Guns, Gangs and Toronto

[TCBF]

".Why can't I use the 911 argument? 911 WILL work in most cases."

9-1-1 does not stop the COMMISSION of a crime.  It allows law enforcers to arrive in a timely fashion and secure your body..  You decide for you.  I'll decide for me.

" You're not suggesting that civilians should be able to own military grade firearms are you?"

- Why not?  I do.  So do a lot of my friends.  We statistically pose less of a risk than all other identifieable groups in this country.  Your point?

" The fact that I personally believe in gun control does in no way mean I believe that people should be forced to defend themselves in the streets or die."

But they are now! And  you prefer it the way it is now, where they die trying to survive a fight they could have discouraged if they had a gun.  News to you: you flacid pro-criminal morality and idiotic anti-gun phobia do not give you the right to render others defenceless.

" Giving people more guns would make the streets more dangerous, not safer. I think we have already established that gun crimes are usually committed with guns smuggled from the US, or guns stolen from registered owners. Increasing the number of registered owners does not help the problem, especially if we're talking concealed hand guns. It would be interesting to see the murder stats in a nation that has decreased gun control, vs those stats prior to that."

- Holy shrimp, did you just get the internet for the first time? on Army.ca alone there are many threads with thousands of hits dealing with freedom and guncontrol.  You have not absorbed these, so I will summarize:  Elimination of civilian gun ownership increases violent crime (UK, Australia, NZ).  States in the USA with civ 'concealed carry' laws have a lower rate of violent crime than in Canada (Vermont).

States and cities with TOUGHER gun laws than in Canada (Washington DC, etc) have a much higher rate than in Canada.

Next time, do your own research.

Tom

 

[48Highlander]

I don't think the world is that black and white. That's akin to saying that someone who disagrees with Israeli foreign policy is an anti-semite.

eh?  No, there's a distinct difference.  You can be against one aspect of Israel without being an anti-semite.  You're opposing a policy, not a distinct cultural or religious group.  If, on the other hand, you support gun control, then you ARE saying that you are not in favour of that notional 98lb woman being able to use a firearm to defend herself against a 300lb man.  Maybe you're not in favour of her being totaly unarmed, perhaps you'd allow her a knife, or maybe a pointy stick.  Either way, you're in favour of reducing her ability to defend herself.  What the hell does that have to do with Israel?

You also didn't define what you meant by gun control. I would think that everyone on this board believes in some form of gun control. You're not suggesting that civilians should be able to own military grade firearms are you? The fact that I personally believe in gun control does in no way mean I believe that people should be forced to defend themselves in the streets or die. I think the streets should safer, so that situation does not arise as often.

;D  Well thank you Captain Obvious.  It's good to know you're in favour of our streets being safer.  However, even if you had a workable plan for doing that, even you acknowledge that all we'll be able to accomplish is to ensure that "that situation does not arise as often".  In other words, you're STILL in favour of limiting the ability of citizens to defend themselves, you're just hoping that maybe we can make it so they don't have to defend themselves too often.

Guess what, wether I have to use a gun to defend myself just oncethanks to your "safer streets" policy, or 5 times, I'm still just as dead if you take it away from me.

Why can't I use the 911 argument? 911 WILL work in most cases.

:rofl:

What the....I'm really trying hard not to go into personal attacks here, but you're making it pretty hard.

How, pray tell, is 911 going to help a woman who is being raped?  How is it going to help a 16 year old kid being kicked to death by 10-15 other individuals?  How is it going to help those caught in the middle of the shootout in downtown Toronto?

Giving people more guns would make the streets more dangerous, not safer. I think we have already established that gun crimes are usually committed with guns smuggled from the US, or guns stolen from registered owners. Increasing the number of registered owners does not help the problem, especially if we're talking concealed hand guns. It would be interesting to see the murder stats in a nation that has decreased gun control, vs those stats prior to that.

Go ahead and look up the stats if you like.  I'll tell you right now what you'll find.  States that have a responsible gun-control program, including licencing and training of gun owners, as well as a concealed-carry program, generaly have a much lower crime rate than states which forbid gun ownership.  It's simple logic really; criminalize guns and only criminals will have guns.  What happens when only criminals have guns?  Well, they're fully aware that YOU don't have one.

It's very much like Chris Rock's famous line:

"Never go to a party with metal detectors.  Sure it feels safe inside, but what about all those guys with guns outside?  They know you aint got one."

 

[Glorified Ape]

  Elimination of civilian gun ownership increases violent crime (UK, Australia, NZ). 

It was you that brought out the "correlation is not causation" argument, wasn't it?

 

[Kilo_302]

Some nations that have increased gun control show higher rates of violent crimes. But there is more to the story here. Have you accounted for other variables during these periods of study? You bring up Vermont as an example of a safe place to live even though it allows concealed firearms. Whats the average income of a citizen of Vermont? How many large cities does it have? Is there a large immigrant population? Does it experience a lot of ethnic tension? Come on, Vermont is a laughable example.  I have to agree with Ape, I thought you did not believe in these direct correlations.

 

[48Highlander]

Some nations that have increased gun control show higher rates of violent crimes. But there is more to the story here. Have you accounted for other variables during these periods of study? You bring up Vermont as an example of a safe place to live even though it allows concealed firearms. Whats the average income of a citizen of Vermont? How many large cities does it have? Is there a large immigrant population? Does it experience a lot of ethnic tension? Come on, Vermont is a laughable example.  I have to agree with Ape, I thought you did not believe in these direct correlations.

You're the one that brought statistics into it.  Fact is, statistics will never prove for certain wether concealed carry laws impact the crime rate in a negative or positive manner.  But every they certainly indicate that it's positive.

Next time, if you don't want statistics, don't ask for them.  It's a little disingenius to say "hrm, I wonder what the statistics on this are", and then, when informed of them, come around and say "well, correlation doesn't equal causation....".

 

[TCBF]

Quote from: TCBF on Today at 17:46:21
  Elimination of civilian gun ownership increases violent crime (UK, Australia, NZ).

"It was you that brought out the "correlation is not causation" argument, wasn't it"  - GA

-Yes.  I submit that other factors and observations reinforce the statistics in this particular case. 

Tom

 

[Blackhorse7]

And I see we are right back to where we left off when the topic got locked.  Tit for tat.  Well, I'll sum up with this.  Remember Mayerthorpe.  That lunatic killed four members of the RCMP with a military grade firearm that even ERT body armour would not have defeated.  But as others have pointed out, it was his right to have it.  I'm sure that's a comfort to their families. 

I'm done with this.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And I see we are right back to where we left off when the topic got locked.  Tit for tat.  Well, I'll sum up with this.  Remember Mayerthorpe.  That lunatic killed four members of the RCMP with a military grade firearm that even ERT body armour would not have defeated.  But as others have pointed out, it was his right to have it.  I'm sure that's a comfort to their families.  

I'm done with this.

Please don't try lay any guilt trips on law abiding citizens. I have legally owned many types of firearms for forty years. I have not been in trouble with the law. Other than the fact that you don't like it, why can't I persue my chosen past time? Besides, if the Gov't doesn't provide me decent practice time and ammunition to keep up my military skills, I guess it's up to me to do it eh? Just like doing PT on my own time.

 

[TCBF]

And I point out that it was illegally in his posession, as he was under a firearms ban, and that had the leftist intellectual legal liberal elite of this country been FORCED to take citizen AND officer safety seriously, he would have not been able to commit the crime because he would have still been in jail for all of the crimes he had previously committed.  But you guys don't see it that way.  You believe ALL of society should limit their freedoms so we can let the scum go free, and if they happen to kill people while they are on the outside, well, that is just an INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT of the Legal Industry, and lets take the guns away from every one who did not do it to fool the peasants into thinking we actually care about their pathetic gap-toothed, no-necked, clay-hill, red-neck lives.

Right?

Tom

 

[Glorified Ape]

Quote from: TCBF on Today at 17:46:21
  Elimination of civilian gun ownership increases violent crime (UK, Australia, NZ).

"It was you that brought out the "correlation is not causation" argument, wasn't it"   - GA

-Yes.  I submit that other factors and observations reinforce the statistics in this particular case. 

Tom

Studies? I've browsed quite a few gun control/anti-gun control stuff in the past but I've never run across anything pointing to a miraculous and spontaneous increase in crime at the exact point of gun control enactment. I could be wrong, it's not uncommon.

 

[48Highlander]

And I see we are right back to where we left off when the topic got locked.  Tit for tat.  Well, I'll sum up with this.  Remember Mayerthorpe.  That lunatic killed four members of the RCMP with a military grade firearm that even ERT body armour would not have defeated.  But as others have pointed out, it was his right to have it.  I'm sure that's a comfort to their families. 

I'm done with this.

There you go, making things up again.  Here's a brief history of Mr. Roszko:

Roszko racked up a string of charges dating back nearly 30 years. Court and parole documents give details of his criminal past, which included pointing a loaded handgun at a young man he had lured into his house and demanding sex, as well as using alcohol and money in attempts to befriend young people.

The trail started in February 1976, when Roszko faced charges including break and enter, and possession of stolen property. He was sentenced to one year's probation in April 1979.

Three charges of failing to comply with a probation order earned him 45 days in jail in December 1993.

There were also dismissed charges of counselling to commit murder and pointing a firearm, of assault and of impersonating a police officer.

In 1994, he was charged with sexually assaulting a young male, and later spent 2½ years in prison.

In September 1999, there was yet another weapons charge, which was dropped.

It was followed by a psychiatric profile done in 2000 that said Roszko refused to accept responsibility for his crimes and was preoccupied with legal proceedings. It recommended keeping him locked up.

In total, Roszko was charged with 36 crimes, including driving and trespassing offences, and convicted of 12 of them. At the time of his death, he was facing two charges of mischief to property.

Lawyer Guy Fontaine represented Roszko on many of the charges, and knew him for 20 years. He says Roszko hated the RCMP and blamed them for interfering with his life.

"These police officers were completely mindful, they were completely aware of Roszko's history, of his files, of his involvement with the law," said Fontaine. "They were completely aware of his potentiality towards violence."

Now, if this individual was allowed to posses firearms of any sort (which I seriously doubt), then our legal system needs a serious re-working.

Considering he was, at the time, also employing a 20 round magazine for his rifle (which is illegal in Canada), I seriously doubt he would have had any compunctions about obtaining his firearms through illegal means.

And you've yet to show why exactly you think it's a good idea to trample all over my rights.  Coming from a Cop, your attitude is quite disturbing.

 

[TCBF]

Difficult to determine?  Perhaps.  Very seldom is gun control conducted at once. Ron Basford, I think, spoke of a fifty year process, and that was in the late sixties.  A much  quicker process occured in Australia and the UK, BUT, it was at the same time as loosening of immigration policies to encourage those who may have had difficulties adapting to our western ways, with the usual gang related problems for the next generation.  

The trouble is that gun control is such a visceral subject.  It focuses on one item and the attendant casualties yet seldom on the reasons for the disarming of citizens and how that will reduce crime - because it won't.

And, what is the real reason behind it?  Why is a peaceable nation whose violent rates have never been that alarming bben told it had to get rid of guns?  Why wouldn't honest politicians trust their voters with guns?  What is there to fear?  A suicide epidemic? No, suicide is means independant.

The proponents are fond of saying that 'less guns mean less gun dead', but what if it increased the over all amount of dead when guns were taken away, and what if we ended up with the WRONG kind of dead - hoimeowners instead of home invaders?

It would be nice to see some intellectual honesty  - I think Gary Mauser alluded to that in his book "Gun Control in Canada - Reflections on a One Way Street:

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Research/Observations/

"2. Firearm Violence
2.4 International Comparisons
"...commonly compared foreign nations with strict gun controls had lower violence rates before controls were implemented,...one therefore cannot conclude from such simple cross-national comparisons that stricter gun controls reduced violence." [51]
Kleck, Point Blank

Firearm prohibitionists constantly repeat that the United States has the highest homicide rate in the western world. That statement is false. According to the World Health Organization, this dubious distinction belongs to countries such as Mexico and Jamaica, which have homicides rates almost twice as high as the U.S. [52].
Russia virtually prohibits gun ownership by civilians (as does Jamaica) but has a murder rate higher than either the United States or Canada [53]. The majority of the European nations, with the exception of Switzerland where firearm ownership is a citizen's obligation, exhibit homicide rates similar or higher than Canada despite much more restrictive gun control laws [54].

The states of the American midwest exhibit homicide rates substantially lower than the adjoining Canadian prairie provinces despite easier legal access to firearms and liberal handgun laws [55].

Britain prohibits centerfire semiautomatic and pump action rifles. All firearm and shotgun owners and their guns are resitered. Compliance with the firearm control bureaucracy's storage requirements are expensive and rigorously enforced [56]. Firearm prohibitionists credit these strict and often puzzling firearm laws (a shotgun for many years was not considered a firearm in Britain) for a low level of gun-related homicde and violent crime, unfortunately, this is nothing more than an illusion [57]. Great Britain had much lower levels of homicide and violent crime when their gun laws were casual compared to the existing legislation [58].

While the firearm and non-firearm robbery rates in both Canada and the United States declined during the 1980's, in Great Britain the firearm/non-firearm robbery rates grew by over 100% and increased steadily after extremely restrictive firearm control laws had substantially decreased the legal ownership of firearms [59]. While the number of legal firearm owners in Great Britain has been declining due to a hostile gun control bureaucracy, crimes involving firearms increased 196% between 1981-1992 [60].

Great Britain's harsh firearm regulations have been ineffective at controlling increasing levels of gun-related crime. As in Canada, the persons who abide by the laws and regulations concerning the acquisition and ownership of firearms are the least likely to commit any crimes with them.

One of the reasons Great Britain has maintained a relatively low violent crime rate is because criminals face stiff sentences for crimes of violence. A life sentence for murder in Great Britain is taken far more seriously than in Canada. Any released murderer who violates any aspect of parole is immediately returned to custody for the rest of their natural life. Convictions for violent crimes in Great Britain typically carry an average sentence of 20 months; robbery, 48 months [61].

The British experience with firearm controls is in sharp contrast to Switzerland, one of the few countries in the world without a standing army. Virtually every adult male belongs to the citizen's militia and is required to keep an assualt rifle, ammunition, gas mask, and other military equipment readily available in their home. When the individual's term of militia service ends, usually around age 50, he keeps his issue military weapon. Obsolete military firearms are sold freely to Swiss citizens [62].

In a nation of only six million people, there are at least two milion firearms, including 600,000 automatic assault rifles and 500,000 pistols [63]. If firearms availability is directly linked to violent crime, then Switzerland should be the most violent place on earth; however, their homicide rate is identical to Britain's and similar to the majority of nations in Europe which exhibit much more restrictive gun control laws [64]."

----------------


"And you've yet to show why exactly you think it's a good idea to trample all over my rights.  Coming from a Cop, your attitude is quite disturbing"

- Keystoner Alert!  Keystoner Alert!

;D

Tom

 

[Michael OLeary]

Gentlemen, I think that's enough since we seem unable to simply debate the topic.

Locked once more and it can stay that way.

Mike
Staff