NationStates Jolt Archive

John Locke, the founder of our modern day democracy concept, once noted that if those in power refuse to serve the people that it is the right, the duty, of the people to remove those in power.

We the people of Toronto face such a proposal. The minister of justice who has the power to toughen gun laws feels they are tough enough despite the recent gun madness in our city which we all know will only get worse.

Then again this is the individual who is in charge of the same justice system that will release pedophile Martin Ferrier next year despite the fact that he will most likely reoffend. This is the same system that allowed the 20 year old murderer of a Taber, Alberta student to walk away free from his open custody centre. This is the same individual who ignores that a 4 year old is shot four times in a drive by shooting with his refusal to toughen gun laws and/or sentencing.

The system is set up so that no one is responsible if a person is let go and commits another offense. If this system kills another Linda Shaw, or a Christopher Stephenson those in command such as Justice Minister Cotler do not notice or care.

It is time that a Charter of Rights, Responsibilities, and Freedoms is created for our country however those in charge have no desire to protect law abiding citizens in Canada.

The provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick are the powers that came together to create the entity known as Canada. It is time therefore that the provinces, who were the ones who gave control to federal officials in 1867 to control the laws of the land take this specific control back.

When the provinces, instead of the federal government, are responsible for the justice system the people are able to have a say in what the laws will dictate for those who commit offences in their province.

I realize that possibly gun laws are tough enough in other parts of our nation however they are not tough enough for the streets of Toronto. The justice system is not tough enough on pedophiles either. This is a sentiment that most Ontarians and especially Torontonians have felt for years. Therefore it is time that our provincial politicians see about grasping this control by calling a referendum on it.

Toronto could also have a similar referendum since this way the will of the people could truly be known. Possibly someone who supposedly represents us at one of the levels of government might do the bidding of the people unlike the current federal government who has ignored us, the law abiding citizens of the nation, in regards to this issue up until now.

What do polls and such say as to the general support of this issue--and since I know only a little of the topic, a link to relevant polls or studies would be appreciated. If a majority did support the current action, wouldn't a referendum then actually be against the people's will?

And if such a referendum took place, and supported the minister's action, would you acccept such a decision, or keep calling one until the desirable course of action is achieved?

Just throwing out some debate.

Thats what you get for depending on "tougher laws" and "harsher sentences" for things that are already illegal, i.e. shooting at innocent people. Not one of the people involved in these shootings owned their weapons legally. Making it harder for a decent person to own and live with firearms is a mockery of justice.

And so I have three words: Concealed Carry Reform.

The police aren't there to protect you when retards who believe the rap they listen to start shooting. You are, so shoot back.

This is one of the few things the US has done right. People screamed and moaned about how the streets would run red with blood if a CCW system was implemented - it never happened.

Fun fact - 1 in 10 people shot by police is innocent. 1 in 50 shot by a law-abiding gunowner is innocent. Fancy that.

Fun fact - 1 in 10 people shot by police is innocent. 1 in 50 shot by a law-abiding gunowner is innocent. Fancy that.

That is an interesting statistic. Where did you find this peice of information?

Thats what you get for depending on "tougher laws" and "harsher sentences" for things that are already illegal, i.e. shooting at innocent people. Not one of the people involved in these shootings owned their weapons legally. Making it harder for a decent person to own and live with firearms is a mockery of justice.

And so I have three words: Concealed Carry Reform.

The police aren't there to protect you when retards who believe the rap they listen to start shooting. You are, so shoot back.

This is one of the few things the US has done right. People screamed and moaned about how the streets would run red with blood if a CCW system was implemented - it never happened.

Fun fact - 1 in 10 people shot by police is innocent. 1 in 50 shot by a law-abiding gunowner is innocent. Fancy that.

Whoa, where did you get that? Oye oye would love it.

Ironically enough, the Clinton Administration.

The Clinton Administration...

That proves that they truly are idiots, and thank God he couldn't run for a Third Term.

Now the following quote is on concealed-handgun laws, but follow my logic here. It's about People who follow the law, and people who don't.

"Some evidence on whether concealed-handgun laws will lead to increased crimes is readily available. Between October 1, 1987, when Florida's "conceal-carry" law took effect, and the end of 1996, over 380,000 lincenses had been issued, and only 72 had ben revoked because of crimes commited by license holders (most of which were not with the permitted gun)." (Lott, 11)

Now, what does this piece of information tell us? That, say it with me now...

Gun Control Laws don't do anything.

People who break the law... aren't going to follow the law. So follow my very simple logic here. If people who break the law, aren't going to follow the law, why would they register a gun? And if they don't follow the law, how does adding MORE GUN CONTROL help stop GUN CRIME when only Law-Abbiding citizens will register and follow your Gun Control Laws?

It's called a Black Market... Crooks and criminals can get them anywhere.

Oh, and statistics show that more a person is likely to be for tougher gun control, the more likely the person is to be completely away from crime areas. Oh, and in the United States, just so you know, the Police of any Department are almost always more than 60% likely to be for the ownership of firearms and for conceal-carry laws. Why?

Because the police only show up after the crime has been committed.

If you need anymore quotes or statistics to back up my claim, ask me specific questions, and I can most likely give you an answer. And if you want to find the answers yourself, I'm reading this great book right now called

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws by John R. Lott Jr.

*yawn*

No handguns in my country, thank you for your concern, but no.

Oh, and in the United States, just so you know, the Police of any Department are almost always more than 60% likely to be for the ownership of firearms and for conceal-carry laws. Why?

Because the police only show up after the crime has been committed.


That's one way of interpreting it - though what's more likely is the cops realize they have a vested interest in maintaining viable stocks of gun-toting criminals in their communities. Otherwise, they'd be out of work.

I think the weapon laws are tough enough. The problem is with trying to enforce them and to get people to stand up and point to those gangsters carrying and selling guns. People are too afraid perhaps because they feel the police won't be able to help them or protect them if they choose to accuse somebody.

That's one way of interpreting it - though what's more likely is the cops realize they have a vested interest in maintaining viable stocks of gun-toting criminals in their communities. Otherwise, they'd be out of work.
Police are the ones most likely to be shot at though, I doubt they particularly want gun-toting criminals around, job or no job. There are lots of other things police have to respond to that do not involve guns and that would still require a police presence.

I don't think it makes sense to apply what American police forces have to say about the subject to a Canadian context. Americans have the right to bear arms drummed into them from birth, their country is awash in handguns, it is kind of too late to get them to think any other way. Perhaps given that everyone has the right to bear arms in America, then police departments would be 60% in favour of said laws. But in Canada we do not have that pre-existing condition of everyone owning or having the right to own handguns, so you can't really apply the same figures. Am I making any sense?

Police are the ones most likely to be shot at though, I doubt they particularly want gun-toting criminals around, job or no job. There are lots of other things police have to respond to that do not involve guns and that would still require a police presence.

I don't think it makes sense to apply what American police forces have to say about the subject to a Canadian context. Americans have the right to bear arms drummed into them from birth, their country is awash in handguns, it is kind of too late to get them to think any other way. Perhaps given that everyone has the right to bear arms in America, then police departments would be 60% in favour of said laws. But in Canada we do not have that pre-existing condition of everyone owning or having the right to own handguns, so you can't really apply the same figures. Am I making any sense?

I see. As I am an American, I cannot really say anything about Canadian Gun laws, however I am jealous of you canucks.

You guys can own modified FA rifles neutered to semi-auto only configuration, whereas we Americans can only own 'virgin' Semi-auto rifles....

And you guys don't have the stupid NFA to deal with.

Fun fact - 1 in 10 people shot by police is innocent. 1 in 50 shot by a law-abiding gunowner is innocent. Fancy that.

Yeah. That just pwn'd gun control.

Yeah. That just pwn'd gun control.

Some people on this board would beleive that means you need to disarm the citizenry even more.

*yawn*

No handguns in my country, thank you for your concern, but no.
:D :D :D

Sorry bud, reread our laws! We have LOTS of handguns.

John Locke, the founder of our modern day democracy concept, once noted that if those in power refuse to serve the people that it is the right, the duty, of the people to remove those in power.

We the people of Toronto face such a proposal. The minister of justice who has the power to toughen gun laws feels they are tough enough despite the recent gun madness in our city which we all know will only get worse.

Then again this is the individual who is in charge of the same justice system that will release pedophile Martin Ferrier next year despite the fact that he will most likely reoffend. This is the same system that allowed the 20 year old murderer of a Taber, Alberta student to walk away free from his open custody centre. This is the same individual who ignores that a 4 year old is shot four times in a drive by shooting with his refusal to toughen gun laws and/or sentencing.

The system is set up so that no one is responsible if a person is let go and commits another offense. If this system kills another Linda Shaw, or a Christopher Stephenson those in command such as Justice Minister Cotler do not notice or care.

It is time that a Charter of Rights, Responsibilities, and Freedoms is created for our country however those in charge have no desire to protect law abiding citizens in Canada.

The provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick are the powers that came together to create the entity known as Canada. It is time therefore that the provinces, who were the ones who gave control to federal officials in 1867 to control the laws of the land take this specific control back.

When the provinces, instead of the federal government, are responsible for the justice system the people are able to have a say in what the laws will dictate for those who commit offences in their province.

I realize that possibly gun laws are tough enough in other parts of our nation however they are not tough enough for the streets of Toronto. The justice system is not tough enough on pedophiles either. This is a sentiment that most Ontarians and especially Torontonians have felt for years. Therefore it is time that our provincial politicians see about grasping this control by calling a referendum on it.

Toronto could also have a similar referendum since this way the will of the people could truly be known. Possibly someone who supposedly represents us at one of the levels of government might do the bidding of the people unlike the current federal government who has ignored us, the law abiding citizens of the nation, in regards to this issue up until now.

i don't think i'd want guns banned once they've been distributed throughout a population, because criminals won't give them up (or won't give them up easily)...

The Clinton Administration...

That proves that they truly are idiots, and thank God he couldn't run for a Third Term.

Nice to see you start off in an impartial and intelligent form.

Gun Control Laws don't do anything.

Sure they do. Less guns = less availability and usage of guns. We don't have a fraction of gun crimes per capita the US does. This is good.

It's called a Black Market... Crooks and criminals can get them anywhere.

Well we are talking about a country called Canada. And no, criminals do not get guns anywhere, but nearly all of which come illegaly smuggled across the US border. Let's start with addressing the issue of access here.

Because the police only show up after the crime has been committed.

Stunning. Most insightful thing you have said yet.

Sure they do. Less guns = less availability and usage of guns. We don't have a fraction of gun crimes per capita the US does. This is good. .

Half right. Canada has a comparable ratio of legal ownership to the US and had lower crime even before the registration laws. There is no absolute causality.



Well we are talking about a country called Canada. And no, criminals do not get guns anywhere, but nearly all of which come illegaly smuggled across the US border. Let's start with addressing the issue of access here. .

Strange, then why is the Mayor of Toronto and other Canadian Authorities trying to justify collecting firearms based on the recovery data that most illegal firearms are stolen from other Canadians?

Strange, then why is the Mayor of Toronto and other Canadian Authorities trying to justify collecting firearms based on the recovery data that most illegal firearms are stolen from other Canadians?

This is true and I will slightly amend my previous statement. In fact I will even reference your point for you! http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/09/01/ontario_gun_amnesty20080901.html

I was referring to how guns are manufactured overwhelmingly in the United States rather than locally, and smuggling is indeed a major problem coming into the country. It is an ongoing problem of more and more guns coming into the area. The mayor of Toronto David Mills has said this also in recent weeks.

Referring back to the article, interesting how contrary to the logic of those saying guns prevent crimes, gun ownership did not prevent the stealing of these guns from both citizens and gun shops, which go on to be used illegally. I repeat, the less the better.

I just want to make clear that I am referring to handguns and assualt guns and the like only. Rifles are often a realistic necessity for those living in rural areas.

Referring back to the article, interesting how contrary to the logic of those saying guns prevent crimes, gun ownership did not prevent the stealing of these guns from both citizens and gun shops, which go on to be used illegally. I repeat, the less the better.

I just want to make clear that I am referring to handguns and assualt guns and the like only. Rifles are often a realistic necessity for those living in rural areas.

I could post hundreds of cases (in the US) where having a firearm (handguns included) have prevented crime and stopped murders.

If you feel that "less is better", that's your right. However, the amount of ownership doesn't correlate to crime levels as US ownership has increased significantly (40 million new owners in 10 years) while crime has decreased.

BTW, what do you define as an "Assault gun"?

I could post hundreds of cases (in the US) where having a firearm (handguns included) have prevented crime and stopped murders.

I am sure that you could, and sure I could provide countless more where a gun was directly used to cause crime.

If you feel that "less is better", that's your right. However, the amount of ownership doesn't correlate to crime levels as US ownership has increased significantly (40 million new owners in 10 years) while crime has decreased.

Thank you, I do, and would also submit gun crimes are likely more deadly. I am not an ideologue committed to the position but because I have seen many demographic studies to influence the opinion. If a strong enough counter statistics arose I could peacefully change my mind.

You make a valid point but I refer Toronto itself where gun crimes have risen dramatically. The US population has also roughly increased 40 million (260-300) in the last 10 years also, as an aside amoung countless other variables.

BTW, what do you define as an "Assault gun"?[/QUOTE]

One might start with the description used in the former United States ban on assault rifles or Canadian law. Roughly, I mean of military quality for rapid fire.

I am sure that you could, and sure I could provide countless more where a gun was directly used to cause crime.

Then we get into the issue on whether the firearm was legally owned or not and the idea that a firearm doesn't "cause" crime but the person using it in an illegal manner.

In the US, defensive uses of firearms (not necesarily firing them) is between 1.5 to 2.5 million / year.



Thank you, I do, and would also submit gun crimes are likely more deadly. I am not an ideologue committed to the position but because I have seen many demographic studies to influence the opinion. If a strong enough counter statistics arose I could peacefully change my mind.

That is not necessarily the case. Criminals w/ firearms have the potential to make a situation more deadly. While the majority of murders occur w/ firearms in the US, that does not mean that disarming LAC's will reduce it. Against armed criminals, the percentages of people being shot drop from 33% (disarmed victim) to 17% or less of those in cases where shots are fired.

You make a valid point but I refer Toronto itself where gun crimes have risen dramatically. The US population has also roughly increased 40 million (260-300) in the last 10 years also, as an aside amoung countless other variables.

They have increased even w/ the increased laws and restrictions that were introduced under the guise of reducing crime. The belief that further laws will reduce crime is IMO flawed. While the US population is estimated to be just under 300mil, that's still a dramatic increase. I agree that there are countless other variables involved which is why I argue against the "more guns=more crime" (or inverse actually) meme's.



One might start with the description used in the former United States ban on assault rifles or Canadian law. Roughly, I mean of military quality for rapid fire.

So do you mean fully or semi-automatic weapons?

The (I'm sure you meant ) former ban did not include military class weapons. Those have been regulated since 1934 but are still obtainable w/ the proper license in most states. I more or less agree w/ this. The "Ban" only prevented importation or new production of semi-auto firearms that 'looked like" military grade weapons.

Swizterland has the most guns per capita of any country in the world.

Swizterland has what is close to zero crime.

Swizterland has the most guns per capita of any country in the world.

Swizterland has what is close to zero crime.
:)

If you compare GUN CRIME in Canada and America, it is obviously more prevalent in America. This is stupid because VIOLENT CRIME (i.e. murder, rape, robbery, etc.) is comparable. What does it matter what kind of weapon it is committed with? The number of people killed won't change.