Conservatives have conveniently divided the world into "law-abiding people" and "criminals". Yet, we are all capable of doing something criminal. Many have done illegal things and not got caught. Law-abiding vs criminal is a false dichotomy. #cdnpoli#guncontrol
Did you ever smoke weed before October 17, 2018? Have you ever rolled through a stop sign? Driven without your seatbelt? Driven above the posted speed limit? Fudged something on your taxes? Eaten something in a grocery store without paying for it? Been in a fist fight?
Been drunk and disorderly? Driven while under the influence? Made an exaggerated insurance claim? Failed to properly lock up your guns? If you have done any of these things, are you "law-abiding"? Or are you a "criminal"? It gets a bit vague, doesn't it?
This guy here, he was a "law-abiding gun owner", even a fine upstanding member of his community, right up until he blew his family away. sherwoodparknews.com/news/local-new…
In Canada, about 80% of gun-related deaths are suicides. Access to a firearm makes suicide attempts more likely to be successful.
I am all in favour of reducing the number of guns in our society. I can't get my head around people who feel their hobby is more important than people's lives. You getting your adrenaline rush is, ultimately, far less important than preventing untimely deaths.
And yes, I know that gun ownership in Canada is more regulated than in the US. And yes, I know that people can kill with knives and vehicles, etc. You can kill someone with a pillow if you really set your mind to it. But all those other "potential weapons" have other uses.
The primary use of guns is to kill. That is their function. They were created to kill more efficiently. They were created for military use. I have been told by hunters that handguns are useless for hunting. So why does anyone need a handgun? If you say...
"To protect myself" I am wondering from who? Who are you hanging around with that you think you might need a gun to protect yourself? Crime of all kinds in Canada has been decreasing since a high point in 1992. johnhoward.ca/blog/crime-con…
Violent crime, which includes minor violence with little to no injury and also uttering threats (again, no physical injury) has always been low in Canada. Random violent crime is rare. Most victims know their assailant.
A lot of the violent crime captured in statistics is domestic violence. We really don't want guns to be part of that mix, now do we? Nor do we want kids accidentally shooting themselves or others. We would like to see the suicide rate decline, right?
Taking guns out of the equation makes everyone safer. Now, I know some are going to wail, "But if law-abiding citizens don't have guns, only the criminals will have guns and no one will be safe!" Remember, Law-abiding vs Criminal is a false dichotomy.
Most organized crime (including gangs) violence is perpetrated on those within that community. Gang members and mobsters aren't prowling the streets looking for innocent strangers to shoot. That's Hollywood. It's not reality.
According to StatsCan, there were 788 homicides in Canada in 2021. That's about 2 per 100,000 people. Regina and Thunder Bay had the highest rates of homicide in 2021, between 5 & 6 per 100,000 people. In many American cities where there are lots of guns, that's like, a Tuesday.
The real number of homicides in 2021 was highest in Toronto (largest population, that's how per capita stats work) at 117. Next was Vancouver at 60. Then Edmonton at 51. Montreal had 48, Winnipeg had 45. Regina had 15 and Thunder Bay had 7.
The way the numbers are presented makes a difference. Real numbers, or per capita (per 100,000 people). In Canada, altogether, there were 2 homicides per 100,000 people. Recall, that works out to 788. Compare that with 16,151 deaths from COVID in 2021.
If you don't do what you can to protect yourself from COVID infection, which is statistically about 20 times more likely to kill you, then don't say you need a gun for protection. Cancer, heart disease, diabetes, respiratory disease and
accidents are all far more likely to kill you than some random attacker. Plus, most homicide victims know their assailant. So, unless you hang out with gangs or mobsters, or are in a violent relationship, it is extremely unlikely you will be murdered, or even violently assaulted.
You do not need a gun for protection. Remember also, in Canada we do not have Stand Your Ground laws. You cannot shoot someone for trespassing. You cannot shoot someone for stealing your stuff. Or cutting you off in traffic. Or looking at you the wrong way.
Self-defense, in the unlikely event you ever need to defend yourself, must be reasonable and not disproportionate to the threat. Shooting is almost always disproportionate to the threat. You do not need a gun for self-defense. Having a gun around actually is dangerous,
b/c there is a really good chance it could be used against you. I know, everyone thinks they are going to react like some action hero if it ever came to that. But let's be real. Even cops freeze. Soldiers freeze. Your estimation of your abilities is almost certainly exaggerated.
So, 1) you don't need a gun for self-defense. 2) Other people's lives are actually more important than your hobby. That leaves sport shooting, hunting, and farmers who need to protect livestock from predators. Handguns aren't useful for hunting or shooting coyotes.
Sport shooters don't actually need to keep their guns at home because practice happens at a gun range, right? The fact is, many guns used in crimes are stolen from homes. If there are fewer guns in homes, there will be fewer guns on the streets.
Some are smuggled in, and that also needs to be addressed, but cutting out the gun supply from home robberies in Canada will reduce the supply of guns among people who might use them in crimes.
The long and the short of it is, I totally support all our federal government has been doing to reduce the number of guns in our society. It's a good start. #PeopleBeforePistols.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Crowd-sourcing for suggestions here. On account of my husband flying so much for work (we joke that he's an airline seat-tester), we got a voucher for a companion. Sort of a 2-fer. Anyway, we are going to Paris. Anyone familiar with the city and surrounding area? Recommendations?
We're going in May. In case that makes any difference. Some places may be less busy or whatever in different seasons... We are both interested in history, but I feel could overdose on art galleries pretty quickly. Neither of us is into standing in line for a very long time.
I mean, you're in Paris! Why are you spending hours standing in a line? There has to be so many things you could be doing instead. I would rather miss some of the major tourist draws if it means I get to explore some really cool areas, instead of standing in a line for hours.
I can't believe how this convoy lawyer is trying to destroy Ms Lee's credibility. Her age, her job, people she knows, being 2022 co-chair for Leadership Summit for Action Chinese-Canadians Together, as if being 21, being a public employee, knowing Liberal and NDP 1/ #EAInquiry
politicians, and being Chinese-Canadian, invalidated what she was saying in her testimony. She said quite clearly that her actions were as a private citizen. He tried to make it sound like she was a pawn of the government, that she was too young to know what she was doing,
2/
that there was something disingenuous about her testimony or her role in the class-action lawsuit. And then he gets totally hung up on a passing reference she made in a speech to the movie, The Purge.
3/
It seems pretty obvious that no one but our media has forgotten about the video labels. Why aren't the media pursuing this with the zeal they go after anything related to the Liberals? Is opposition malfeasance not interesting enough for our journos? It's interesting to us.
Plenty interesting, in fact. I strongly encourage news desks to rethink this. Canadians deserve to know what any party that seeks to govern Canada has been up to. No Canadian political party should be reaching out to right-wing extremists, misogynists, insurrectionists....
It's not OK. Not even when it's the Conservatives doing it. At least tell us why you dropped the tag issue like a hot potato. Did someone tell you to? Did someone threaten to sue? Or did the CPC just say, "These are not the droids you are looking for" and you forgot all about it?
I am now up to season 20 in #SilentWitness. The series continues to entertain and intrigue. I am struck, both by how many British actors appear in the series, and by how woman-centric it is. I think one could track a direct line of inspiration between this and all woman forensic
pathologist-focused dramas out there in the past 20 years. From CBC's "Coroner", to "Bones", there is a precedent in "Silent Witness". Yes, there are male characters who sometimes occupy the main storyline. but the original woman pathologist character, Sam Ryan, was very
quickly replaced by Nikki Alexander. She came in as a temporary help on a case and became a main character almost immediately. And, thus far, she continues to occupy the primary focus of the series overall. It's not everyone's cup of tea. But it is very nice to see
If Pierre Poilievre says he didn't know those labels were on his videos, for almost 5 years, (as he is now insisting) then he is admitting he isn't competent to run a social media account, or to hire people who aren't evil. 1/6 #NeverVoteConservative#mgtow
The alternative is he did know, either he put the tag in there himself or directed someone to do it, or approved it. And he was, therefore, A-OK with the ideology he was courting.
Neither is a good look for someone who thinks he should be Prime Minister of Canada. 2/6
The CPC apparently had a day of trying to get to the bottom of who put the tags on about 50 videos. And then they gave up. Because it was too hard. Or because they didn't like what they were finding and couldn't find anyone convenient to throw under the bus. 3/6
"Freedom of conscience" - the right for doctors and pharmacists and other care providers to block patients' access to health care on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. Just how far does this extend now? 2/5
Are the conservative conscience rights limited to clergy, health car providers, and bakery owners? Or has it extended to include the freedom to refuse employment and housing to anyone who offends certain people's delicate "Christian" sensibilities? 3/5