wyly Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 we've enough to worry about with gangs having shootouts on the streets and gun strokers want every grannie and teenie to be able to shoot at every percieved threat they come across...doesn't work for me, our country is very safe as it is we don't need to go down any road that takes us closer to american society... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 I dont even think handguns are relevant. Most of our problems with crime stem from the fact that we restrict multi-billion dollar industries like marijuana farming to criminals instead of allowing honest regulated businessmen to participate. The criminals then take the massive proceeds of these industries and branch into extorsion, racketeering, sexual slavery, human trafficing and just about anything else you can think of. In any case even with a criminal justice system that rewards crime, Canada still has a relatively low crime rate and relatively low violent crime rate. I dont see much reason to change gun laws, just to better enforce the ones we already have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 I dont even think handguns are relevant.Most of our problems with crime stem from the fact that we restrict multi-billion dollar industries like marijuana farming to criminals instead of allowing honest regulated businessmen to participate. The criminals then take the massive proceeds of these industries and branch into extorsion, racketeering, sexual slavery, human trafficing and just about anything else you can think of. In any case even with a criminal justice system that rewards crime, Canada still has a relatively low crime rate and relatively low violent crime rate. I dont see much reason to change gun laws, just to better enforce the ones we already have. enforce them how? criminals don't abide by the law to begin with... when you crack down on LEGAL guns... your really only attacking average non-criminal citizens. incidentally, like your marijuana example, the key is LEGALIZING and letting private citizens make their own DAMN CHOICE. and the government be damned! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 My point was that crime perception has only really increased in the last few years. For every stp backwards, we make many steps forward. We'll be ok. You mean crime is less than it was forty years ago? Thirty years ago? Twenty years ago? Ten years ago? No, its just had a temporary lapse due to the lower numbers of young men in the population. It's still far, far higher than it was when I grew up. And I regard that as unacceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 enforce them how? criminals don't abide by the law to begin with... when you crack down on LEGAL guns... your really only attacking average non-criminal citizens. incidentally, like your marijuana example, the key is LEGALIZING and letting private citizens make their own DAMN CHOICE. and the government be damned! that's quite a leap in logic...how do translate enforcing current gun laws into " crack down on LEGAL guns" that's not what was said... the problem is controlling illegal guns...sentencing for possession, using and smuggling handguns has to be dealt with better than it is now...being caught in possession of an unregistered gun should be the last thing any criminal wants to convicted for... how about any convicted criminal banned for life from owning a firearm, then simple possession gets a 20 yr sentence, if he uses it in a crime, life...these guys need incentive not to have a gun... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 that's quite a leap in logic...how do translate enforcing current gun laws into " crack down on LEGAL guns" that's not what was said...the problem is controlling illegal guns...sentencing for possession, using and smuggling handguns has to be dealt with better than it is now...being caught in possession of an unregistered gun should be the last thing any criminal wants to convicted for... how about any convicted criminal banned for life from owning a firearm, then simple possession gets a 20 yr sentence, if he uses it in a crime, life...these guys need incentive not to have a gun... Maybe a bit overboard...but that's one of the few reasonable things I've heard from you. Keep it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Maybe a bit overboard...but that's one of the few reasonable things I've heard from you. Keep it up. I don't if the sentences were overboard...lifetime ban for convicted criminals seems fair...20 yrs for possession is debatable, but if a criminal has an illegal weapon he obviously has plans to use it for illegal purposes...life(25yrs) for using a illegal weapon in a crime, that seems fair to me as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 that's quite a leap in logic...how do translate enforcing current gun laws into " crack down on LEGAL guns" that's not what was said... criminals are law breakers... by necessity... so gun laws don't affect them... that's no leap in logic... its what's actually happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlkenny Posted November 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 when confronted with an aggressor-walk away, if need be run away...when confronted by several aggressors, hit the leader then run away very fast... when confronted with aggressor with a knife, run away very fast... when facing aggressor with gun, give him all your money... fight only when you have no other option, a single blow can kill you or your opponent.. You clearly didn't read my whole post. I'm talking about non violent solutions along with violent - non lethal and lethal levels of force. People rely too much on the police to protect them and the police aren't there to protect but to react to what's already happened. It gives the bad guys a free ride because most of the time they're long gone by the time the cops show up. The point about how rare violent confrontations are is valid too, but what is rare? One confrontation or robbery in a lifetime? That's still too much and having people trained and capable of defending themselves would reduce the instances of it happening. Crime rates would come down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 "No, given the present dynamics in "gun control", your static position is moot." No, given the present status quo in requirements for legal concealment, my position is reasonable. "Fear is a great motivator....particularly after experiencing a robbery or assault" So are you advocating that the tail wag the dog then? The last thing this country needs is for laws to be created in reaction to someone's sense of victimization or "terrifying facts" that they hear in the sensationalizing portions of the mass media. "Somebody is buying all those guns, eh?" No kidding. Canada has always had a well armed citizenry, but mostly for practical uses like hunting or recreation. Or did you not know that? As wyly said, "our country is very safe as it is we don't need to go down any road that takes us closer to american society..." Amen to that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 You clearly didn't read my whole post. I'm talking about non violent solutions along with violent - non lethal and lethal levels of force. People rely too much on the police to protect them and the police aren't there to protect but to react to what's already happened. It gives the bad guys a free ride because most of the time they're long gone by the time the cops show up. The point about how rare violent confrontations are is valid too, but what is rare? One confrontation or robbery in a lifetime? That's still too much and having people trained and capable of defending themselves would reduce the instances of it happening. Crime rates would come down. I read it all, that's just how I understand what you're written... my personal experience with dangerous criminal encounters and my experience in martial arts is what guides me...defense training gives you a false sense of security, resisting/confronting criminals can get you killed regardless of your training... the best course of action is one that keeps you out of dangerous situations, no solitary midnight strolls through deserted parks for example... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 "No, given the present dynamics in "gun control", your static position is moot."No, given the present status quo in requirements for legal concealment, my position is reasonable. "Reasonable" is an ill fitting suit for such a diverse population and criminal enterprise. "Fear is a great motivator....particularly after experiencing a robbery or assault"So are you advocating that the tail wag the dog then? The last thing this country needs is for laws to be created in reaction to someone's sense of victimization or "terrifying facts" that they hear in the sensationalizing portions of the mass media. I am only reporting on observed human behavior. There is a reason why the Lady Smith & Wesson marketing channel exists, perimeter burglar alarm sales are healthy, and its so much harder to thumb a ride. "Somebody is buying all those guns, eh?"No kidding. Canada has always had a well armed citizenry, but mostly for practical uses like hunting or recreation. Or did you not know that? Og course...hence the magnificent Gun Registry. As wyly said, "our country is very safe as it is we don't need to go down any road that takes us closer to american society..." Amen to that! Is that what this is all about? Another American bogeyman story? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 People should allowed to be armed..........there are a lot of scumballs out there andpeople should have the right to self defense! I do not ask for or request to be 'allowed' to be armed, I'll do it anyway. If that makes me a criminal, so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 The key to crime reduction can be found in the reformation of our legal system into a justice system. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, ever heard that one. Its true. Punish the person for the crime. That is all we have to do. The use of a weapon in the commission of a crime should carry an automatic minimum 10 year sentence. The use of a restricted weapon should have a double minimum automatic sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 "Another American bogeyman story?" No, of course not. It is just the impression that you do not understand the Canadian reality. You can't be blamed for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 The key to crime reduction can be found in the reformation of our legal system into a justice system. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, ever heard that one. Its true.Punish the person for the crime. That is all we have to do. The use of a weapon in the commission of a crime should carry an automatic minimum 10 year sentence. The use of a restricted weapon should have a double minimum automatic sentence. I would be interested to know how you arrived at the sentencing values of 10 & 20 year sentences as fit punishment for a crime where a weapon (any weapon or just a gun?) was used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulf42 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 I would be interested to know how you arrived at the sentencing values of 10 & 20 year sentences as fit punishment for a crime where a weapon (any weapon or just a gun?) was used. Actually any offense with a weapon of any kind should be automatic 10-20 years! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 "Another American bogeyman story?"No, of course not. It is just the impression that you do not understand the Canadian reality. You can't be blamed for that. What is your impression of the "Canadian reality" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Actually any offense with a weapon of any kind should be automatic 10-20 years! Based on what criteria? Because 'you said?' Or do you have some other metric that is coming into play that arrives at that value? For instance, are you comparing weapon crimes with some other crime that you think is similar? Let's see what Mr. Fortin has to say... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 What is your impression of the "Canadian reality" My impression is that it is pretty damned good! Or did you mean to ask me what my understanding of Canadian reality is? And, if that is what you meant, are you interested in an answer that is relevant to the topic on hand or would you prefer something more intensive and explanatory? To the former I have already adequately given it on a previous page and for that latter, well, not enough time in the day nor interest at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 I would be interested to know how you arrived at the sentencing values of 10 & 20 year sentences as fit punishment for a crime where a weapon (any weapon or just a gun?) was used. It is more deterrance than punishment. If we're going to stop moronic gang bangers from sauntering around with a glock in their back pocket we need to make the punishment so onerous that even those idiots will get it. And if not, then we need to lock them away for a very long time as a danger to the public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 I would be interested to know how you arrived at the sentencing values of 10 & 20 year sentences as fit punishment for a crime where a weapon (any weapon or just a gun?) was used. any weapon should receive extra punishment (I believe they are) but hand guns have no other purpose but to be used on people, a knife has other uses, a baseball bat is not a weapon until it is used as one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 It is more deterrance than punishment. If we're going to stop moronic gang bangers from sauntering around with a glock in their back pocket we need to make the punishment so onerous that even those idiots will get it. And if not, then we need to lock them away for a very long time as a danger to the public. this will never happen again ever!...me and Argus agreeing on something...if someone is going to own a weapon that's sole purpose is to kill humans they'd better have a permit to carry it...if they don't it's a safe assumption they intend to kill someone, put'em away for 20 yrs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 But why 10 or 20 years? Why not 15 or 25 or 7.5 and 15? How does 20 years represent a 'long time' but 12-15 years does not? Is there some data that indicates 10-20 years is the average time it takes to rehabilitate perpetrators of gun crimes? That sort of thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 But why 10 or 20 years? Why not 15 or 25 or 7.5 and 15? How does 20 years represent a 'long time' but 12-15 years does not? Is there some data that indicates 10-20 years is the average time it takes to rehabilitate perpetrators of gun crimes? That sort of thing... well for me it's an assumption, handguns are designed to kill people, if someone has an illegal handgun then it's safe assumption he intends on killing someone else, life is 25, planning to kill someone should be worth 20... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.