• 4 Posts
  • 164 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 7th, 2023

help-circle



  • Legal rifles, like the one used in this incident, are very rarely used by either their owners or others to commit crime.

    The report says:

    “Among incidents in which the firearm had initially been obtained legally, the accused was the legal firearm owner in 44% of cases (24 of 54 homicides).”

    44% is not rare!! That’s alarming.

    Even more damning is:

    "Among the incidents in which the firearm had not initially been obtained legally, or in which the firearm was not legally owned at the time of the homicide, and for which this information was known (49 homicides), the firearm had been stolen from the legal Canadian owner in eight cases, and in five other cases, it had been purchased illegally from the legal Canadian owner.

    Furthermore, Stats Canada also states that, “rifle or shotgun” represent 30% of firearm-related homicides, so the number is significant.

    I think we do have a problem that needs to be examined deeply by our elected officials.


  • Legal gun owner violence is incredibly rare in Canada. I’d rather focus more resources on illegal firearms.

    FYI:

    “But if we look at the studies on this, we find that the vast majority of firearms that are used in shootings both fatal and non-fatal are being purchased legally at one point in time. And then they’re diverted.” (SOURCE)

    The same interview also said:

    “One of the core findings that they came away with was that gun bans tend to have a very good effect in terms of reducing gun violence rates. So this is not political posturing. This is social science at work. This is researchers surveying 130 peer-reviewed articles and coming away with this conclusion.”

    In a case like this with domestic abuse, the abuser would have been able to assault them just as easily with a kitchen knife. The gun isn’t the problem here, the abuser is the problem.

    This is not true.

    Justice Canada wrote in a report that:

    “According to Reiss and Roth (1993: 262), the choice of a weapon in violent domestic disputes may well be “the nearest available object that can project force.” In contrast to other types of homicide, the authors concluded, it would seem likely that in domestic disputes “the instrumentality rather than intent contributes most of the firearm’s lethal effect” (Ibidem).” (SOURCE)

    It’s been studied and known for decades that guns in the home increases the risk of homicide towards women.

    You can come to your own conclusions, but I think the data is quite clear, and public safety should come above all other considerations when it comes to firearms.





  • We need laws and enforcement. This isn’t supposed to be resolved by consumers.

    Laws don’t protect farmed animals, because they are not recognised by the legal system of having any value outside of being property.

    Consumers, however, can chose to not support these industries, and make a deliberate effort to move to a more plant-based diet.

    And for those who truly don’t know, I urge you to watch Earthlings, which is a documentary from 2005 that shows violence towards animals in these industries. In 20 years since that movie came out, you can find examples of the same cruelty happening everywhere.

    We don’t tend to hear more about it these days because of laws that punish whistleblowers. But the violence hasn’t stopped, because it’s inherent in these industries of death.

    As individuals, we can either choose to support violence or not.







  • FressRSS gave me a UI I was looking for on both mobile and desktop, and it “just works”.

    My only complaint, and I’m sure this isn’t a feature found anywhere, is that I wish you could actually delete an article, not just “archive it”. Some of the stuff that gets through on RSS is unfiltered NSFW crap, and I really would rather not have that on my home server!


  • Tying eligibility to work perpetuates the dehumanizing notion that only those who “contribute” economically deserve assistance.

    Dafuq?

    Some people get benefits that other people don’t. Nobody gets every benefit.

    Rebates, social assistance, tax benefits, and other support are nearly ALWAYS tied to something to be eligible: old age, work/no work, disability, child, native status, homeownership, vehicle use, marriage status, etc…

    On the flip side, the unemployed get funds that working people don’t.

    Unless she has a double-standard or expects everyone to get every benefit available without eligibility criteria, I don’t think she understands how these things work.


  • Expecting fascism to solve inequality

    Nobody expects the far-right to solve inequality.

    When you think about it, Conservative governments are about what can be TAKEN from people, not what can be GIVEN to them.

    The right to marriage equality, a woman’s choice to dictate her own reproductive future, disability rights, environmental protection, transportation accessibility, etc.

    None of those issues are championed by the far-right, but they certainly are fought to be restricted or taken away.

    We are so, so fucked if both Canada and the US have far-right governments in power for the foreseeable future. We will not recover from it.



  • viable parliamentary democracy is functioning as intended

    I guess that depends on your definition of functioning.

    Just the other day, the NDP leader said this: "We’re not going to vote in favour of any of their games because that’s what (the Conservatives are) doing. They’re playing games,” Singh told reporters after the vote was tallied. (SOURCE)

    And now he wants to play games with our future by handing Conservatives more power?

    We all know that the Conservative party in Canada and the Republicans in the US are not acting in good faith to bring benefit to the people, so is this how our democracy is supposed to work?

    We have a democracy FOR THE PEOPLE, and if the people aren’t benefiting from these “games”, then it’s not functioning as intended.

    In my opinion, of course.