Uh Oh... mapleleaf4ever and Canadian Defense Policy?!

[mapleleaf4ever]

Actually did you know that Swizterland has firearms in pretty much every household because of their mandatory military service requirement and civil defense plan but they have the lowest rate of gun related incidences in the world? One guy went psycho and killed 11 people once but other than that it's pretty much nothing. Unlike LA.

[aCiDPt]

hahaha wum always makes me laugh.....
sigh......

but eric as much as i luv our boys n gals in uniform, what independent global power projection capabilities do we have?

[mapleleaf4ever]

You may soon be surprised. Part of the stuff I'm working on is the restructuring of the Canadian Forces. Airlift, Rapid Reaction Forces, Armoured Vehicle Acquisition etc...

[-ff-]

Originally Posted by mapleleaf4ever

You may soon be surprised. Part of the stuff I'm working on is the restructuring of the Canadian Forces. Airlift, Rapid Reaction Forces, Armoured Vehicle Acquisition etc...

Um, didn't that whole 'army of the future' thing kind of turn out not to work? (eg, Iraq?)

[aCiDPt]

whatever plans 1 would have would look nuthin alike after the political committees get thru them. don't think defence is a liberal priority or much in our national psyche. simply not enough perceived external threat & 2 much reliance on yanks.

anyways so what u thinkin for "Airlift, Rapid Reaction Forces, Armoured Vehicle Acquisition etc..."? sounds like a few stryker brigades.

[mapleleaf4ever]

There's a lot of things that have been up in the air. Like getting our hands on an Amphibious Assault Vessel. We're upgrading our F-18's... the Clothe-the-Soldier Program is now finally well underway with most of the forces now rocking the new CADPAT Fatigues. There's also the possibility of bringing back the Airborne. Basically we're thinking of different ways to tailor the organization of the Forces to suit the needs of Canada's Global and Domestic commitments with what we have and plan for the expansion of future tasks. Like currently the Reserves are on a massive recruiting spree. I may finally put in my application... I've been meaning to do it for the last 3 years but have been too busy. heh

[aCiDPt]

Originally Posted by -ff-

Um, didn't that whole 'army of the future' thing kind of turn out not to work? (eg, Iraq?)

don't think they r related. no amount of technology is going to completely replace boots on the ground in an occupation role. people are simply more adaptable than machines.

but the conventional war at the beginning was quite easily won because of technological & doctrine superiority of the americans.

[mapleleaf4ever]

Originally Posted by aCiDPt

whatever plans 1 would have would look nuthin alike after the political committees get thru them. don't think defence is a liberal priority or much in our national psyche. simply not enough perceived external threat & 2 much reliance on yanks.

anyways so what u thinkin for "Airlift, Rapid Reaction Forces, Armoured Vehicle Acquisition etc..."? sounds like a few stryker brigades.

heh we're hoping that since we're in the ruling party a lot of our suggestions will get fast tracked a lot quicker than others. Defence is slowly becoming a priority. There are more and more Canadians becoming concerned about it. Like the Sea Kings... I've been in one in the mid 90's... you'd have to pay me a lot to go up in one now.

On the Strykers.... heh heh yah... that name has been tossed around. ;)

[aCiDPt]

well liberals r in power only in a minority gov which is propped up by dovey ndp....not 2 mention what i've heard from policy reports sounds more like political window dressin & lacking overall substance....... maybe i'm just jaded but i simply don't have confidence in them passin dramatic new policy on the subject anytime soon. & in light of recent ad scandals.........


so just curious; what do u guys talk bout anyways at the liberal meetins & ratio of hawt chicks? heard the green party got prettier chicas & marijuana party got better life style benefits.

[mapleleaf4ever]

Fuck man... I'm probably taking the future Pres of the Youth Wing out for Lunch on the Weekend. She's smokin' hot... the ratio is actually good. So I get to help my Country and myself at the same time. ;)

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by wum

even if that's the case, society is suffering more violent crime after the gun ban as opposed to before.

Regardless, you still get no causality from correlational research. Have you compared the crime rate to the population size? What about the crime rate per capita one year before the ban, and a year before that, etc. etc. etc.?

With correlational research (ANY Psych student will tell you this) you are comparing two different variables and how they correlate. Causality can fall under three categories:

A causes B
B causes A
C causes both A and B

C can be ANYTHING. Like, say, the number of people who work in New York and live in New Jersey. Or the number of convicted felons per capita in New Jersey. Or this and that and this and that.

Technically, you can't make the claim that cigarettes cause cancer based on correlational research, because it could just be that the personality type of the smoker is generally unhealthy or something like that. However, it's a bit unethical to do experimental research with stuff like that ("Okay, you group smoke. You group don't smoke. Let's see who gets cancer!"), not to mention there's a good amount of laboratory research that supports the theory that cigarettes cause cancer. But it's still just a theory.

[wum]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Regardless, you still get no causality from correlational research. Have you compared the crime rate to the population size? What about the crime rate per capita one year before the ban, and a year before that, etc. etc. etc.?

New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

That was only two years later. And since we're talking about rate, factors like dramatic population increase/decrease should not matter.

it's pretty obvious, yo

[ebbomega]

You'd think so, except that the crime rate per capita seems to be higher in more densely populated areas.

Again, have you compared that to global crime rates? And still, you're missing the point. The fact is you haven't eliminated all possibilities here. What was it like 2 years before that? And 2 years before that? Maybe it's been on a steady increase. Granted, it's a fast increase. But again, what about New Yorkers living in New Jersey? What about New Yorkers visiting New Jersey?

Jersey and NY are both pretty interrelated. What about areas? Where exactly are we seeing the crime spike? How do you know that it wasn't caused by something else completely? What if it's been like this ever since Guliani's been gone? What if what if what if what if. Too many variables to say for sure.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.