News   Jan 09, 2025
Oxford's Union Park Swaps Office Tower for More High-Rise Residential
 1.5K     2 
News   Jan 09, 2025
UrbanToronto Industry Updates: Record-Low Sales, Award-Winning Innovations, and 2025 Training Opportunities
 453     0 
News   Jan 09, 2025
UTPro Q4 2024: GTHA Crane Count Stabilizing After Several Large Drops
 1.3K     0 

"The thing about guns is they show no mercy," David Miller

Admiral Beez said:
Well said and true, you've got me convinced. However, we should note that we seem to have made an exception for war criminals.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am mistaken, but weren't these war crimes committed prior to the criminals obtaining citizenship? In this case, the citizenship was revoked based on the fact that they would not have been eligible for Canadian citizenship in the first place had they fully and properly disclosed their past criminal behaviour. This is quite different from what you propose.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I know you're speaking tongue in cheek, but even that wouldn't stop the guns, since you can simply walk or boat across the border in many parts of Canada.

Honestly, I don't think we can stop the inflow of guns, so we instead need to go hard after those that use them criminally.
Click to expand...

Would you say the same thing if I replace guns with "illegal migrants", "illicit drugs", "plutonium"? Clearly, a review of border policy is in order.

AoD
 
Honestly, I don't think we can stop the inflow of guns, so we instead need to go hard after those that use them criminally.
Click to expand...

You seem to be ignoring the obvious which is going after those who smuggle them. If tougher penalties are perceived as an effective way of reducing crimes involving the guns, then surely tougher penalties will deter those who smuggle the guns and bring them into the country in the first place. If people are willing to subject themselves to overbearing security and monitoring in the name of fighting terror, which affects Canadians in almost no way, then surely we should be willing to apply the same logic of increasing security and monitoring to ensure that we stop guns from entering the country, which many people see as a serious problem.

Discriminately picking and choosing which groups and people are targeted and which ones are left to continue on with their illegal business is bias and totally ineffective at best.
 
By focusing on a handgun ban, and blaming the problem on the Conservatives and US policy, Miller is letting criminals off the hook by not holding them accountable for their actions, and preventing us from asking the hard questions.
Click to expand...

That's one of the more absurd favourites of the gun lobby. If you even point out that the availability of guns is a problem, you're somehow letting criminals off the hook? What on earth does that mean? Is Miller or any other pro-gun-restriction person suggesting that these murderers not be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? I'd say life imprisonment is exactly the kind of accountability they should be facing.

What are these "hard questions" you're talking about? Is it a social problem (of course one that cannot be solved by any social programs)? The only suggestion I've heard from the guns-for-all types is "Throw 'em all in jail." That doesn't do much for the people they've shot in the first place, that they might not have been able to shoot if guns hadn't been so widely available.

Bringing up examples like Britain is even more preposterous. They have one of the absolute lowest murder rates in the world, despite having just about every social problem that people seem to believe point to high rates. Every night thousands of drunks go out and fight in the British streets, and yet there are no shootouts and murdered innocent bystanders. Could the difference be the UK's total handgun ban?
 
I agree with AnarchistSocialist and others that the trafficing of hand guns should be targetted as a far more serious crime. Perhaps like trafficing of drugs. Actually at any rate isn't that what this is about anyway? We set up a scenerio where a significant economic sector must be ignored, unregulated and maintained by dodgy characters and wonder why their bottom feeding thug pawns blast it out in our community. Sorry, but to some extent drug related murder is built into our social structure. Every time you have a relaxing smoke after work or pop a pill before hitting the club you're directly linked to this network of activity. If you could buy crack at your local corner store for $1.99 a hit (not that this is a desirable scenerio) do you really think poor city youth would be blasting at each other over control of the neighbourhood food service or warehouse job turf? You can try to lock up the gangsters and throw away the key, ban guns, shower social services with more money than they know what to do with, wage whatever war you like on drugs but these are all end of pipe reactionary solutions that will help minimize the problem while ignoring the fundamental underlying issue.
 
Good post, Ricky.

I would add that the crime rate on our streets is also nothing to worry about. 65 murders a year in a city of over 2.5 million (or 2.6/100,000) is hardly noticeable, especially when many of the victims are in some way linked to crime. By comparison, the number of people who will die in the GTA due indirectly to some pollution-related respiratory failure is much higher but there is no impetus out there to stop driving on smog days or turn down air conditioners.

Even if you do believe that gun violence is a problem, I cannot see how politicians of any stripes would have a magic answer. I remember how Harper's Conservative government was elected into office partly because voters felt that he might take a tougher stance on crime after the brutal slaying of Jane Creba. Experience has shown that this had no effect whatsoever on curbing gun violence.
 
unimaginative2 said:
That's one of the more absurd favourites of the gun lobby. If you even point out that the availability of guns is a problem, you're somehow letting criminals off the hook? What on earth does that mean? Is Miller or any other pro-gun-restriction person suggesting that these murderers not be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? I'd say life imprisonment is exactly the kind of accountability they should be facing.

What are these "hard questions" you're talking about? Is it a social problem (of course one that cannot be solved by any social programs)? The only suggestion I've heard from the guns-for-all types is "Throw 'em all in jail." That doesn't do much for the people they've shot in the first place, that they might not have been able to shoot if guns hadn't been so widely available.

Bringing up examples like Britain is even more preposterous. They have one of the absolute lowest murder rates in the world, despite having just about every social problem that people seem to believe point to high rates. Every night thousands of drunks go out and fight in the British streets, and yet there are no shootouts and murdered innocent bystanders. Could the difference be the UK's total handgun ban?
Click to expand...
I used the UK as an example because ever since their ban on guns, gun crime has increased. Mayor Miller is implying that a handgun ban will be an effective solution. I am pointing out that the evidence suggests otherwise. I haven't heard Miller putting pressure on the Liberal appointed judges to start doing their jobs and impose stiff sentences for gun crimes. It's pretty obvious that many of the killers are repeat offenders, and that if they were behind bars, they wouldn't be able to kill 11 year olds. But Miller would prefer to blame America and the Conservatives, because that sits better with his core audience and makes for better optics. He and his bleeding heart socialist ilk see perpetrators as victims. He will never ask the perps to take responsibility for their actions. At least police chief Blair is pointing the finger of blame where it belongs: on the lax judges who let murderers go scott free. Maybe it's time to look at the death penalty. The mother of Ephraim Brown said she wants Canada to introduce the death penalty for crimes like these.
 
3cp1 said:
Maybe it's time to look at the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Would that also include the death penalty for those smuggling the guns into the country and putting them on the street in the first place?

Sorry, but to some extent drug related murder is built into our social structure. Every time you have a relaxing smoke after work or pop a pill before hitting the club you're directly linked to this network of activity.
Click to expand...

Some what off topic, but, I bet someone selling free trade 'biker gang free' socially responsible marijuana could do pretty good business and create a strong niche market for the product.


You can try to lock up the gangsters and throw away the key, ban guns, shower social services with more money than they know what to do with, wage whatever war you like on drugs but these are all end of pipe reactionary solutions that will help minimize the problem while ignoring the fundamental underlying issue.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But it always far easier to smash poor and marginal segments of society in the name of public safety than too actually do constructive and meaningful. Though it is not surprising. This debate is only ever had when the public is hysterical about a unfortunate and senseless killing that has been so bastardized and sensationalized that it has created the perception that gun crime is a plague on our cities and needs to be dealt with in the fastest, most extreme manner possible.

This hysteria seems to be getting worse too and I can only imagine the frenzy and fear that will wash over the city the next time a pretty, white, blonde girl is murdered.

Edit: Or compare it to what happens when another suburban husband kills his wife and family and then turns the gun on himself. Does this inspire media hysteria, promoting fear of husbands? Do people demand that husbands who hit their wives be locked away because it could be a sign they are one day going to snap and kill their family? Almost nothing like that happens, even though if the pattern that is true of street cime where applied to these cases, then then the above would be true, as well as other suggestions of violating peoples civil liberties and basic human rights. That this doesn't happen just helps to illustrate the reality that the debate about gun control and crimes with guns, especially hand guns, is almost never logical and thoughtful and instead in many cases purely hypocritical, racist, and would probably prove to be ineffective since the real source of the problem is not being targeted. Add to that the additional problems that may be added to our society of some groups of people become targeted and further marginalized, leading to frustration, desperation, and a fruther escalation of many of the problems that people seem so concerned about.
 
I fail to see how a handgun ban would help at all. When was the last time you heard of anyone being shot with a legal handgun (those police officers in London, but you're going to have a hard time getting guns away from the police)? It's next to impossible to get a license for a handgun in Canada. For the most part, you have to be in law enforcement, the military, or in some cases private security. Even amongst these people, if you are found with a handgun on your person and you are not on your way to a gun club or work (you're found somewhere not between your house and where you're going to legally use the gun) you can be charged with a criminal offense. If the guns are not locked away in a gun safe, and the ammunition locked away in a separate place, you again will be charged, this is also true of rifles and shotguns.

Any of the people who have recently commited murders with handguns would have been arrested and put away if they had been caught with the gun before they'd shot anyone, so how would a ban help? It's already illegal, and there's stiff sentences attached.

I am glad we have such restrictive gun laws, but instituting a "ban" is just political posturing. They're plenty illegal to have already.
 
Dilla said:
I fail to see how a handgun ban would help at all. When was the last time you heard of anyone being shot with a legal handgun (those police officers in London, but you're going to have a hard time getting guns away from the police)? It's next to impossible to get a license for a handgun in Canada. For the most part, you have to be in law enforcement, the military, or in some cases private security. Even amongst these people, if you are found with a handgun on your person and you are not on your way to a gun club or work (you're found somewhere not between your house and where you're going to legally use the gun) you can be charged with a criminal offense. If the guns are not locked away in a gun safe, and the ammunition locked away in a separate place, you again will be charged, this is also true of rifles and shotguns.

Any of the people who have recently commited murders with handguns would have been arrested and put away if they had been caught with the gun before they'd shot anyone, so how would a ban help? It's already illegal, and there's stiff sentences attached.

I am glad we have such restrictive gun laws, but instituting a "ban" is just political posturing. They're plenty illegal to have already.
Click to expand...

That isnt really the case. There are several people who have hand-guns as "collector items" or to "practice shoot". It has been shown that a lot of guns involved in violent crimes are stolen guns - stolen from the so-called collectors and practice shooter. Ban guns altogether, and noone but the police will be allowed to have guns in Canada. This reduces the risk of having stolen guns on the street. It also reduces the # of people who apply for "collectors" permits (there would be none) who really are purchasing guns for the purpose of killing (gangs etc).

Just because a ban on guns would only reduce the likelyhood of deaths by a bit, doesnt mean that it shouldnt go through. By comparison, me reducing my carbon emissions does nothing for the environment, but everyone reducing their emissions does a lot. OR.... the entire country switching from halogen lights to compact fluorecents does very little in the grand scheme of saving energy (and therefore carbon emissions), but it is still something that ADDS to the total carbon emissions cut. So... even if a ban does little to reduce violet crime, at least it is doing SOMETHING.

There is no reason to own hand guns, other than to kill another human being. Hand guns are not used in hunting. The only "sport" where a hang gun would be used is targe practice. I dont feel any sympathy for collectors and those who want to own guns for target practice losing their rights to have these machines which are used to kill humans.
 
Jdot said:
Ban guns altogether, and noone but the police will be allowed to have guns in Canada. This reduces the risk of having stolen guns on the street.
Click to expand...
What about private armoured car guards, game wardens, border officers, jail guards and the military? There are lots of folks who need guns in Canada who are not police.

FYI, in New Brunswick, a lot of the stolen guns are taken from the game warden offices, just last year there were three break ins to the offices where the gun lockers were busted open and the guns stolen.

Still, I don't see the purpose in breaking in the lockers when you can simply drive to any gunshow in much of the the USA and without a permit buy a dozen hand guns. There's no way Canada Customs would ever catch you.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Still, I don't see the purpose in breaking in the lockers when you can simply drive to any gunshow in much of the the USA and without a permit buy a dozen hand guns. There's no way Canada Customs would ever catch you.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And so long as people ignore the fact that so many guns are coming across the border, and as long as people ignore the problem and claim there isn't anything you can do, then those who claim to want to reduce crimes committed with hand guns are wasting their energy and fighting a losing battle. That is why suggesting tougher penalties and taking a hard line on gun crime has nothing to do with actually reducing gun crime but is simply about the perception that something is being done.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top