Gun Crime and Violent Crime

[PoliticalCitizen]

There has been a spree of violent and gun crimes in GTA recently with 3 shootings over a 24-hour period recently.

Of course, there are obvious reactive measures, such as find and punish the responsible.

Togher laws, more jails - that's the American way of dealing with the problem. As we can see in USA it is not very successful.

Should we ressurect social assistance instead? In the last 15 years or so wellfare payments never increased while the cost of living almost doubled. How do we expect the recipients to survive?

Are we not encouraging them to pick up the gun and "make a living" on the streets?

What party is even addressing that in their election platform?

Edited September 23, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen

[kengs333]

You know what, the real underlying reasons for this problem are not--and never will be--addressed. First of all, cities by their very structure and nature are in part to blame. Secondly, economic disparity (the Cons support a capitalist system that creates the problem then without a sense of hypocracy insist on draconian measures to clean up the mess). Thirdly, a city's demographic plays a role.

Cities have always been the centre of crime, social breakdown and decline in a society not at war. I think Canada was fortunate to have come from a British and Christian tradition that instilled values in citizens to be generally non-violent and respectful of others, even when commiting a crime. But with the breakdown of our society thanks to a number of factors (of course Dawkins and his ilk will never feel an ounce of guilt) that is bound to change. American gun culture and social issues are overtaking Canada and throwing more money at the problem and building more prisons won't solve the problem.

[segnosaur]

Togher laws, more jails - that's the American way of dealing with the problem. As we can see in USA it is not very successful.

Really? Strange... the statistics from the U.N. actually tell a different story.

According to the 2004 U.N. Human Development Report, the percentage of people who were victims of crime was around 21% in the U.S. In Canada, it was 24%. And even though there may be more murders in the U.S. than in Canada, Canada has a higher rate for assault and sexual assault.

Granted, there ARE a lot more people in jail in the U.S., but a lot of that is due to jailing people over drug possession. (I don't want to ressurect any debate about the wisdom of the 'war on drugs', but for the most part, drug possession is a victimless crime.)

(See: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2004/, the complete report, page 215)

Should we ressurect social assistance instead? In the last 15 years or so wellfare payments never increased while the cost of living almost doubled. How do we expect the recipients to survive?

Perhaps by, you know, getting a job.

I do believe that welfare is necessary, but it should only be a stop-gap measure to help those that are truly disadvantaged while they get back on their feet.

Why exactly do you think it is necessary to increase welfare payments? Isn't it at least possible that the rates are high enough, and even though they haven't increased lately, no increase is necessary because the rates in the past were actually higher than they needed to be?

Are we not encouraging them to pick up the gun and "make a living" on the streets?

The rate of 'violent crime' actually peaked in the 90s, and has been relatively stable for the past decade. Property crime has seen a similar stability (or even a decrease) over the past decade. If our 'low' welfare rates are causing problems, then it certainly isn't showing up in the statistics.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm

http://www43.statcan.ca/04/04b/04b_graph/0...aph_002a_2e.htm

Edited September 22, 2008 by segnosaur

[Moonbox]

As far as I'm concerned a welfare recipient deserves nothing more than what they need to survive. They should receive what they need to feed, shelter and clothe their families. They are effectively leaching from society and unless they're missing limbs or developmentally disabled the money they get should only be what's needed to keep alive.

[segnosaur]

You know what, the real underlying reasons for this problem are not--and never will be--addressed. First of all, cities by their very structure and nature are in part to blame. Secondly, economic disparity (the Cons support a capitalist system that creates the problem then without a sense of hypocracy insist on draconian measures to clean up the mess).

The U.S. has a greater difference between high and low income earners than Canada has (as measured by the Gini index). Yet the rate of property crime in the U.S. is about the same (or lower) than that of Canada.

So much for your claim of 'economic disparity' being the cause.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ields/2172.html

Cities have always been the centre of crime, social breakdown and decline in a society not at war. I think Canada was fortunate to have come from a British and Christian tradition that instilled values in citizens to be generally non-violent and respectful of others, even when commiting a crime. But with the breakdown of our society thanks to a number of factors (of course Dawkins and his ilk will never feel an ounce of guilt)

Ummm... wait a second... are you refering to Richard Dawkings, Pro-evolutionary speaker/author?

If you're somehow making the claim that a lack of 'christian' morals is partly to blame for the breakdown in society, keep in mind that the percentage of athiests in U.S. jails is smaller than the number you'd expect.

[peter_puck]

There has been a spree of violent and gun crimes in GTA recently with 3 shootings over a 24-hour period recently.

Of course, there are obvious reactive measures, such as find and punish the responsible.

Togher laws, more jails - that's the American way of dealing with the problem. As we can see in USA it is not very successful.

Should we ressurect social assistance instead? In the last 15 years or so wellfare payments never increased while the cost of living almost doubled. How do we expect the recipients to survive?

Are we not encouraging them to pick up the gun and "make a living" on the streets?

I think both approaches are wrong. Somehow I don't think someone who is a psychopath will decide to give up his life of drug dealing bling for an extra $100 a month on his welfare cheque.

On the other hand, you are right, the US approach is a disaster.

My policy would be this.

1) reduce the number of people in prison for minor, non-violent drug offenses. For every street level pusher you put in there, the money will lure the next one. Put them in a work camp for a shorter period or something. If they don't cooperate or run away, then jail them.

2) Fill the newly vacant cells with violent offenders.

3) Take the money you save and invest it in drug treatment programs. (its drug money that fuels most of this anyways)

[peter_puck]

Really? Strange... the statistics from the U.N. actually tell a different story.

According to the 2004 U.N. Human Development Report, the percentage of people who were victims of crime was around 21% in the U.S. In Canada, it was 24%. And even though there may be more murders in the U.S. than in Canada, Canada has a higher rate for assault and sexual assault.

Granted, there ARE a lot more people in jail in the U.S., but a lot of that is due to jailing people over drug possession. (I don't want to ressurect any debate about the wisdom of the 'war on drugs', but for the most part, drug possession is a victimless crime.)

I think those statistics have a lot to do with reporting and definitions. I have walked through Detroit and I have walked through Toronto - there is no comparison at all. If you report that a local thug attacked you in parts of Detroit, you would be dead before the trial. People don't report crimes in certain neighbourhoods over there

There is also a different cultural attitude and different application of laws. I don't really see a pat on the butt being prosecuted in the US, at least not in a poor neighbourhood. I know there was controversy in Canada years back when they came up with a crazy high figure for the percentage of Canadian women had been sexually assaulted. It was because of the definition of sexual assault. It included many things you would not think of when hearing "sexual assault".

I am not saying what the proper definition should be, just that the definitions might be different.

The rate of 'violent crime' actually peaked in the 90s, and has been relatively stable for the past decade. Property crime has seen a similar stability (or even a decrease) over the past decade. If our 'low' welfare rates are causing problems, then it certainly isn't showing up in the statistics.

Crime rates correlate with demographics. Young people commit a lot crimes. We have fewer young people now, and their are more police officers per person to deal with them.

[wulf42]

Its too late the liberals let in all the undesirables from other countries and now they are going to ruin ours as well!

[guyser]

Its too late the liberals let in all the undesirables from other countries and now they are going to ruin ours as well!

Your relatives right? Thats okay, every family has one or two. How long are you in for?

[tango]

As far as I'm concerned a welfare recipient deserves nothing more than what they need to survive. They should receive what they need to feed, shelter and clothe their families. They are effectively leaching from society and unless they're missing limbs or developmentally disabled the money they get should only be what's needed to keep alive.

That would be a significant improvement!

Can you tell me how a single unemployable adult can shelter, feed and clothe themselves on $560/mo in Ontario without resorting to petty crime?

People who complain about 'welfare' should learn more about what the rates are, how people cope who are on welfare.

In fact, 80% of those receiving benefits, mostly younger ones, do so for less than two years, and use it as a 'hand up'.

However, a laid-off 55 year old with no marketable skills and some health issues (not enough to get disability) has little other recourse but the extreme poverty provided by welfare, and petty crime.

Edited September 22, 2008 by tango

[capricorn]

Can you tell me how a single unemployable adult can shelter, feed and clothe themselves on $560/mo in Ontario?

tango, "unemployable" why? Unemployable as in disabled? Most provinces have a benefits program for persons with disabilities. In Ontario, the monthly benefit is around $1,000. plus allowances for special needs such as dietary restrictions.

If a single adult is able bodied he/she should get a job and not draw welfare support for any length of time. Increasing welfare benefits would only encourage able bodied individuals to stay home and do nothing. That's neither good for the person or the economy and it certainly isn't fair to taxpayers.

[tango]

tango, "unemployable" why? Unemployable as in disabled? Most provinces have a benefits program for persons with disabilities. In Ontario, the monthly benefit is around $1,000. plus allowances for special needs such as dietary restrictions.

If a single adult is able bodied he/she should get a job and not draw welfare support for any length of time. Increasing welfare benefits would only encourage able bodied individuals to stay home and do nothing. That's neither good for the person or the economy and it certainly isn't fair to taxpayers.

There are many many people who had minimal education/skills for employment to begin with, and simply have no skills that are marketable by mid-life. They may have intellectual limitations, learning disabilities, lack of education (illiteracy), some health issues (eg diabetes, bad back, mental health issues, etc) that limit them further, but do not qualify them for disability.

There is a whole lot of grey area between 'permanently disabled' and 'able bodied' and many welfare recipients fall within that grey area and cannot sustain full time employment.

Again, I must say that those who complain about 'people on welfare' don't seem to know much about them at all.

Let me put it this way: If you are an employer, would you hire the street people of Toronto? (ie, the chronically unemployed)

Most of the people I have met who are chronically on/off welfare are simply not employable on the sustained, full time basis required to earn a decent living. And many of them also have to engage in petty crime to make ends meet. (Just like Oliver Twist).

[JB Globe]

In Ontario, the monthly benefit is around $1,000. plus allowances for special needs such as dietary restrictions.

As someone who has friends who are on ODSP, I can tell you this amount is disgustingly small and is not enough to live on in a city like Toronto. The province needs to start varying the amount they give out depending on where a person lives. $1000 goes a lot further in Thunder Bay than it does here. I highly doubt after rent, groceries and transit anyone would have more than $50 to their name, and that's after some serious penny-pinching already.

There's also the issue of ODSP having access to your bank account, so say my friend (who's an artist with severe social anxiety disorder) manages to sell a painting for $300 - the government can see that and may subtract it from his payments, may suspend his payment, or if it happens enough, cut off his ODSP - basically punishing disabled people for managing for working when they can (which isn't most of the time).

[tango]

As someone who has friends who are on ODSP, I can tell you this amount is disgustingly small and is not enough to live on in a city like Toronto. The province needs to start varying the amount they give out depending on where a person lives. $1000 goes a lot further in Thunder Bay than it does here. I highly doubt after rent, groceries and transit anyone would have more than $50 to their name, and that's after some serious penny-pinching already.

There's also the issue of ODSP having access to your bank account, so say my friend (who's an artist with severe social anxiety disorder) manages to sell a painting for $300 - the government can see that and may subtract it from his payments, may suspend his payment, or if it happens enough, cut off his ODSP - basically punishing disabled people for managing for working when they can (which isn't most of the time).

Excellent point. Those receiving benefits, welfare or otherwise, have no incentive to supplement their income legitimately because anything they make is clawed back.

I think we need a new concept of 'supportive' living that encourages people to contribute what they can, like your artist friend, without interfering with their basic living costs.

[Drea]

There are many many people who had minimal education/skills for employment to begin with, and simply have no skills that are marketable by mid-life. They may have intellectual limitations, learning disabilities, lack of education (illiteracy), some health issues (eg diabetes, bad back, mental health issues, etc) that limit them further, but do not qualify them for disability.

There is a whole lot of grey area between 'permanently disabled' and 'able bodied' and many welfare recipients fall within that grey area and cannot sustain full time employment.

Again, I must say that those who complain about 'people on welfare' don't seem to know much about them at all.

Let me put it this way: If you are an employer, would you hire the street people of Toronto? (ie, the chronically unemployed)

Most of the people I have met who are chronically on/off welfare are simply not employable on the sustained, full time basis required to earn a decent living. And many of them also have to engage in petty crime to make ends meet. (Just like Oliver Twist).

I used to work with low income people and you are right Tango, there are people who just can't get over the hurdles required for employment.

Sometimes job rejection is simply a case of having bad teeth...and no way to afford to get them fixed (or even replaced with dentures -- this should be covered by medical for low income folks IMO)

BC used to have great training programs for the difficult to employ. Unfortunately the provincial government has cut a good portion of them. My favourite groups was the Training for Jobs women. Some from abused relationships, some never worked outside the home, some addiction, but every one of them had hope. I wonder if the Campbell ever thinks of the hope he stole from thousands of people (while he just gave himself a 43% pay increase...)

Edited September 23, 2008 by Drea

[Moonbox]

There are many many people who had minimal education/skills for employment to begin with, and simply have no skills that are marketable by mid-life. They may have intellectual limitations, learning disabilities, lack of education (illiteracy), some health issues (eg diabetes, bad back, mental health issues, etc) that limit them further, but do not qualify them for disability.

There is a whole lot of grey area between 'permanently disabled' and 'able bodied' and many welfare recipients fall within that grey area and cannot sustain full time employment.

Again, I must say that those who complain about 'people on welfare' don't seem to know much about them at all.

Let me put it this way: If you are an employer, would you hire the street people of Toronto? (ie, the chronically unemployed)

This is an insightful post and I agree with some of the things you say here. I agree that there are some people with very few to no marketable skills but you simply cannot ignore how many people there truly are who completely abuse social welfare systems in our country. I know two people fairly close to me who abuse the system and if I know two people chances are you do too.

Regardless of whether or not people are at disadvantage in terms of employable skills, to say that welfare recipients deserve a decent living is pushing it. I work for a bank and I remember in my earlier years (not long ago) doing loan applications for people living on $1600 a month. They worked 40 hours a week for crap wages and payed rent for crap apartments but they saved slowly and at least had a little money left over. To say that welfare recipients should get as much or near as much as a full time low-wage worker stinks of unfairness.

A wellfare recipient, regardless of their limitations, is basically just a charity and to treat it as anything more than that is looking at it through rainbow sunglasses...or whatever.

Most of the people I have met who are chronically on/off welfare are simply not employable on the sustained, full time basis required to earn a decent living. And many of them also have to engage in petty crime to make ends meet. (Just like Oliver Twist).

End's meet should be food and rent. That's it. In subsidized housing this is easily possible, even in Toronto. Jack Layton lived in Toronto with Olivia Chow for 2 years mooching in subsidized housing for $800/month. Your lifestyle will be garbage and you'll be have almost no money left over but that's all there should be to it. Expecting the public to cover entertainment and travel expenses or whatever else people feel they deserve is just cheating the system as far as I'm concerned.

[Oleg Bach]

It our fault. The bulk of violent crime in Toronto comes from the decendants of the Jamacian immigrants that our buisness community lobbied for back in the 70s, hoping to re-employ what was an abandoned slave labour force. Much like the British who did not do their research and assumed that immigrants brought in 30 years ago would submit like their Christian counterparts that they were use to...but nooo - they brought a different value system - they are not their brothers keepers nor are they of the Paulist tradition that askes one to submit to authority seeing "God put them in place".

Back in the day when you did not have aggressive secularization of Jamacian immigrants and their children - most were indoctrinated through traditional Christianism. Now the problem is that most of the "dead beat fathers" were run off by liberal social workers that for the most part were feminist eccentric man haters. So fatherhood became a stress rather than a joy for those of the casual island way of life. What we have now are little atheistic materialists programmed by nasty rap videos that only the producers and a few artists really benefit by. Gun crime is not a broad Canadian social problem. It is a black problem. There I said it! But remember it will be the white huslters and white orgainized crime that will import weapons into our nation. There is also the posiblity that American intelligence agents might be enjoying the fact that guns destablize our society. If American operatives have destablized countless societies world wide - what makes you think they would spare us?

[tango]

This is an insightful post and I agree with some of the things you say here. I agree that there are some people with very few to no marketable skills but you simply cannot ignore how many people there truly are who completely abuse social welfare systems in our country. I know two people fairly close to me who abuse the system and if I know two people chances are you do too.

Regardless of whether or not people are at disadvantage in terms of employable skills, to say that welfare recipients deserve a decent living is pushing it. I work for a bank and I remember in my earlier years (not long ago) doing loan applications for people living on $1600 a month. They worked 40 hours a week for crap wages and payed rent for crap apartments but they saved slowly and at least had a little money left over. To say that welfare recipients should get as much or near as much as a full time low-wage worker stinks of unfairness.

A wellfare recipient, regardless of their limitations, is basically just a charity and to treat it as anything more than that is looking at it through rainbow sunglasses...or whatever.

End's meet should be food and rent. That's it. In subsidized housing this is easily possible, even in Toronto. Jack Layton lived in Toronto with Olivia Chow for 2 years mooching in subsidized housing for $800/month. Your lifestyle will be garbage and you'll be have almost no money left over but that's all there should be to it. Expecting the public to cover entertainment and travel expenses or whatever else people feel they deserve is just cheating the system as far as I'm concerned.

Subsidized housing is only a dream for most - 5+ year waiting lists, and if you are single, you'll be bumped by families. Most never make it, and are trying to live on $560 welfare a month in the rental market. They can't even afford rent, let alone food!

There is no money 'left over'. There are at least two weeks of the month with no food except food banks (not very nutritious).

Like I said, people complaining about welfare recipients don't know them or the system very well, which you just proved.

... entertainment ? travel? ... hahahahahaha That's ridiculous.

btw ... I read a report about welfare cheaters. The most common type was a family with a business (often a restaurant) who wrote off enough to reduce their income so they could get welfare (while also feeding their family at work, and writing that off too). I thought this was interesting since I believe the complaints about people on welfare usually come from the private sector, but it turns out they are the culprits.

And ... how many are there who abuse the system? Do you know? Are you just assuming there are lots, or can you provide some evidence beyond a personal observation?

By a 'decent living', I mean food, shelter, clothing. Right now, welfare for singles does not provide enough to live on - rent, food, $560/mo in a small city? I don't think so.

People working at minimum/low wage need more too.

Oleg, I won't respond to your post, except to identify it as a racist rant. From there, it is up to the mods.

Edited September 23, 2008 by tango

[Oleg Bach]

Subsidized housing is only a dream for most - 5+ year waiting lists, and if you are single, you'll be bumped by families. Most never make it, and are trying to live on $560 welfare a month in the rental market. They can't even afford rent, let alone food!

There is no money left over. There are at least two weeks of the month with no food except food banks.

Abuse the welfare system hugh? What about when tax dollars go off to float some private corporation that is so poorly managed and visionless and maybe run by a drunken pill head from Rosedale who inherited the position - WELFARE...is not just a poor persons game . It is a system of distribution that spans all social and economic areas. For instance - when your low end welfare chumps get their direct deposits at the begining of the month...They instantly disperse the funds into the community.. They are paid money spreaders! That is their job not to mention consuming the bulk of perscription drugs --- paid by the tax payer..then the money does not return into the system - but is given over to big Pharma. Welfare types stimulate the economy...buisnesses are dependent on that monthly money for the first week of every month..welfare chumps work hard re-cycling cash into the system and are very stressed out at attemtping to manage on less money than is spent on a Labrador Retriver under the care of a dog shrink!

[tango]

Abuse the welfare system hugh? What about when tax dollars go off to float some private corporation that is so poorly managed and visionless and maybe run by a drunken pill head from Rosedale who inherited the position - WELFARE...is not just a poor persons game . It is a system of distribution that spans all social and economic areas. For instance - when your low end welfare chumps get their direct deposits at the begining of the month...They instantly disperse the funds into the community.. They are paid money spreaders! That is their job not to mention consuming the bulk of perscription drugs --- paid by the tax payer..then the money does not return into the system - but is given over to big Pharma. Welfare types stimulate the economy...buisnesses are dependent on that monthly money for the first week of every month..welfare chumps work hard re-cycling cash into the system and are very stressed out at attemtping to manage on less money than is spent on a Labrador Retriver under the care of a dog shrink!

I agree with you there, and I especially like "drunken pill head from Rosedale"

(But I entirely disapprove of your previous racist post.)

Edited September 23, 2008 by tango

[Oleg Bach]

I agree with you there, and I especially like "drunken pill head from Rosedale"

(But I entirely disapprove of your previous racist post.)

I disapprove of it also - I was just being provocative. I could not paint any segment of society with a broad brush - there are dweebs in every culture and race. Having said that - would you like to shine my shoes some time----I gots real patin leder wit spats!

[tango]

I disapprove of it also - I was just being provocative. I could not paint any segment of society with a broad brush - there are dweebs in every culture and race. Having said that - would you like to shine my shoes some time----I gots real patin leder wit spats!

[Oleg Bach]

That's sweet....guess I will hope on the girls bike a peddle home now - the youngest stole my big mans bike - wonder if I will get stopped puttering a few blocks on Queen at two in the morning...no need to worry - one of the perks of being old and looking like a lawyer - cops don't bother you......see you latter - as for racism - I am black ------ inside

[Moonbox]

Like I said, people complaining about welfare recipients don't know them or the system very well, which you just proved.

... entertainment ? travel? ... hahahahahaha That's ridiculous.

I don't know a lot about welfare, you're right. I do know a lady however about 40 years old who hasn't worked in 17 years who flies to Vancouver from Ontario twice a year because her doctor thinks she needs to see her daughter for her 'mental health'. Yeah...her daughter...I get it. It's important. I still don't think I should be paying for that.

btw ... I read a report about welfare cheaters. The most common type was a family with a business (often a restaurant) who wrote off enough to reduce their income so they could get welfare (while also feeding their family at work, and writing that off too). I thought this was interesting since I believe the complaints about people on welfare usually come from the private sector, but it turns out they are the culprits.

I'm equally outraged by this.

And ... how many are there who abuse the system? Do you know? Are you just assuming there are lots, or can you provide some evidence beyond a personal observation?

just a quick look indicated in Ontario in 1994 there was an error/abuse rate of welfare of about 20%. Oh my.

Welfare Reform - Check Page 22

By a 'decent living', I mean food, shelter, clothing. Right now, welfare for singles does not provide enough to live on - rent, food, $560/mo in a small city? I don't think so.

I already said I don't think 'decent living' should be expected. I think shared apartments/subsidized housing, Kraft Dinner/Foodbank/Soup Kitchen and Salvation Army clothing is as much as should be demanded. Short term EI or welfare is one thing. Chronic welfare over years and years with no inclination to work is another altogether. Someone with a serious disability may need a little extra help but for someone to mooch off the province their whole life and never offer anything back is a whole different monster. Welfare should be VERY meagre living. If that's the way it is now, then I'm not going to complain.

People working at minimum/low wage need more too.

That I agree with completely. These people, however, are underpaid for the WORK they do. Minimum wages across North America are a joke and are making big companies rich.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Moonbox

[BC_chick]

According to the 2004 U.N. Human Development Report, the percentage of people who were victims of crime was around 21% in the U.S. In Canada, it was 24%. And even though there may be more murders in the U.S. than in Canada, Canada has a higher rate for assault and sexual assault.

The US had more violent crime and Canada had more property crime.

1.8 homocides in 100,000 compared to 5.5 in the US. Aggravated assault? More than double in the US. Firearms in robberies? 41% to 16%. Drugs offences, impaired driving and prostitution... Yanks were Gold-medal champions again.

But when it came to breaks-ins and motor vehicle thefts, we were number 1, yay!

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-0...185-002-XIE.pdf

But sure, it's way more dramatic to throw it all out there and say Canada had more "crime" all together.

Edited September 23, 2008 by BC_chick