Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:25:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
726 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> > Actually the crime rate differnce has nothing to do with gun control. Most of
> > the studies I have seen actually suggest the crime rate went up after the main
> > gun control laws were put into effect in Canada. The crime rate in Canada has
> > always been lower even when the availability of guns was comparable to that in
> > the U.S. The only thing gun control accomplishes is preventing you from
> > defending yourself against the tyranny of the Government.
>
> À la Unabomber? Or McVeigh? Or that guy in Ruby Ridge? Or David Khoresh? Or
> 'Michigan Militia'? Or?...
Considering no one knows why these people did what they did (aside from what the
government tells us,) I can not say.
>
> > > And Canada has free health care for everyone.
> >
> > Even though its quality while still excellent on a global average is now
> > proportionately less than it was prior to becoming free for everyone.
>
> What do you base this assertion on?
> (Really, I'm curious about it)
10-12 years ago Canadian medical services and eqipment was equal or greater than
that of the US. Today they are a decade behind. Seriously, when has any
government actually improved something by taking it over? Besides its not even
free, Canadians are paying for it through taxes. The only differnce is that the
cost is deferred over everyone instead of those actually using the services. I
still don't see how that is considered 'fair'.
>
> > > And a much less terrible >poverty rate than in US.
> >
> > Nevermind that those living in poverty in the US are living like kings compared
> > to most of the world.
>
> "Most". Is that comparison valid towards Canada? :-)
Doubtful, but why does not being able to buy a DVD player for your TV warrent
sympathy anyway?
>
> > > And true democraty too.
> >
> > So the US isn't even supposed to be a democracy were are supposed to be a
> > representative republic.
>
> Ok. Though you do adhere to "democratic principles"... That's good, right? > :-)
In the current (as of 6/2003) definition, yes.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
161 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
