Handguns in Canada

[wyly]

"our government is putting terrorists in prison for intending to kill others even though they have killed no one...robbery with a handgun is no different"

Uh-huh. Equating the threat or intent of violence to a large population with an individual robbery. I can see now why you believe the Criminal Code of Canada is wrong.

hey Mr Criminal code expert, what's the sentence for murder of one person?...life....for 10 people?...life...

[Shwa]

Here is what I originally wrote: "Uh-huh. Equating the threat or intent of violence to a large population with an individual robbery."

Here is what you replied: "hey Mr Criminal code expert, what's the sentence for murder of one person?...life....for 10 people?...life..."

So now, not only can you not keep up, you are getting desperate by trying to change the focus.

First of all, the sentence for the degree of murder can only be determined once intent has been established. Second of all, the Criminal Code treats terrorist threats and intentions much differently from threats or intentions made during an armed robbery. Thirdly when you equate the sentencing of one murder with ten you are ignoring the weight the courts place on multiple murders, consecutive sentences and the chances for probation or early release or a dangerous offender designation. So your statement, quoted above, is a titch simple.

[Hydraboss]

I am not sure about Japan,

But in South Korea, most kids have black belt in at least one major form of martial arts before entering middle school. Maybe because one month tuition (6 times a week) costs less than $100, and Dojo's are everywhere..

Martial Arts is a prominent culture in oriental countries, and I guarantee you that you'd have a harder time robbing a skinny student where I come from compared to robbing a school football player in Canada.

Everyone person in my family of my generation is trained in martial arts and have black belts.

Have fun robbing us when we trained for at least 3 years, 6 days a week for at least an hour a day.

However, in Canada, people do not have convenient access to such training facilities, ergo helpless when held at knifepoint, etc. In Asian countries, restrictions on concealment - I understand. In Western countries, restrictions on concealment makes no sense - especially for fragile women who are often victims of crimes that could have been prevented with self-defense.

Do you ACTUALLY believe your own bullshit?

6 hours a week, huh? And we're supposed to be, what, impressed? I've spent significantly more than that at Karate dojo's over the last 10 or so years and let me tell you....point a gun at me and I've got two choices: hand over what you want or draw and drop you. Ki-ai has bugger all to do with the outcome.

First of all: Belt colors are a north American thing. True (meaning original form) of martial arts have nothing....absolutely nothing....to do with belt colors. Belts are for keeping your ghi closed.

Second: If you are actually from an "asian" country and trained there, you would know the point brought up in the statement above.

Third: If you trained for three years and received a black belt designation, you trained in a north American Taekwondo (Korean) dojo. Karate (Japanese) dojo's in Canada (World Karate Federation) require that all black belt applicants be of at least 18 years of age and minimum training is about 10 years. Kung-Fu (Chinese) is about the same. True traditional (asian countries) do not recognize belt levels.

Martial arts are no match for a .45 at close range. Bullet trumps reverse punch every time. Basic physics (speed measured in ft/sec). Hand to hand has it's place, but that place is not at the small, hot end of a pistol.

[Argus]

First of all, the sentence for the degree of murder can only be determined once intent has been established.

This is one of the biggest weaknesses in the criminal code. It is, because of how its described, almost impossible to prove intent. This is why people can chase others down, shoot them a dozen times, and still claim "Oh I never intended to kill them" and succeed.

That is why the criminal code should be amended to state that if you discharge a firearm at someone that is taken as sufficient evidence that you intended to kill them.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You clearly want our justice system converted into a vengence system and as Charter Rights pointed out one that's apparenty based on simply making you and presumably society feel good or vindicated or something. The problem I have with this is not knowing where or when this desire stops. There's a very real slippery slope here, crime is going down yet all this hoopla about cracking down and getting tough is based on believing its going the other way. Every crime or lenient sounding sentence is like a new galvanizing event resulting in even louder calls to crack down harder and get tougher than ever. Throw in the well established propensity of politicians to stoke a fear and loathing of crime at election time... and where does it all stop?

The most frustrating thing about all this is how little effort or even thought that the vindictive classes give to preventing the type of crimes that encourage the greatest level of gun use in the first place, like ending drug prohibition.

It seems we're doing everything we can to ensure there is a steady supply of criminals by maintaining the economic incentives to get into crime. We're vastly expanding our prison infrastructure, creating mandatory sentencing, increasing those sentences, and now we're apparently going to make it even easier to own a gun...

This is just nuts. Where does it all stop?

First of all we have a lack of justice legal system. Lets get that straight right off the line. Secondly, I would venture to say that most people believe that violent offenders need to be put behind bars. I will go a step further and suggest that most people believe crimes with weapons deserve and extra portion of sentencing. Thirdly I will suggest that in actual fact most citizens desire to see criminals punished severely for their crimes.

Letys try a little test of the reality in am speaking about;

How long should a rapist be put away?

What if the rapist used a weapon?

[charter.rights]

Letys try a little test of the reality in am speaking about;

How long should a rapist be put away?

What if the rapist used a weapon?

First of all you are speaking in hypotheticals...which is NOT reality, but pure fantasy....

...but...to answer your questions, hypothetically speaking....

How long should a rapist be put away?

That would be up to the court, depending on the evidence, the facts and the victim impact.

What if the rapist used a weapon?

That would be up to the court, depending on the evidence, the facts and the victim impact.

Trying to place arbitrary sentences on mythical figures, using fantastic crimes is really your problem. If you were connected to reality a bit more you might have come up with the same answers, instead of trying to corner people into your simplistic point of view.

Now isn't that simple?

Edited November 6, 2009 by charter.rights

[fellowtraveller]

That is why the criminal code should be amended to state that if you discharge a firearm at someone that is taken as sufficient evidence that you intended to kill them.

Well, that would eliminate anything to do with self defence in the courts.

It would also jail for life anybody who accidentally shot another person.

[eyeball]

First of all we have a lack of justice legal system. Lets get that straight right off the line.

Get this straight, at worst all we have is a poorly run justice system and I fully expect when Harper gets finished with it all we'll have is a poorly run vengence system.

Secondly, I would venture to say that most people believe that violent offenders need to be put behind bars.

That's seems reasonable.

I will go a step further and suggest that most people believe crimes with weapons deserve and extra portion of sentencing.

I'm pretty sure the justice system already takes this into account.

Thirdly I will suggest that in actual fact most citizens desire to see criminals punished severely for their crimes.

I will suggest that the citizens you're talking about are reacting to their deliberately stoked over-hyped outrage and are grasping at the wrong solution to the wrong problem. If the justice system...no let me qualify that...if the government was being competently run people would probably be a lot less outraged. Just look around you for a minute, the auditor general is telling us the entire government is rife with incompetence from one end to the other...the flu pandemic...the gun registry...the Defence Department...Fisheries and Oceans...it goes on and on on and on on and on on and on............on and on on and on on and on on and on...get the picture?

Letys try a little test of the reality in am speaking about;

How long should a rapist be put away?

What if the rapist used a weapon?

As long as a competently managed qualified panel of experts says, not what an outraged mob feels.

Edited November 6, 2009 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

....As long as a competently managed qualified panel of experts says, not what an outraged mob feels.

....but mob rule would be OK for going to war....

[eyeball]

....but mob rule would be OK for going to war....

Just a mob's opinion alone seems to have been enough for most people so far.

To qualify...yet again...a competently managed qualified panel of experts = something like or close to a citizen's assembly in concert with experts. Kind of like a court with judges, lawyers and clerks etc and a jury with ordinary people picked at random but screened for at least a modicum of intelligence.

What exactly is it that is so scary about putting what a team of experts and a group of informed randomly picked citizens develop to a referendum of the people?

[wyly]

First of all: Belt colors are a north American thing. True (meaning original form) of martial arts have nothing....absolutely nothing....to do with belt colors. Belts are for keeping your ghi closed.

Third: If you trained for three years and received a black belt designation, you trained in a north American Taekwondo (Korean) dojo. Karate (Japanese) dojo's in Canada (World Karate Federation) require that all black belt applicants be of at least 18 years of age and minimum training is about 10 years. Kung-Fu (Chinese) is about the same. True traditional (asian countries) do not recognize belt levels.

Martial arts are no match for a .45 at close range. Bullet trumps reverse punch every time. Basic physics (speed measured in ft/sec). Hand to hand has it's place, but that place is not at the small, hot end of a pistol.

when I began training 16 was the minimum for a black belt, in Korea there were two belts colors, white beginner and Black then 9 black levels...colored belts are to make N Americans feel good and to make money at exam time...and a black belt really only signifies what you know, not how good you are...more than one black belt has his arse kicked by a competent street fighter my instructor always warned us of that...

[wyly]

Well, that would eliminate anything to do with self defence in the courts.

It would also jail for life anybody who accidentally shot another person.

no it doesn't...shoot someone as you're robbing them with an illegal gun ya you're guilty...shoot someone in self defense with a legal gun completely different...

[fellowtraveller]

no it doesn't...shoot someone as you're robbing them with an illegal gun ya you're guilty...shoot someone in self defense with a legal gun completely different...

I was responding to this sweeping statement:

That is why the criminal code should be amended to state that if you discharge a firearm at someone that is taken as sufficient evidence that you intended to kill them.

Robbing them? Illegal guns? Legal guns?

Does the utter dishonesty of distorting what others say ever bother you?