LightDreams wrote:
I certainly understand why you feel so insecure (and it shows!) when it comes to comparing the U.S. to Canada...


- "The poll shows that 89 PER CENT of CANADIANS feel THE COUNTRY IS SAFE, while only 43 PER CENT OF AMERICANS feel the United States is a safe nation."

- "The numbers show that 78 per cent of Canadians believe they live in a caring country, compared to just 36 per cent of people in the United States."

Not that anyone is really surprised.  Especially considering all of your posts about the need for guns, etc.

---

By the way, we're not worried about our Democracy, or about civil war / attempts to overthrow the Gov't, or our ability to get access to free healthcare when needed, etc, etc.   But I certainly understand why you'd be so sensitive to comparisons with Canada.

So that video was fake? Home invasion, and auto theft isn't really up 400% in that area of Canada? You seem to have skated around that topic.

I don't think I ever posted anything about my need for guns. Where are ALL of these posts? As far as a need, a Remington 870, Winchester Model 70 in 30.06, Marlin 39A, and a S&W model 10 would fill the needs of anyone living in North America. I just happen to like and collect guns.

Canadians are all happy with the current Gov't?

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canada-is-broken

Kevin Fair wrote:
I don't think I ever posted anything about my need for guns. Where are ALL of these posts?

Hah!  SO MANY POSTS to choose from!!!

Let's just use this one, as it tells the story so well...

Kevin Fair wrote:
It's Time To Make Gun Haters Uncomfortable!

I collect pre lock S&W's. Just picked these up along the way.

Quit your kidding!!!

Yes, YOU believe Canada is really unsafe and a mess, yet the stunning overwhelming majority of Canadians believe that they are SAFE.  89% of Canadians compared to 43% of AMERICANS.  That's tells the whole story as to what Canadians ACTUALLY believe, in terms of how safe Canada is.  Regardless of YOUR claims!

And yes, there is one chain of newspapers that seriously tries to be Fox News.  Not very successfully considering the polls as to how safe they feel living in Canada and their overall pride in their country.

I know that you HATE seeing how SAFE Canadians feel compared to Americans.   It really cuts to the very heart of so many of your gun related claims.  And your seeming need for guns.  HAH!

Kevin Fair wrote:
In Canada.

Unless your a criminal.

Not “Your”…

*You’re* is the proper contraction for “You Are”

“Your” indicates possession

Example would be something like “Your feigned outrage is tedious”

See the difference?

Glad I could help.

LightDreams wrote:

Hah!  SO MANY POSTS to choose from!!!

Let's just use this one, as it tells the story so well...


Quit your kidding!!!

Yes, YOU believe Canada is really unsafe and a mess, yet the stunning overwhelming majority of Canadians believe that they are SAFE.  89% of Canadians compared to 43% of AMERICANS.  That's tells the whole story as to what Canadians ACTUALLY believe, in terms of how safe Canada is.  Regardless of YOUR claims!

And yes, there is one chain of newspapers that seriously tries to be Fox News.  Not very successfully considering the polls as to how safe they feel living in Canada and their overall pride in their country.

I know that you HATE seeing how SAFE Canadians feel compared to Americans.   It really cuts to the very heart of so many of your gun related claims.  And your seeming need for guns.  HAH!

That's just a picture, I never said I "need" guns.

Post where I did, but you won't, because you can't.

Why would I hold any hate towards Canadians? I think your government is messed up, so I'm glad I don't live there. Ours is a shit show right now, but there may be hope in the future.

Hell Canada was cool enough to take in all the cowards from the US during the Vietnam war.

Kevin Fair wrote:
Hell Canada was cool enough to take in all the cowards from the US during the Vietnam war.

Those that did go to Nam were fools.  A totally political war with no realistic goal.   And 58,000 never returned alive.

Kevin Fair wrote:
I never said I "need" guns.

You don't have to say, "I need my guns," to communicate your needs.   Just like a parent can tell when a kid has to go to the bathroom, even though the kid hasn't said, "Mommy, I need to go to the bathroom.”

LightDreams wrote:
And on, on on, it goes.  I'm sure that people have reached their own particular conclusions about Kevin Fair, whatever that may be.

And you still evade the question.

Where are all these MANY posts where I said I need guns.

Little song and dance?

rxz wrote:

Those that did go to Nam were fools.  A totally political war with no realistic goal.   And 58,000 never returned alive.

You're painting with a damn wide brush there buddy!

Kevin Fair wrote:

You're painting with a damn wide brush there buddy!

What unit did you serve with in Vietnam and when?

rxz wrote:

What unit did you serve with in Vietnam and when?

Too young. Have family members that went, and a lot of the people I ride with served.

One of my best friends spent around 2.5 years there during the war. He was with the Provincial Reconnaissance Unit, was never a member of the armed forces. He gave me his knife and patch before he died last summer. One of the best people I've ever met, never talked about the war.

Kevin Fair wrote:

You're painting with a damn wide brush there buddy!

But you are not?

"Hell Canada was cool enough to take in all the cowards from the US during the Vietnam war."

Buddy?

Focuspuller wrote:

But you are not?

"Hell Canada was cool enough to take in all the cowards from the US during the Vietnam war."

Buddy?

Not at all.

I called the ones that went to Canada cowards. I didn't call the ones that served and died fools.

Kevin Fair wrote:

Not at all.

I called the ones that went to Canada cowards. I didn't call the ones that served and died fools.

"I called the ones that went to Canada cowards. "

I dunno about that. Looks like a wide brush to me. I knew guys who left for Canada for legitimate, non-cowardly reasons. I also knew guys who were drafted, who went, and some who died. They weren't all fools, but they WERE all misused by their government, which was lying about the war.

Kevin Fair wrote:
One of the best people I've ever met, never talked about the war.
/quote]

Wow, I wonder why?
I was there in 66/67 assigned to a helicopter company.   A company that was formed there in 1958 to support the ARVNs and US military support advisories.  My military training was Huey crewing and maintenance.  All my flying as a crew member was on a gunship that supported the slicks carrying troops and supplies.  We also when on hunt and kill missions looking for VC.  The company had around 160 members.  Half were pilots and the rest crew and maintenance support.  During my tour 27 members of the company went home in boxes.  The closest for me being shot was a VC round that hit the Huey chest high about a foot from me.  Do I like taking about this - NO.  With the US involved in Vietnam from 1954-75 what good did it do?

rxz wrote:

Kevin Fair wrote:
One of the best people I've ever met, never talked about the war.
/quote]

Wow, I wonder why?
I was there in 66/67 assigned to a helicopter company.   A company that was formed there in 1958 to support the ARVNs and US military support advisories.  My military training was Huey crewing and maintenance.  All my flying as a crew member was on a gunship that supported the slicks carrying troops and supplies.  We also when on hunt and kill missions looking for VC.  The company had around 160 members.  Half were pilots and the rest crew and maintenance support.  During my tour 27 members of the company went home in boxes.  The closest for me being shot was a VC round that hit the Huey chest high about a foot from me.  Do I like taking about this - NO.  With the US involved in Vietnam from 1954-75 what good did it do?

Thank you for your service!

All you guys deserved better when you came home.

What good did it do? Absolutely nothing, we had zero business being involved in that country. Sure to stop the spread of communism, but I think most of the south just wanted the US gone. In wars of past taken ground was kept, in VN multitudes would die to take a hill, and then just leave for the VC to return.

That war wasn't lost due to people like you that were there doing what you had to do. It was lost in Washington DC.

LightDreams wrote:
It's just another one of Kevin Fair's grand pronouncements, and a very deliberate / incendiary attempt to sidetrack the discussion away from how things were going / looking for him.

Think in terms of his history and everything he has said on the various threads.  Including some of the truly stunning, incredible low points.

It's like Marjorie Taylor Greene that honestly believes that she's a real "hero" for doing what she does, and that she somehow "speaks for the people" and that she is constantly making truly "wonderful points" and scoring wonderful "victories" against the "truly evil" so-called "elites".  She's so proud of herself, her "logic" and her pronouncements.  And absolutely nothing is going to change her perception as to what she thinks she is, so...

Anyway, you get the idea.

Just my two cents worth...

What ever. All you did was prove you post shit you can't back up.

Your opinion isn't worth two cents.

Anyway, you get the idea? No... your kind never will.

Kevin Fair wrote:
What ever. All you did was prove you post shit you can't back up.

Your opinion isn't worth two cents.

Anyway, you get the idea? No... your kind never will.

Tu quoque.

Tu quoque.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19993088

You made a claim and cited an article which did not support your claim.  Not only was there not a direct quote, which you want to require from Lightdreams as proof, there wasn't a paraphrase in the article that supported your contention.  Nor was the data in support of your contention. 

response
https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19993104

You did not respond to my response when it was presented.  Will you now?


Tu quoque.

Tu quoque.

This is from the link I posted.

The Trace analysis looked at data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Illinois had the most mass shootings over the 10-year period (435), followed by California (406), Texas (281), and Florida (251). The District of Columbia, Louisiana, Illinois, and Mississippi had the highest rates of mass shootings. Only two states — Hawaii and North Dakota — recorded no mass shootings at all over the 10-year period we analyzed.

Doesn't Illinois, and Cali have pretty strict gun laws?

White Knight Syndrome?

Kevin Fair wrote:
This is from the link I posted.

The Trace analysis looked at data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Illinois had the most mass shootings over the 10-year period (435), followed by California (406), Texas (281), and Florida (251). The District of Columbia, Louisiana, Illinois, and Mississippi had the highest rates of mass shootings. Only two states — Hawaii and North Dakota — recorded no mass shootings at all over the 10-year period we analyzed.

Doesn't Illinois, and Cali have pretty strict gun laws?

White Knight Syndrome?

I see. In my response, I did include a quote of that paragraph, and in the context of the article, it does not mean what you claim.  Which it indicates that you cherry picked through the article and came up with the conclusion you wanted, right?  Four states were listed at the top as the most violent and you picked the two highest, ignoring 3rd and 4th because that suited your agenda?  The strictness of the gun laws in two states has not been shown to be related to either cause or effect- if you would have considered the top four instead of just the two suiting your agenda.  Nor, could one conclude by a simple evaluation of the state's gun laws, does your conclusion consider what impact the Supreme Court has had on the states and violence irregardless of state law, because of its rulings in the same ten year period.  But, more on that later.

The problem with your conclusion is that you also ignore the facts presented in the rest of the article, such as, "Mass shootings also varied by region, just like daily gun violence. The South had the highest number of mass shootings (1,898), and the second-highest per capita rate of shootings. Though the Midwest had fewer shootings (1,135) than the South, it had a slightly higher rate per capita. The Northeast had the fewest mass shootings (584) and the second-lowest rate per capita, while the West had the lowest rate per capita (666 shootings)."  The Northeast, where the states are known for having strict gun laws (though many do not), had fewer mass shootings.  The South, being known for less restrictive gun laws has more.  We also know from other sources that the areas with the highest violent crime, more violent than places like New York City, are in the deep South.

As you included in your quote, Hawaii and North Dakota both had no mass shootings in the ten year period and Hawaii (41 in ranking by a pro gun group) has strict gun laws and North Dakota (10) has lax gun laws.[1]  Where then is the cause and effect? 

I also had quoted this sentence from your srticle, in my rebuttal to your previous post: "Texas, a permitless carry state with no background check requirement, recorded more mass gun murders than any other state (32); California, with a population larger than Texas’, recorded 24."  This sentence is in direct conflict with your conclusion.

We also know that when we look at other data, the violence in the four states listed as highest in your article , when related to school shootings, does not support your conclusion.  The school shootings: California (2.1 people per million wounded or killed); Illinois (2.8); Texas (4.1); Florida (3.2)- topped off by Kentucky (7.7) and Alabama (6.7).[2]

"When we compare the states head-to-head on the top 50 gun safety policies, a clear pattern emerges. States with strong laws see less gun violence. Indeed, the states that have failed to put basic protections into place—”national failures” on our scale—have a rate of gun violence two and a half times higher than the states that are national gun safety leaders." "The rankings clearly show that gun laws save lives. But no state is an island (except Hawaii), and any state may be vulnerable if its neighbors fail to protect public safety."[3]. If you would bother to look at all the information in your article, and other information, particularly something out of your comfort zone, then you would see that gun violence in general is related to gun safety laws- and I am not saying gun bans.  Picking one segment of data, or selecting a couple of sentences from an article and ignoring the rest, leads to poor and false conclusions such as your conclusion.

In relationship to your original post, Canada's murder rate is far below ours.  So is their rape rate.  As a nation, Canada is ranked far safer than the US.  However, I understand that your information may be based on what YOU read.  When getting information from blogs and facebook posts. You could look to see what valid studies say.



I have no idea why you would have added the stand alone comment, "White Knight Syndrome?" Other than as an infantile expression and a put down when you couldn't accomplish setting me straight with facts and a rational interpretation of the article you cited.  You made a public comment and we all have the right to address comments and to share our perspective on what other people say.

BTW, your OP is nothing but gross exaggerations hatched from the poor choice of words from one cop, coupled with unsupported right wing political tripe.  Is your OP anything more than a trolling post?


[1] https://sightmark.com/blogs/news/states … n-laws-are
[2] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states … -shootings
[3] https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
BTW, your OP is nothing but gross exaggerations hatched from the poor choice of words from one cop, coupled with unsupported right wing political tripe.  Is your OP anything more than a trolling post?


[1] https://sightmark.com/blogs/news/states … n-laws-are
[2] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states … -shootings
[3] https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/

I posted about car theft in Canada. Lightdreams turned it into my many posts about needing guns, which he couldn't prove and just used to avoid the subject.

Then you pile on with the same shit totally avoiding anything about car theft in Canada. So my OP was bull shit, just like all these?

https://globalnews.ca/news/10281983/car … teal-cars/

https://www.ibc.ca/stay-protected/theft … auto-theft

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a4649 … ow-canada/

https://www.deccanherald.com/world/for- … -2-2909122


https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/can … e0162.html

Kevin Fair wrote:
In Canada.

From what I've read, Canada is not a very gun friendly place. Unless your a criminal.

Kinda sad when a police officer suggests to citizens to just leave your car keys outside your front door, to keep people from breaking in to get to your keys. First they take your guns, or make it so you can't use them. Then they suggest you give your car away too? How much is car insurance up there?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8-8gxc7Q_8&t=26s


The police have different feelings in parts of the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQF2SFz0A0I

What your OP was about was how gun restrictions in Canada have lead to more car thefts and that people should leave their keys out for thieves because of a lack of guns to deter crime. That is what your OP said.  Not what is in the post above this. (Mar 31, 24 at 8:46 pm)  It isn't my job to make your point for you.  If you wanted to use better sources and make a better argument in your OP, you had that option, but it probably wasn't your goal to have a serious discussion per the tenor of your OP.  As for your additional references, maybe I will look at them later.  But, for right now, they are irrelevant because I am resolving the unresolved issue regarding your need for guns.  If you didn't think it was relevant to discuss if you need guns, then you wouldn't have responded to LightDream's post about your need for guns- which you did bring up in your OP when you said, "First they take your guns, or make it so you can't use them," because if a need for guns wasn't relevant, you wouldn't have implied that taking guns away or making them so you can't use them would be a hardship in Canada.

You mention guns in two of three paragraphs, implied a need for guns in the third paragraph as an introduction to the linked video about guns for self defense- a very right wing view per the language in the video.  You clearly indicate that car theft is related to gun ownership/availability.  Yet you think I am obligated to talk about car theft when your claim is that a lack of guns is the root of the car theft?

I was not piling on.  Please note that in your OP you talked about the difference in crime in Canada and the US because of Canada not having the Second Amendment and/or strict gun laws that prevented Canadians from having guns to protect their parked car from would be car thieves, who could break into your home to steal the keys to steal your car.  No, you didn't use those exact words, but you posted about it when you said, "First they take your guns, or make it so you can't use them," and with the second video about how that officer in the US of A who said the homeowners in his community had guns and he encouraged them to use their guns and blow burglars out the door.  A sentiment you obviously agree with.  I responded in my last post, to your prior post, when you incorrectly claimed states with strict guns laws have more mass shootings.  Please do not tell me I am off subject when I am responding to your OP and your subsequent posts about the safety of Canada by comparing it to the safety of the states.

Even though you do not always back up what you say (or provide proper citations), you then badgered LightDreams about showing you a direct quote of your post by saying, "I never said I "need" guns,"  and challenging him to show you the quote that would prove otherwise. Showing you the direct quote probably isn't going to happen, as you agree, since you previously said, "I don't think I ever posted anything about my need for guns."  However, you left room for the possibility that you had made a statement that you need guns (a tactic admission you need guns) with that statement, right?  Isn't that what you are doing when you say. "I don't think I ever ...?"  There is a maybe implied in that thar phrase. 

You also said clearly that you have a need for guns by saying, "I don't think I ever posted anything about my need for guns." Your need for guns could be zero with that statement, but you still admit to a need for guns and your contributions indicate it is not a need which is a zero equivalent.  A Freudian slip, perhaps?

Previously, in the discussion this OP was meant mimic and satirize- and to attack LightDreams' other than right wing extremist view on guns, you said that if such and such was the case, you would give up all your guns, except the 870, a .22 and one or two more.  In the very post where you said, "I don't think I ever posted anything about my need for guns," you followed that up with a reiteration regarding the guns you are going to keep, "As far as a need, a Remington 870, Winchester Model 70 in 30.06, Marlin 39A, and a S&W model 10 would fill the needs of anyone living in North America."[1] So which is it?  You never said it, or you pretty much did say it?  You don't need guns, but those models "would fill the needs of anyone living in North America," including your needs, as you live in North America.  If you don't need guns, then why keep the guns you listed if you are giving the rest of them up?

You also said, "I keep a old WInchester 1200 shotgun in my bedroom, and my EDC pistol is on my nightstand if not on my hip."[2]

And, "As far as AR's being cool or sexy...many people think so. Owning a gun and not shooting it, tons of people do. They just like the fact it's there if they need it."[3]

Perhaps we need to have a discussion about the differences between wants and needs.  Needs are often considered those things you can't live without.  We need breathable air, drinkable water, edible food, sufficient shelter-at least part of the time- and clothing depending on the location.  Therefore, if we live like cave people, we would have all we need without guns.

Wants, however, would include a good spouse, better food, health insurance, wall to wall carpet, a gun safe for all our guns, etc..  But needs can also imply that we need, say, steel toed boots because they are a job requirement.  Or, a really good camera and lighting because that is our job and it is needed because it is how we satisfy our needs for food, clothing and shelter.  I imagine that many people, when listing their needs, would include a need for a safe environment (ie., safety) and to be able to hunt for food- because it is a want to buy food at the store, but it is a need to obtain food.  A safe environment requires guns to keep away dangerous animals and dangerous people unless stone age tools will suffice.  Do you really want us to believe that you want your guns to keep you safe, but you do not need your guns to keep you safe?  You want us to believe that you do not need your guns when you have repeatedly told us you have them for protection?  You carry one on your hip.  You keep one in your desk.  You keep one by the bed.  Excluding the guns in your collection (pre lock S&W's and those you picked up along the way (see the photo you provided of guns to make people uncomfortable)), which could be guns you want as opposed to guns you need, but you are clearly saying you need at least three.

I hope this is a satisfactory explanation and we can move on.


[1] https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19994225
[2] https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19985433
[3} https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19987362

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
What your OP was about was how gun restrictions in Canada have lead to more car thefts and that people should leave their keys out for thieves because of a lack of guns to deter crime.




I hope this is a satisfactory explanation and we can move on.

April Fool's Day?

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
It isn't just Canada. In our nations Capitol they were bold enough to try to steal Secret Service Vehicle and only quit when shots were fired by SS officers.
People are being killed by car thieves and it isnt the gun shooting them but the person who values someone's car more than a person's life.
We need to make criminals feel uncomfortable.

Is this the case you are referring to?

SECRET SERVICE AGENTS PROTECTING BIDEN’S GRANDDAUGHTER OPEN FIRE WHEN 3 PEOPLE TRY TO BREAK INTO SUV

https://apnews.com/article/naomi-biden- … 1c6618c4e2

If so, Bob, you really shouldn't equate a car THEFT attempt with car JACKING. It only weakens the point you are trying to make, although I do appreciate the sensationalist headline makes it hard to resist:

"People are being killed by car thieves...."  However:

Auto Theft Law

"Grand theft auto typically applies to a theft of a parked vehicle that is not occupied by a driver or passenger. "

"A carjacking occurs when the vehicle is taken directly from the owner or driver of the car."

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offense … uto-theft/

The case you appear to be referring to involves the former. And the only gunfire apparently came from the SS.

"We need to make criminals feel uncomfortable"

Agreed

JSouthworth wrote:
The Israeli secret service assassinated PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) member Mohamed Boudia in 1973 using a bomb placed under his car seat, this was packed with nuts and bolts and connected to a pressure switch so that his weight in the seat closed the firing circuit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Boudia

As OFF-TOPIC and IRRELEVANT as:

PINOCHET DIRECTLY ORDERED KILLING ON US SOIL OF CHILEAN DIPLOMAT, PAPERS REVEAL

"Letelier, who had once been Chile’s ambassador to the US, was murdered on 21 September 1976 by a car bomb planted under the driver’s seat of his vehicle just a mile from the White House."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ … classified

Unfortunately, the Guardian article doesn't provide the schematic of the bomb.

Focuspuller wrote:

Is this the case you are referring to?

SECRET SERVICE AGENTS PROTECTING BIDEN’S GRANDDAUGHTER OPEN FIRE WHEN 3 PEOPLE TRY TO BREAK INTO SUV

https://apnews.com/article/naomi-biden- … 1c6618c4e2

If so, Bob, you really shouldn't equate a car THEFT attempt with car JACKING. It only weakens the point you are trying to make, although I do appreciate the sensationalist headline makes it hard to resist:

"People are being killed by car thieves...."  However:

Auto Theft Law

"Grand theft auto typically applies to a theft of a parked vehicle that is not occupied by a driver or passenger. "

"A carjacking occurs when the vehicle is taken directly from the owner or driver of the car."

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offense … uto-theft/

The case you appear to be referring to involves the former. And the only gunfire apparently came from the SS.

"We need to make criminals feel uncomfortable"

Agreed

Both are car theft, both often involve armed. thugs. I would suggest that getting shot at made them feel uncomfortable, but the lack of holding people accountable and "Raising the age" are emboldening thieves and endangering lives.

Criminals have no fear of prosecution or incarceration ....they need to.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
Criminals have no fear of prosecution or incarceration ....they need to.

Except for the ~1.5 million incarcerated in the US, of course.

https://www.statista.com/topics/1717/pr … ed-states/