Opinion about America versus Canada, Whats the Answer?

[smerf]

Hi,

Just watched a show on TV today that said that there were 11,127 deaths in America each year caused by guns, but in Canada there are 10 million people and 7 million guns but there were only 165 deaths caused by guns in Canada.

Also in America, Americans keep their doors locked while in Canada there doors are never locked and crime is almost non existant in Canada. what do you think about this.

Just would like to know what you think and how America can improve their situation.

Smerf

Note: Actual stats shown on mikey moore internet page:

The U.S. figure of 11,127 gun deaths comes from a report from the Center for Disease Control. Japan's gun deaths of 39 was provided by the National Police Agency of Japan; Germany: 381 gun deaths from Bundeskriminalamt (German FBI); Canada: 165 gun deaths from Statistics Canada, the governmental statistics agency; United Kingdom: 68 gun deaths, from the Centre for Crime and Justice studies in Britain; Australia: 65 gun deaths from the Australian Institute of Criminology; France: 255 gun deaths, from the International Journal of Epidemiology.

[adolescent]

Those stats sound pretty fishy.

People don't lock their doors? I know people in the US that don't lock their doors. But, they aren't living in a city so it probably wouldn't matter.

And, I know there are more than 10 million people in Canada (it's more like ~32 million).

[smerf]

Hi,

These stats were shown in a Mikey Moore film, now they could have only been talking about Canada's one largest city, can't really remember right off hand.

but even if you compare that to New York City, New York City would way out number the Canadian City for deaths caused by guns each year.

by the way I am not a anti gun person, I keep one with me to shoot one or two slow driving canadians down here in Florida myself.

smerf

[Glaucus]

Yeah, it's just over 30 million, if I'm not mistaken. of course this means the rest of those figures might be equally as wrong (unless of course those are figures dating back to the 1920's ;-) ).

And here in Winnipeg, we rarely lock our doors in the day time, just when we go to bed do we turn over the deadbolt. But I often wonder why we bother considering there's a massive window in our door, one would simply need to smash the window, reach in and unlock the door (although I do plan to add a steel grate over this window as I think we've been overly lucky all this time). Does any of this mean Canada is free from crime? Hell no. My buddy just had all his hi-fi equipment stolen earlier this month and my car has been broken into and vandalised several times. But as far as violent crime goes, well, that's pretty rare (and that's saying a lot considering Winnipeg is perhaps the murder capital, gang capital, auto-theft capital and arson capital of Canada - but that's when ranked per capita, not absolute figures).

Yup, Winnipeg sucks, I hate this city. But I suppose it could have been worse, I could have been raised in Calgary - the Red Neck capital of Canada! :-o :-D

- Mike

[adolescent]

Isn't Canada the car theft capital of North America? Are people not locking their car doors either? :-D

I think the stats and your asumptions are wrong. I live in a good neighborhood, but I still lock the door at night and when I leave. Like I said, I have family in the country and they never lock their front door. Of course, they have dogs that offer nice intrusion detection.

[T_Bone]

> Just would like to know what you think and how America can improve their situation.

Well, we could keep our criminals in prison, for one. :-P

Actually, I've never felt the need to lock my door no matter where I've lived. it's not like people go around randomly trying doorknobs, and even if they did, they'd probably assume that since the door was open, someone was home.

I've been broken into a few times in different places, and each time, the door was open, but they entered through a window. :lol:

[smerf]

Hi,

@T_bone

What I am trying to figure out is how Canada with the amount of weapons they have, have only 165 killings a year by gun while America has 11,127. I mean are we saying that Canadians have more common sense and ethics than Americans?

Are Canadians more cordial than Americans?

Are we saying that Americans are doing things morally wrong and really don't know the direction to go?

I mean I can remember a time in America when you weren't afraid to leave your children out to play, when you could leave your doors unlocked and you knew that if someone came in it would be your next door neighbor, now I don't even know my next door neighbor in todays time, what I am really looking for is

What in the hello happened to America?

smerf

Good grief, to think I would find something about Canada that I liked, how could I bash this country if they have stats like that. :pissed:

[adolescent]

From the CFC...


From 1970 to 1996, approximately 37,399 individuals died or were killed as a result of gun shot wounds. This accounts for an average of 1,385 deaths per year over 27 years.

Now, these stats are a bit dated, unfortunately Statistics Canada charges for updated information. I'd guess that everything has gone up since then as a percentage of the increased population.

What your stats don't say what kind of gun deaths are included in the different countries stats. For instance... The Canadian stats from the CFC include accidents, suicides, police shootings, etc. No mention on your stats what the other countries numbers include

[Wilse]

@smerf:

What I am trying to figure out is how Canada with the amount of weapons they have, have only 165 killings a year by gun while America has 11,127.

Obviously I'm an outsider but I have visited both countries and the main difference I noticed was the way the news is presented.

canada seems to be similar to here in the UK whhile the US news always seems to be about scaring tthe bejeezurs out of people.

I think people in the states are generally more twitchy as a result.

Gah - I hate generalisations - sorry. :-/

[Glaucus]

canada seems to be similar to here in the UK whhile the US news always seems to be about scaring tthe bejeezurs out of people.You're close. We Canadians get to see all the news from the US. The real difference is that we Canadians learn from their mistakes. ;-)

- Mike

[Fade]

@ Smerf
"What I am trying to figure out is how Canada with the amount of weapons they have, have only 165 killings a year by gun while America has 11,127. I mean are we saying that Canadians have more common sense and ethics than Americans?"
--------------

Smerf, you are asking the question in the wrong way.

For instance in the UK, the preferred way to kill people is to kick them to death, hence a lot fewer gun deaths. Check Ananova.comm and you will find a few each week, sometimes a few each day.

I think the same kind of thing happens in Canada, except the preferred way to kill people is to just lock them outside the house. The next morning all they have to do is find the frozen body, call the police and say, "I thought he was just out having a few extra beers". Eh!

[Karlos]

Fade wrote:

I think the same kind of thing happens in Canada, except the preferred way to kill people is to just lock them outside the house. The next morning all they have to do is find the frozen body, call the police and say, "I thought he was just out having a few extra beers". Eh!

:lol:

According to the original post, most Canadians don't lock their doors - hence coming home to find your door locked could be interpreted as attempted murder, eh?

[aardvark]

Well, I lock the doors when I go to bed and then they're unlocked by the first person out in the morning. They stay that way unless we go on a trip somewhere. Garage is usually unlocked all the time which could be a mistake as I occassionally think things are missing(could be the clutter or my wife though)

Most of the time if you hear about someone being killed in a bar, it's a knife fight. I have military training in pistols, rifles, and machineguns, but I don't own a gun, have never owned a gun, don't plan to get a gun and rather hope most of my neighbours are the same way. I was a pretty good shot, too.

The private ownership of handguns in Canada is very restricted. Difficult to get permits for, but not impossible. Gun control in Canada has required the registration of all guns, including rifles and shotguns. To buy one requires a Federal Firearms Aquisition Certificate. You need that to buy ammo, too.

We have a few nutbars who insist that the only reason the government is doing this is to disarm the population to "enslave" them. "That's the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power" Seems to me that the ones that really like their guns are the ones most likely to join the Nazis.

Unfortunately, proximity to the United States and the ease of purchase of all manner of firearms in the U.S. has meant that there are large numbers of illegal weapons in the hands of drug dealers, hells angels and other assorted badasses. the angels have a profitable business in bringing in illegal unregistered guns. Still the odds of a gun being used in your average crime is quite low here. If one is used it is more than likely that it would be a sawed off shotgun as shotguns are relatively easy to obtain.

I spent some time in the US on an exchange program in Florida. I was appalled to find that friends would keep a loaded handgun in their home. No doubt that sort of thing accounts for the high number of children killed playing with guns in the States. Many of the handguns are cheap 'Saturday Night Specials' owned by people who've had no weapons handling training and could have the weapon blow up in their hands.

In my opinion, the biggest problem in the U.S. is the NRA and the constitutional provision for 'the right to bear arms' They should change that to the right to bare arms and then no one could be discriminated against for refusing to wear long sleeved shirts. :-D

[Fade]

@ Aardvark
"I don't own a gun, have never owned a gun, don't plan to get a gun"
---------------

Maybe you should, then you can protect yourself from the Canadian police. (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2004/04/20/430998-cp.html)

[smerf]

Hi,

@Wilse

Yea I sort of agree with you, the way the news is presented in both countries probably has something to do with it, but then again I think our judges and lawyers probably have a lot to do with it along with the bleeding heart liberals. Anyhoos, just finished talking to a friend who came back from Canada, he said he had a lot of fun driving slow and holding up traffic in Canada for a change, and also said that Canada was a very pleasant country to visit. He said he enjoyed the country and the friendliness of the people.

:pissed:

smerf

:-?

[blobrana]

Hum,
there must be a table to look up, to figure out how much a Canadian life is compared to an American life...

i tried google but couldn`t find anything , however my guess is that it must be about 1:1 (or near enough),
<troll>
But it is only my wild opinion, you may have totally different
figures (eg 20 Americans = 1 Canadian)...
</troll>

[Glaucus]

Fade wrote:
@ Aardvark
"I don't own a gun, have never owned a gun, don't plan to get a gun"
---------------

Maybe you should, then you can protect yourself from the Canadian police. (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2004/04/20/430998-cp.html) Yes, the Toronto police force. It's finally gotten that bad that the city is considering looking into the matter?!? Wow. Heh, wanna know something funny Fade? We Canadians consider Toronto to be the most Americanized of all Canadian cities. Really, walking around Toronto really feels like you're in the US, you even get the American style, hard-core crime, corrupt cops, shoot-outs, murders, etc. You'd feel right at home!

- Mike

[Fade]

@ Glaucus
"you even get the American style, hard-core crime, corrupt cops, shoot-outs, murders, etc."
---------------

Glaucus, just listen to yourself. You won't even take credit for your own home grown corruption. In your eyes, everything bad that happens, anywhere in the world, can be traced back to something that the US did wrong.

There is a word for this type of thought:

par·a·noi·a :insane: (*P*)**Pronunciation Key**(pare-noie)

n.
*. A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.
*. Extreme, irrational distrust of others.


It could be time to get yourself to a doctor, but you might want to slip across the border for treatment, as it seems most Canadian doctors are overworked :hammer:, and the waiting lines are very long.

[Glaucus]

Glaucus, just listen to yourself. You won't even take credit for your own home grown corruption. In your eyes, everything bad that happens, anywhere in the world, can be traced back to something that the US did wrong.I never said it was America's fault, I just said it was most America-like. Toronto is still very Canadian, but culturally it does have a bit of an American feel. That's all. Montreal has a European feel. Parts of Vancouver feel like Hong Kong. Get the idea?!?

- Mike

What in the hello happened to America?You could blame almost anything, but two things pop into my head.

1) Population (crime grows geometrically as population gets more dense -- such as big cities)

2) Left wing liberals (and rednecks) who haven't raised their children to respect authority and live within the system. "Spare the rod, spoil the child".

Wayne

[KennyR]

Wayne, 50s-style blind respect for authority I wouldn't wish on any child. And also, it's a conservative myth that people are more lawless these days - they haven't changed, it's just that these we days don't ignore it like we used to. Conservative societies are great at ignoring things they don't believe in.

And finally, Canada has more bleeding heart liberals than USA ever did.

Far be it for me to debate my hoser friends eh? :-)

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Fade wrote:
In your eyes, everything bad that happens, anywhere in the world, can be traced back to something that the US did wrong.Well, every superpower has it's claws everywhere on the world, so they are to blame indeed. The former USSR is equally to blame as well as the US.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Wayne wrote:
2) Left wing liberals (and rednecks) who haven't raised their children to respect authority and live within the system. "Spare the rod, spoil the child".
That is utter bullocks. Raise a child with violence and it will use violence. I've seen it too much.

[Fade]

http://www.karlsforums.com/obl//black-cat/unhappy/sad4.gif is rampant, we're all going to http://mysmilies.ipbfree.com/s/otn/evil/scull.gif

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

Wayne wrote:
2) Left wing liberals (and rednecks) who haven't raised their children to respect authority and live within the system. "Spare the rod, spoil the child".
That is utter bullocks. Raise a child with violence and it will use violence. I've seen it too much.

"respect authority" = "violence"?

[Wilse]

@T_Bone:

"respect authority" = "violence"?

I think he was referring to:

"Spare the rod, spoil the child"

which implies physical abuse.

(Don't get me wrong, I was skelped regularly as a child. It didn't do me any har but I've no intention of hitting my children)

@Wayne:

I'm not suggesting you are advocating violence, it's just the way that phrase comes across.

[blobrana]

Hum, stuff authority!

"Respect authority" --> "respect other people"?

(I agree it has nothing to do with violence ;)


>>Raise a child with violence and it will use violence.

Hum, check this link simian (http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2593062)...











[Strength and honour]

which implies physical abuse.No, it doesn't. It implies enforcing discipline. Smacking a child's butt when he throws a temper tantrum in Wal-Mart is not physical abuse under any circumstances, unless of course you're doing it with a baseball bat.

As you said, I'm not advocating child abuse, nor did I even hint at it, but children need a healthy mix of both freedom to explore and discipline to keep them from going completely wild.

The natural tendency of kids is to play. As they grow older, they play harder (football, sports, etcetera). Without discipline, a child never learns that at some point, they inherit responsibility and playing (while still important) must take a lower priority.

Discipline doesn't even have to be spanking or physical contact. It could mean making the child wake up at a certain time and / or clean their room, take out the garbage, or other chores. Putting them on restriction, (which is useless since most kid's rooms have tv, ps2, pc's, etcetera nowadays) when they cause trouble or whatever.

When I was a kid -- and this is the story most adults my age will tell you -- when my Dad ever even touched me in a disciplinary sense, I damned well earned it, and I damned well knew it. I do not feel that if I had bleeding heart liberal "Oh God, I'd never touch my child" parents that I would be nearly as well adjusted as I am today.

I cannot however say what I would do with my kids, because I don't have any.

Suffice to say that the way I was raised worked for me and I would hope to raise my kids with as much success as I see the job my parents really did with us.

Funny thing is, until you reach the phase where you begin thinking of your parents as "human beings" and not just parental units, you'll have no idea how much you should grovel at their feet and thank them for the job they did. Looking at the 15 to 20 year olds of today (who all seem to be about maturity level of 13), I often ask my dad jokingly "how did you ever let me survive"?

:-)

Your mileage may vary.

Wayne

[Speelgoedmannetje]

If you've got a positive attitude towards the kid, you won't need violence. If you use violence against the kid, the kid will turn against you and this will result in drug abuse, vandalism and so.
You can't catch flies with vinegar, but you can with syrup. Not syrup in a bedroom with ps2's and things like that kinda way, but syrup in a social, parental loving kinda way.

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
If you've got a positive attitude towards the kid, you won't need violence. If you use violence against the kid, the kid will turn against you and this will result in drug abuse, vandalism and so.
You can't catch flies with vinegar, but you can with syrup. Not syrup in a bedroom with ps2's and things like that kinda way, but syrup in a social, parental loving kinda way.

*cough* Eddie Haskel *cough* :lol:

[KennyR]

Well, Wayne and Speel are both right in a way. A child, like any person, does need discipline. And they also need a loving family who aren't harsh discliplinarians.

However, both points are cancelled out by one single fact: a kid raised in a bad neighbourhood will probably be a bad kid, no matter how well they're raised.

[blobrana]

Hum,
a strange idea...

In Scotland it is illegal to smack a child in public.
A kid can prosecute their parents for assault as well.

But like all things in life, it`s a gray area.






[...and maybe we are raising a generation of hardened violent criminals who will eventually save the human race from the invasion of the cybernetic organisms - William Shake spear ]

[Glaucus]

No, it doesn't. It implies enforcing discipline. Smacking a child's butt when he throws a temper tantrum in Wal-Mart is not physical abuse under any circumstances, unless of course you're doing it with a baseball bat.You're right, that isn't abuse, but it is negative reenforcement, and that's generally a sign of poor parenting. Positive reenforcement is the answer, not smacking bottoms.

- Mike

[Speelgoedmannetje]

KennyR wrote:
However, both points are cancelled out by one single fact: a kid raised in a bad neighbourhood will probably be a bad kid, no matter how well they're raised.That truly depends on the character of the kid.

[Wilse]

@Wayne:

I disagree with your first point.
The use of the word 'rod', implies striking a child with a rod.
This implies more than enforcing discipline.
If you strike your children with a rod, it is physical abuse.
(At least it is as far I am concerned.)

That said, I agree with most of the rest of your post. :-)

[T_Bone]

Glaucus wrote:
No, it doesn't. It implies enforcing discipline. Smacking a child's butt when he throws a temper tantrum in Wal-Mart is not physical abuse under any circumstances, unless of course you're doing it with a baseball bat.You're right, that isn't abuse, but it is negative reenforcement, and that's generally a sign of poor parenting. Positive reenforcement is the answer, not smacking bottoms.

- Mike

ALL dicipline is negative reinforcement weather or not you spank. Life itself is negative reinforcement. Children who don't learn that there are consequences to their actions arn't being raised properly.

I never really had a dicipline policy, My kids have probably been spanked maybe 3/4 times total in their life, when it was appropriate.

I don't "reward" behavior, I don't like that style of parenting, although I see it all the time. My kids have been raised with the rewards other parents make their children "work" for, given to them freely. I don't encourage proper behavior, I simply expect it. Why raise children to manipulate people to get what they want?

The funny thing about parenting, is that you arn't raising children, you are raising parents. When you parent them, you arn't so much teaching them how to act as children, but teaching them how to raise theirs.

[Glaucus]

I don't "reward" behavior, I don't like that style of parenting, although I see it all the time. My kids have been raised with the rewards other parents make their children "work" for, given to them freely. I don't encourage proper behavior, I simply expect it. Why raise children to manipulate people to get what they want?The idea is simple. Positive reenforcement stems from the concept that a parent communicates to the kids what they expect, and rewards them when they live up to that expectation. I think it's stupid, and a sign of a bad parent when the only attention given to a child is when a child misbehaves. If the only feedback you give your kids is negative, then I'd suggest you rethink your parenting style.

I never really had a dicipline policy, My kids have probably been spanked maybe 3/4 times total in their life, when it was appropriate.And that's good. I'm talking about parents who spank their kids 3/4+ times a week. Anyone who has to spank their kids that often is probably someone who has no concept of what they're doing, and possibly is raising ADHD kids and doesn't even know it. still, the important thing is to communicate to the kids what you expect early on and reward good behaviour - and that could be as simple as a "good boy" or "well done". Kids feed off positive reenforcement and naturally want to please their parents - exploit that!!!

- Mike

[T_Bone]

Glaucus wrote:
The idea is simple. Positive reenforcement stems from the concept that a parent communicates to the kids what they expect, and rewards them when they live up to that expectation.

Why would you reward a child for behavior that's expected of them? Do you also intend for them to tell you what they expect of you, and then they'll reward you for the things you're expected to do anyway, like provide for them?

What do you do when the child doesn't adhere to a reasonable expectation? Just "not reward them?"

I think it's stupid, and a sign of a bad parent when the only attention given to a child is when a child misbehaves. If the only feedback you give your kids is negative, then I'd suggest you rethink your parenting style.

I think it's equally stupid when a parent only pay's attention to a child as a "reward", rather than as something they should just reasonably expect from the parents. Paying attention to your child isn't a reward, it should be expected.

And that's good. I'm talking about parents who spank their kids 3/4+ times a week. Anyone who has to spank their kids that often is probably someone who has no concept of what they're doing, and possibly is raising ADHD kids and doesn't even know it.

3/4 times a week is excessine, I agree.

still, the important thing is to communicate to the kids what you expect early on and reward good behaviour - and that could be as simple as a "good boy" or "well done". Kids feed off positive reenforcement and naturally want to please their parents - exploit that!!!

That becomes less effective as the child becomes indipendant. As a child becomes indipendant, they arn't looking for approval anymore (at least not from their parents, more from their friends), like they were when they were 4 and tugging on your pants. I think that if you raise kids to try to earn approval, as they become indipendant and their need for approval shifts to their friends, it opens "peer pressure" issues as they continue to seek approval from their friends, who will probably reward very different behavior than you have.

I don't want to raise children that feel the need to seek aproval from others, or us as parents. I've raised them to be empowered by their own lives, and will expect us as parents to help them towards their goals, not as a reward they need to earn. I've always expected reasonable behavior from them, and they've always expected reasonable involvement from us.

The main problem with raising a child to try to earn the carrot, is you arn't going to be the only influence in your childs life that will dangle carrots in front of them. if you haven't taught your children about consequences, someone else will.

(possibly in rehab, as one of the very first things they will teach you is to stop thinking you need to earn approval from others.)

[jjans]

smerf wrote:
Hi,

@T_bone

What I am trying to figure out is how Canada with the amount of weapons they have, have only 165 killings a year by gun while America has 11,127. I mean are we saying that Canadians have more common sense and ethics than Americans?

Are Canadians more cordial than Americans?




Actually this merely means that us Canadians are really, really terrible shots,and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a plate of beans. We are much more effective with hockey sticks! :lol:

On a serious note as for being cordial, I was disappointed by the Montreal Canadiens fans booing the American Anthym during their game 3 of that NHL playoff round vs the Boston Bruins. It was really classy to see the fans in Boston applaud our Canadian Anthem in game 4.