

What on earth does this mean. It is ok to shoot minorities? or people from different ethnic groups
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

My guess? Calgary has better public education, less gang violence, and probably less crime overall. Hell. Aren't drugs less of a problem in Canada?

So, now you're fishing for reasons for the lower murder rate in Canada.

and just guessing while doing it.

Can we just dismiss the obvious connection between stricter gun controls and lower murder rates? How do we know that there is no cause and effect relationship there?

and shouldn't more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens actually lower the murder rate?
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

Why not? It isn't uncomfortable. Mine actually is so comfortable I just don't take it off when I get home.

I just would consider it rather strange. The thought that I would have to carry a gun when at home for protection is alien to the vast majority of Canadians. Even going out in public carrying a gun for protection would be an alien idea to most Canadians (excluding gang bangers of course). In general I think Canadians feel far more safe then most Americans, it may not be true based on overall crime stats, but I expect that is the most feel
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

Well, for one, we can conclude that you don't understand statistics. Let's compare to the City of Dallas, which is about the same size as Calgary, if we're only including city limits. Dallas had 152 murders in 2012. Calgary had 20.

Does your 'statistic' show comparable population makeup and demographics or merely 'numbers'?
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

My guess? Calgary has better public education, less gang violence, and probably less crime overall. Hell. Aren't drugs less of a problem in Canada?

Public education in Alberta is very good, it rates high on international comparisons being beat by South Korea and Finland all the time. Gang violence is generally low, a few years ago there was a small gang war between two generally Asian gangs. As for drugs, they are readily available, and the police do not go after users very much. Getting caught with an ounce of coke got someone I know probation and community service, no jail time. Two people I know crossing the boarder with 21 kg of coke had 3 years jail time for one, and the other just had a massive legal bill (he hired the best criminal defense attorney in Calgary)
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

Can we just dismiss the obvious connection between stricter gun controls and lower murder rates? How do we know that there is no cause and effect relationship
sure we can. All we have to do is look at the murder rates in cities and states in THIS country and the presence of restrictive gun laws there...that pretty much answers the questions, right?
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

They also forced their way into homes to collect them also.

And no I would not hand over my firearms for "safekeeping".

Sounds like they were the looters.
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

I just would consider it rather strange. The thought that I would have to carry a gun when at home for protection is alien to the vast majority of Canadians. Even going out in public carrying a gun for protection would be an alien idea to most Canadians (excluding gang bangers of course). In general I think Canadians feel far more safe then most Americans, it may not be true based on overall crime stats, but I expect that is the most feel

It's really an apples to orange though. For instance, drugs (which is one of the main drivers of murders in the US in my opinion) isn't the same level of concern as it is in Canada. You also don't have the history of racial issues (except for the native americans) nor do you have the same level of environmental factors. The following is a neat graph I found which shows levels of confidence between the two countries, and the UK.

Crime Rate Lower in United States, Canada Than in Britain

Edit: Out of Date Graph.
 
Last edited:
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

You don't have to guess. All you have to do is read what I wrote.

Yes, some people responded with some very reasonable alternatives. Leave them with a friend. One person even suggested leaving them with someone just up the road during a flood, which I found particularly amusing since it is likely that the family just up the road would also be flooded. Personally, I'd rather not give them to the Police for no other reason than because they have problems with logistics and I'm almost sure that I can handle my guns with more care than anyone else. They're mine, after all.

But in addition to these alternatives, many people, including yourself, have framed your response within the the context of protecting your rights, which, again, I find interesting, since the OP's question was never about your rights. It was about whether or not you'd accept a service.

Now, those of us who don't think that the American government would love to get its hands on everybody's guns (since even the most developed assault rifle probably isn't going to do much good against a missile launched from hundreds of miles away by one of America's 10 nuclear-powered supercarriers) didn't see that question as an issue of rights. That's why you didn't understand the cheese analogy. Placing cheese in a context of your rights is silly, which was your point, but your response doesn't make any sense to anybody who correctly perceived this question as a matter of pragmatic response and not as an issue of rights. So of course you couldn't understand that analogy. It caused a brief moment of cognitive dissonance because you are not capable of viewing any issues relating to guns as anything but a civil liberties issue. Responding to floods pragmatically by offering a basic service isn't a civil liberty issue, so why did your response and so many other responses take it that far? Was it a coincidence? An accident?

Or...

You were baited by the poster of the OP and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker. It was a very basic question--would you respond "yes" or "no" if the Police offered to safeguard your weapons in the event of a flood. The OP didn't even bother asking "why" because he knew that all the ra-ra-ra gun owners were gonna respond with litanies about government intrusion and their rights and all that.

The purpose of this OP was to make gun-toting conservatives (or libertarian conservatives, or whatever they're calling themselves these days) look bad and that's exactly what it did.







I don't really understand what that has to do with anything. Someone from Nigeria could have answered such a basic question. I related to the answers which had to do with logistical considerations, but you, yourself, took it way further than that. If you hadn't, we wouldn't have been discussing whether or not a socialist could form a decent answer to the relevant question.

So is it a logistics issue or a rights issue? You don't know. Whatever sounds best at the time, right?







Hold on. First London was a classic British example, wasn't it? You brought it up, not me. Suddenly the tables are turned and it doesn't represent Britain? Somehow, New York City isn't at all relevant to America?

What kind of insanity is this?

And what do you mean "you do things your way"? What, the conversation is over, now? We can't talk about it any more? I'm not from Canada or Britain, so phrasing it like you're talking to someone who isn't from the exact same country as you is kinda odd.







No, you haven't explained anything about socialism. You threw a couple remarks at it to poison the well by referring to socialists as state-worshippers.

As I said before, being able to carry pocketknives has nothing to do with socialism. Nothing in this thread has anything to do with socialism, which is government ownership of the means of production.

How's it feel to have been successfully baited by the "Canadian OP"?

The majority of people have any gunsd they are not using in a locked case, or they should, so why would you need to turn them over to law enforcement if they are already secure?
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disa...

You don't know much about Canada

The Vancouver region is heavily Chinese, Indian/Sikh. It has a nickname of Hongcover due to the number of Chinese there.

Calgary has 140 000 east and south east Asians, probably 100 000 south Asians, 10 000 east Africans

GTA (Toronto) has 500 000 Tamils, large numbers of Asian, Africans, etc.

Montreal has a large number of Hatians

Overall just under 20 % of the population is a visible minority group and the majority of them live in the largest cities.

If you count Hispanics as being white, the difference between the US and Canada is 8%. Which would be predominately because of the much larger African population.

Do you really want to get into a discussion on which country is more homogenous? Next we could discuss how Canada is an equal to the United States in relative income disparity too? Maybe that Canada has roughly the same amount of gang activity as the United States? We are talking a volume game here. We have roughly 10 times your population. You think that might add a little bit of a skew to the numbers?

Last but not least.



What on earth does this mean. It is ok to shoot minorities? or people from different ethnic groups

Right. Because I must be a racist right? I am an American. I am pro gun.

What the hell do you think it means? It means we have more people. We have more diversity. We have more gangs. Do you really think that racial tension isn't a cause of violence? So like I said...who exactly do you have to shoot if you are Canadian gangbanger? I'm not making a comment on "racial minorities." I'm making a comment on things that cause social conflict. And quite frankly it is slightly insulting that you would think otherwise.
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

Public education in Alberta is very good, it rates high on international comparisons being beat by South Korea and Finland all the time. Gang violence is generally low, a few years ago there was a small gang war between two generally Asian gangs. As for drugs, they are readily available, and the police do not go after users very much. Getting caught with an ounce of coke got someone I know probation and community service, no jail time. Two people I know crossing the boarder with 21 kg of coke had 3 years jail time for one, and the other just had a massive legal bill (he hired the best criminal defense attorney in Calgary)

So how do you think that equation would play out Stateside? The fact is treating guns as being a "cause" of crime and using US violence numbers as the "proof" is completely ignoring things like our "war on drugs."

Hell I would add in that left over violence an poverty from the civil war...yes that far back...still causes some residual side effects that cause gangs to form on racial lines.
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

sure we can. All we have to do is look at the murder rates in cities and states in THIS country and the presence of restrictive gun laws there...that pretty much answers the questions, right?

Actually, no, it doesn't.

We had a long thread about this very subject not too long ago. The only conclusion was that there was no conclusion about whether restrictive gun laws had any effect at all on violent crimes in general.

Here's an interesting article about the question of gun laws and violent crimes:

Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship

Do gun control laws reduce crime? Do they save lives? Is it possible they even cost lives?

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, one of the dissenters in the 5-to-4 decision, surveyed a quite substantial body of empirical research on whether gun control laws do any good. Then he wrote: “The upshot is a set of studies and counterstudies that, at most, could leave a judge uncertain about the proper policy conclusion.”

Does attempting to control the ownership of guns reduce violent crimes?
Does individual ownership of guns discourage criminal activity?

The answer to both of the above questions appears to be, "no."

We've pretty much established that Canadians have a much lower murder rate than the US does, and that they are also an ethnically diverse country.

So, we need to look beyond those factors to decide why we have so many more murders.
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

I just would consider it rather strange. The thought that I would have to carry a gun when at home for protection is alien to the vast majority of Canadians. Even going out in public carrying a gun for protection would be an alien idea to most Canadians (excluding gang bangers of course). In general I think Canadians feel far more safe then most Americans, it may not be true based on overall crime stats, but I expect that is the most feel

I would feel safer there too. No people. :)

But I don't have too. I just do. Ever notice you still have your wallet in your pocket when at the house? Do you need it there? I get up and when I leave I put my wallet in my pocket, cell phone, keys, sun glasses, pocket knife (not for defense), and my gun and a spare magazine. I don't carry any of that because I "need" it. I carry it "in case" I need it.
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

Actually, no, it doesn't.

We had a long thread about this very subject not too long ago. The only conclusion was that there was no conclusion about whether restrictive gun laws had any effect at all on violent crimes in general.

Here's an interesting article about the question of gun laws and violent crimes:

Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship

Does attempting to control the ownership of guns reduce violent crimes?
Does individual ownership of guns discourage criminal activity?

The answer to both of the above questions appears to be, "no."

We've pretty much established that Canadians have a much lower murder rate than the US does, and that they are also an ethnically diverse country.

So, we need to look beyond those factors to decide why we have so many more murders.

Ahem...

More Gun Control Results in More Gun Murders
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

Actually, no, it doesn't.

We had a long thread about this very subject not too long ago. The only conclusion was that there was no conclusion about whether restrictive gun laws had any effect at all on violent crimes in general.

Here's an interesting article about the question of gun laws and violent crimes:

Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship



Does attempting to control the ownership of guns reduce violent crimes?
Does individual ownership of guns discourage criminal activity?

The answer to both of the above questions appears to be, "no."

We've pretty much established that Canadians have a much lower murder rate than the US does, and that they are also an ethnically diverse country.

So, we need to look beyond those factors to decide why we have so many more murders.

To quote someone recently...."So, now you're fishing for reasons for the lower murder rate in Canada." I mean...the "higher murder rates in cities with strict gun control laws."

Funny how that works out...
 
Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

So, now you're fishing for reasons for the lower murder rate in Canada.

and just guessing while doing it.

Can we just dismiss the obvious connection between stricter gun controls and lower murder rates? How do we know that there is no cause and effect relationship there?

I don't know. Should we dismiss the dozens of other cultural/social differences between Canada and the United States? You know? Drug laws? Gangs? Population? Number of cities? Economic diversity? Ethnic make up?

How the hell is that fishing? I am giving you a dozen reasons why the murder rates could be different. Burden of proof is not on me to prove that "guns are the reason we are more violent." That is on you. You are making the claim that guns, and not a hundred other reasons...are why the crime rate is different.

and shouldn't more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens actually lower the murder rate?

I don't personally make that claim. I feel they are not correlated numbers. I think less criminals makes a safer population. And makin laws that turn law abiding citizens into criminals certainly is not a good idea.

But if you would like to discuss similar populations? The state of Mississippi has less murders per 100k than places like Chicago (which both have near equivalent populations).
 
Back
Top Bottom