It is not safe to do. Please don’t visit the US.

But they’re too arrogant to do that unfortunately. They demand the NDP and Greens do it in their close races but refuse to do the same when the shoe is on the other foot while also opposing proportional representation at the same time.

PP isn’t your only other option.

They chose well!

Vatniks have no honour!

Yup, I also appreciate how so many people are running open-source software so we can fully examine the actions of the developers.

It’s nice to see anti-pr liberals get a taste of their own medicine in this instance.

The liberals need to put their country first by strategically voting for Elizabeth May.

Bad faith as it can get.

Ban those guns. We need to stop the violence!

Poilievre has acted in favour of loosing gun restrictions leading to an inevitable increase of gun violence. He has done it before, there’s no need beat around the bush on it. Supporting guns is supporting violence period.

Prior to the election, he told a prominent gun control critic that he will repeal Liberal gun laws.

“reverse the wasteful multi-billion dollar gun grab that targets our hunters and our sports shooters.”

Source

The obsolete first-past-the-post prevents women from fair government representation. Support proportional representation to increase the amount of women leaders in our democracy.

The evidence shows that gun ownership is positively correlated with more deaths. Your selfish wants does not override everyone’s safety.

A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides. The elevated rates of suicide and homicide among children living in states with more guns is not entirely explained by a state’s poverty, education, or urbanization and is driven by lethal firearm violence, not by lethal nonfirearm violence.

Source

Pathetic response that sounds like a veiled threat.

A whole lot of whatboutism. We should regulate things that are dangerous and not sit on our hands doing nothing. Canada is way better off without guns.

There are two conflicting positions toward gun ownership in the United States. Proponents of stricter gun control argue that guns are responsible for 32,000 gun-related deaths each year and that the introduction of stricter gun control laws would reduce this death toll. Gun rights advocates argue that the general availability of guns reduces homicide rates, due to deterrence and because guns are effective means of self-defense. Based on a review of the evidence, I draw the following conclusions: Gun prevalence is positively related to homicide rates. There is no evidence for a protective effect of gun ownership. In fact, gun owners have a greater likelihood of being murdered. Furthermore, gun ownership is associated with an increased risk of serious injuries, accidental death, and death from suicide. The evidence on the effectiveness of gun control measures has not been encouraging, partly because the influential gun lobby has successfully prevented the introduction of more effective measures. A federal registration system for all firearms would address many limitations of present gun control measures. To mobilize public opinion, a culture change in attitudes toward firearms is needed.

Source 1

It is contended that easier access to small arms increases the likelihood of misuse, on the basis of evidence comparing rates of firearm mortality and availability both between comparably developed countries, contrasting particularly the United States and others, and in different regions of individual countries. For example, firearm mortality is often greater in rural areas than urban. Possible inaccuracies in data collection are considered, but felt not sufficient to account for the finding. Measures to restrict availability such as stricter licensing, regulations governing storage and legally‐imposed ‘gun‐free zones’ may all reduce the death toll. In conflict zones, measures to remove arms post‐conflict reduce subsequent mortality. Breaking the supply chain is also important and the link between supply, demand and the values of a society must be kept in mind.

Source 2

This study examines the relationship between firearm availability and national homicide rates. The theoretical and empirical literatures are reviewed, and a cross-national two-stage least squares regression analysis is described. The relationship between a circa 1990 measure of firearm availability and the average 1990–1994 homicide rate is examined across 36 countries. Two-stage least squares regression, which controls for homicide’s effect on firearm availability in addition to a number of other confounding factors, reveals a statistically significant positive effect of firearm availability on national homicide rates. The magnitude of the association is considerable. The observed relationship is found to be insensitive to sample composition. Results also indicate that homicide rates do not influence levels of firearm availability. The limitations of the study and avenues for future research are discussed.

Source 3

Background: Between 1979 and 1997, almost 30 000 Americans died from unintentional firearm injuries, half of whom were under 25 years of age and 4600 of whom were less than 15 years old. Purpose: To explore the association between state firearm levels and rates of unintentional firearm deaths by age group, accounting for several potential confounders. Methods: The study used a proxy for firearm availability and pooled cross-sectional time-series data on unintentional firearm deaths for the 50 United States from 1979 to 1997. Negative binomial models were used to estimate the association between firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths. Results: A statistically significant and robust association exists between gun availability and unintentional firearm deaths for the US as a whole and within each age group. Multivariate analysis found that, compared to states with the lowest gun levels, states with the highest gun levels had, on average, 9 times the rate of unintentional firearm deaths. These results hold among men and women, for Whites and African Americans. Conclusion: Of the almost 30 000 people who died in unintentional firearm deaths over the 19-year study period, a disproportionately high number died in states where guns are more prevalent. The results suggest that the increased risk of unintentional violent death among all age groups is not entirely explained by a state’s level of poverty, urbanization, or regional location.

Source 4

The user interface has really picked up in design!

The poor and working classes are really voting against their interests…

And those weapons used by the police will eventually be sold to the criminals.

This comment ignores the fact that legal guns still increase deaths in Canada.

He wants to increase gun violence.