Need we arm Canada?

[Machjo]

After what I'd seen in the news coming out of Toronto last week, I'm starting to wonder if perhaps we need to arm all Canadians.

For starters, gradually introduce universal and compulsory martial arts classes in school for 9 years starting at the age of five. I don't care if it's a simplified form of tai chi chuan, as long as it's some form of martial art.

Secondly, any law-abiding citizen who wants to own a firearm should be allowed to do so as long as he first passes a firearms test.

If we did this, I can guarantee the Black Bloc would think twice before endangering the public like they did last week.

I'm normally not for universal possession of firearms. But when Canadians' lack of respect for the law reaches a point where even the police can no longer maintain law and order, then citizens do need to arm themselves.

That said, Harper was still an idiot for having chosen Toronto as the venue for the G8/G20. What was wrong with CFB Esquimalt?

[Jack Weber]

I'm not sure all the "Black Bloc" folks are all Canadaian.Did'nt they find one of the ringleaders on the Uof T campus and he ended up being an American?

I don't necessarily disagree with you on some basic compulsary physical fitness( I would chose Krav Maga,myself... brutal and simple)...

I think the larger question those of us concerned by this behaviour is,"Why is it younger people feel so hopeless and powerless that they feel they have to destroy anything to get some sort of attention at all?".There is something sinister and seriously wrong with society if people are doing this just for kicks...

Edited July 20, 2010 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied opening post

[Bonam]

I'd definitely be all for martial arts in school as well as simplifying the process of owning a firearm in Canada. However, I strongly doubt this would significantly deter protests. In many parts of the US, owning a firearm is substantially easier than it is in Canada, but they still have protests.

If you look at the video in the thread someone posted like a week back or so from the summit, you can see one individual who tried to do a "citizens arrest" on one of the destructive protesters. Rather than cheering him on or supporting him, other bystanders were merely apathetic or laughed at him for trying to do something. That is the nature of our society, citizens, whether armed or not, whether martially skillful or not, would be very unlikely to intervene.

Would you risk miring yourself in our legal process by taking forceful action against protesters just to save someone else's window? I sure wouldn't. Police would probably be on your case for days or weeks if you harmed one of the protesters.

I'm not sure all the "Black Bloc" folks are all Canadaian.Did'nt they find one of the ringleaders on the Uof T campus and he ended up being an American?

I don't necessarily disagree with you on some basic compulsary physical fitness( I would chose Krav Maga,myself... brutal and simple)...

Krav Maga is indeed effective, certainly a good choice.

I think the larger question those of us concerned by this behaviour is,"Why is it younger people feel so hopeless and powerless that they feel they have to destroy anything to get some sort of attention at all?".There is something sinister and seriously wrong with society if people are doing this just for kicks...

You should definitely qualify this with *some* young people. Many do not feel this sense of hopelessness of which you speak. It's just that they are busy learning things, working on projects, enjoying the outdoors, or doing other activities, so you don't see them or hear about them as much. As for what is wrong with our society and why people destroy things just for kicks, that's simple, they do it because they know there are no repercussions. The simplest reason for doing something: because you can. If there were consequences, people would not be doing this nearly as much. [

Edited July 20, 2010 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied opening post

[eyeball]

I'm normally not for universal possession of firearms. But when Canadians' lack of respect for the law reaches a point where even the police can no longer maintain law and order, then citizens do need to arm themselves.

I guarantee you the folks in the Black Bloc feel much the same way for very similar reasons.

That said, Harper was still an idiot for having chosen Toronto as the venue for the G8/G20. What was wrong with CFB Esquimalt?

Bad optics. Go figure.

[bjre]

You need not arm every Canadian. What you need to do is on the media, report several citizen that stop crime and send criminal to cops and get award, instead of a shopkeeper changed because he caught thief, that will be enough to make things work.

Edited July 2, 2010 by bjre

[bloodyminded]

After what I'd seen in the news coming out of Toronto last week, I'm starting to wonder if perhaps we need to arm all Canadians.

For starters, gradually introduce universal and compulsory martial arts classes in school for 9 years starting at the age of five. I don't care if it's a simplified form of tai chi chuan, as long as it's some form of martial art.

Secondly, any law-abiding citizen who wants to own a firearm should be allowed to do so as long as he first passes a firearms test.

If we did this, I can guarantee the Black Bloc would think twice before endangering the public like they did last week.

I'm normally not for universal possession of firearms. But when Canadians' lack of respect for the law reaches a point where even the police can no longer maintain law and order, then citizens do need to arm themselves.

That said, Harper was still an idiot for having chosen Toronto as the venue for the G8/G20. What was wrong with CFB Esquimalt?

At any rate, people like the Black Bloc would also be armed and have martial arts training.

And how has possession of firearms decreased violence in the United States?

Anyhow, read Bonam's post, which more expansively identifies the probable uselessness of such a proposal; not that more physical training is a bad idea for its own sake (in fact, I think it's a good idea); but that it won't make any difference to such situations.

As for arming everybody...well, I'm an agnostic on the issue in general, but as Eyeball points out, you'd then have violent masked men who are legally carrying weapons.

Edited July 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Borg]

After what I'd seen in the news coming out of Toronto last week, I'm starting to wonder if perhaps we need to arm all Canadians.

For starters, gradually introduce universal and compulsory martial arts classes in school for 9 years starting at the age of five. I don't care if it's a simplified form of tai chi chuan, as long as it's some form of martial art.

Secondly, any law-abiding citizen who wants to own a firearm should be allowed to do so as long as he first passes a firearms test.

If we did this, I can guarantee the Black Bloc would think twice before endangering the public like they did last week.

I'm normally not for universal possession of firearms. But when Canadians' lack of respect for the law reaches a point where even the police can no longer maintain law and order, then citizens do need to arm themselves.

That said, Harper was still an idiot for having chosen Toronto as the venue for the G8/G20. What was wrong with CFB Esquimalt?

Arm Canada? LOL

I love it but you are dealing with canuckleheads - they will scream blue murder that only police should have firearms.

Look up how many police shoot themselves or the wrong people some time.

In the end any RESPONSIBLE citizen that wants to own a firearm should be allowed to do so.

Never happen in Canada.

As for legal purchase - ask someone to go and buy a firearm now - if someone who has NEVER owned a firearm can buy one, actually take it home and then take it to the range and fire it once - without violating a law - within 3-6 months they are either well connected, they are very lucky or they have nothing else to do with their time.

Try to bring a "deadly weapon" - sword, kukris, etc into the country - even as a collector - good luck when you hit customs you criminal killer you! LOL

As for teaching all people martial arts - I support that fully. A little capability goes a long ways.

In the end - any ability to bring harm to others will be treated harshly at best by the majority who wear a police uniform, most members of the media and likely the vast majority of citizens who live in that nanny entitled nation called canada.

I am not so sure I even want to start on property protection and personal self defence. No matter how honourable you are - exercise this right and you WILL go to jail - you then have to defend yourself - and it is rare that you will get off - it does happen - but be prepared to be ruined financially if you do exercise that right.

Do not plan on the police to protect you - generally they arrive well AFTER the crime is committed - and if you are not able to communicate your problem - then what? Well, you are on your own.

A five minute response time is great - 30 minutes in some areas is consider very fast - I can do a lot of damage in that time if you are not able to defend yourself.

This is canada - tax me and make me dependant upon the system. Too bad the system does not work as people think it should.

If you respond by stating you believe the system to work well most of the time, I would ask you this one final question.

What if it does not work when YOU need it?

Most people never give that question any REAL consideration. And I bet a majority here on this board will prove my point.

Cheers

Borg

Edited July 2, 2010 by Borg

[Borg]

And how has possession of firearms decreased violence in the United States?

Actually it has - I am not in the mood to prove it to you but the info is there - all you have to do is look for it - most likely you will not.

And - some of the most violent cities are those that outlaw firearms ownership (so those who obey the law become victims) within city boundaries - once again - all you have to do is look for it - most likely you will not.

Cheers

Borg

Edited July 2, 2010 by Borg

[Borg]

Krav Maga is indeed effective, certainly a good choice.

Agreed - I have studied it for several years - but you need to be within reach to do any damage.

Physical defence requirements constitute an emergency scenario.

I will not willingly let you get that close.

That is one promise I keep - especially where I am now working.

Borg

Edited July 2, 2010 by Borg

[Borg]

You need not arm every Canadian. What you need to do is on the media, report several citizen that stop crime and send criminal to cops and get award, instead of a shopkeeper changed because he caught thief, that will be enough to make things work.

Good point - never happen - crown is always spring loaded to charging the shop keeper. It is very rare for the crown to give an ATTA BOY for using a weapon to prevent crime or stop crime.

Criminal - had a tough life - has had no advantages - therefore is to be pitied.

Law abiding citizen - has worked hard and is reaping benefits of labours - MUST be punished for doing harm to a criminal or preventing a criminal from enacting a crime through the use of a personal weapon. After all s/he is rich and must be taking advantage of society by making a (dirty word) profit through his / her labours.

All media - for the most part - provide input on how hard the criminals life has been rather than demanding the LEGAL system (not justice system) reward the law abiding citizen for his / her efforts to protect society.

We do not demand personl responsibility for actions anymore - no one is guilty anymore - there is always a reason or excuse.

So - citizen - suffer - wait for the police to show up.

The police will provide some pity for what has transpired. Especially while investigating the event that took place. While YOU (the victim) were waiting for help. You can take comfort in that sympathy. Not that it does much good.

When the police leave you can hope it does not happen again.

Canadian victims in the making.

Borg

Edited July 2, 2010 by Borg

[bloodyminded]

Actually it has - I am not in the mood to prove it to you but the info is there - all you have to do is look for it - most likely you will not.

And - some of the most violent cities are those that outlaw firearms ownership within city boundaries - once again - all you have to do is look for it - most likely you will not.

Cheers

Borg

i am perfectly aware that there is a great deal of conflicting information on this matter. You, however, believe the issue utterly settled...

....because some pantywaisted little right-wing blowhard said so somewhere, and you took his word as gospel.

Edited July 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Machjo]

I'm not sure all the "Black Bloc" folks are all Canadaian.Did'nt they find one of the ringleaders on the Uof T campus and he ended up being an American?

It doesn't matter who they are. We need to be able to defend our property.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on some basic compulsary physical fitness( I would chose Krav Maga,myself... brutal and simple)...

Honestly I've never heard of Krav Maga. I was thinking a simplified form of tai chi chuan on the grounds that if you're dealing with universal compulsory education for children in this martial art, you're sure to be dealing with a variety of levels of fitness, interest, and motivation. For that reason, the primary objective would not necessarily be to make them all martial arts experts, but rather give them an introduction to martial arts, to wet their appetite for martial arts and introduce them to some fundamentals that could then help them transition more easily should they wish to move on to a more complete form of tai chi chuan or another martial art later.

To the best of my knowledge, tai chi chuan is the only martial art that also has a simplified form for the purposes of physical fitness. It might not be the most effective form for fighting, but this does make it the idea introductory martial art for children of varying levels of ability and interest.

Does Krav Maga have both a simplified form and a complete form too? If so, then its simplified form would likely serve the same preparatory value as tai chi chuan.

I think the larger question those of us concerned by this behaviour is,"Why is it younger people feel so hopeless and powerless that they feel they have to destroy anything to get some sort of attention at all?".There is something sinister and seriously wrong with society if people are doing this just for kicks...

Certainly. However this does not negate the necessity of a person being able to defend himself and others and their property.

... OK, I've just read about Krav Maga on Wiki, and from the litlte I've read on it, I get the impression it may face a similar defect as combato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combato). While it was a fine combat martial art for soldiers owing to its specialization in lethal moves, he found it necessary to adapt it for police work where sometimes a police officer might have to be able to defend himself without hurting his opponent, and called the new martial art defendo. I would not be surprised if all the moves of combato are also found in defendo, but clearly lethal moves alone do not suffice.

We find a similar problem with the Marine Corps Martial Arts program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps_Martial_Arts_Program). Initially it was developed as a specialized killing system. It was found later thugh that it was not flexible enough for peacekeeping missions where a Marine might be required not to kill or maim, but to simply gain contorl of an opponent without hurting him. As a result, LINE had to be modified to include less lethal blows too. Without that, a Marine peacekeeper faced with an irate local yelling at him might find himself at a loss as to how to deal with him if the only techniques he knows are lethal blows. At that stage all he could do is stand there looking like an idiot, whereas if he knows some non-lethal moves too, he could subdue his opponent and then hand him and then remove him from the scene.

From the little I've read of Krav Magna on Wiki, I get the impression it might face similar flaws. But then I might be wrong. Can you tell me more about it?

[eyeball]

As for arming everybody...well, I'm an agnostic on the issue in general, but as Eyeball points out, you'd then have violent masked men who are legally carrying weapons.

The real point is that they'd feel just as justified in using them to stop criminals from doing things like vandalizing the environment or our civil liberties.

[bloodyminded]

The real point is that they'd feel just as justified in using them to stop criminals from doing things like vandalizing the environment or our civil liberties.

Ah, I get you. Yes, you're probably right.

[PIK]

After what I'd seen in the news coming out of Toronto last week, I'm starting to wonder if perhaps we need to arm all Canadians.

For starters, gradually introduce universal and compulsory martial arts classes in school for 9 years starting at the age of five. I don't care if it's a simplified form of tai chi chuan, as long as it's some form of martial art.

Secondly, any law-abiding citizen who wants to own a firearm should be allowed to do so as long as he first passes a firearms test.

If we did this, I can guarantee the Black Bloc would think twice before endangering the public like they did last week.

I'm normally not for universal possession of firearms. But when Canadians' lack of respect for the law reaches a point where even the police can no longer maintain law and order, then citizens do need to arm themselves.

That said, Harper was still an idiot for having chosen Toronto as the venue for the G8/G20. What was wrong with CFB Esquimalt?

Here you are ,running scared from a few thugs, but yet say harper was wrong for standing his ground and not holding it some where the thugs can't go. And again most canadians do follow the law and protest properly, so don't let a few thugs keep you hiding under the bed.

[Machjo]

Fine then if people are so opposed to firearms, then at least universal compulsory martial arts training for 9 years starting at 5. It's not like we could throw 30 punches per second at the speed of sound at a range of over 300 metres.

As for the police, I'd say change the law to give them the right to shoot to maim anyone wearing a mask and who has been spotted throwing a projectile and who is being prevented from being arrested by others and who is showing no intent on surrendering of his own will. I can guarantee that after a few of them get shot in the leg with real bullets, that others will start thinking twice about it.

Besides, there are laws against mutiny against the state already, no?

[ToadBrother]

I think the larger question those of us concerned by this behaviour is,"Why is it younger people feel so hopeless and powerless that they feel they have to destroy anything to get some sort of attention at all?".There is something sinister and seriously wrong with society if people are doing this just for kicks...

Oh come on. Violent anarchists have been around since the 19th century. It's not something new, and even the Black Bloc has its origins in the 1970s and 1980s. They are delusional fruitcakes, and they aren't just doing it for kicks. These are violent radicals with a philosophy diametrically opposed to free markets and free enterprise.

[ToadBrother]

The real point is that they'd feel just as justified in using them to stop criminals from doing things like vandalizing the environment or our civil liberties.

The real point is that they are self-serving self-righteous people who have decided that societal restraints don't apply to them. But I do love how your type always excuse their actions. You guys just can't quite say "They are bad."

Like I said. I think we should give store owners guns and give them free reign to shoot anybody in a mask during these things.

[Machjo]

Or alternatively, change the law to give the police the right to shoot to maim if the following conditions are met:

1. The person is concealing his identity,

2. He has thrown a projectile with intent to do harm to a person or property,

3. He is being protected from being arrested by others,

4. He is showing no sings of voluntarily surrenderng to police, and

5. All of this is on tape.

If all of these five conditions are met, the police should be allowed to shoot to maim that individual. yes, with real bullets. After a few end p with bullets in the legs, others might smarten up.

[Machjo]

Oh come on. Violent anarchists have been around since the 19th century. It's not something new, and even the Black Bloc has its origins in the 1970s and 1980s. They are delusional fruitcakes, and they aren't just doing it for kicks. These are violent radicals with a philosophy diametrically opposed to free markets and free enterprise.

How is their philosophy relevant to their acts? If they were of a different ideology, what would that change?

Edited July 2, 2010 by Machjo

[Machjo]

The real point is that they are self-serving self-righteous people who have decided that societal restraints don't apply to them. But I do love how your type always excuse their actions. You guys just can't quite say "They are bad."

Like I said. I think we should give store owners guns and give them free reign to shoot anybody in a mask during these things.

Anybody with a mask? Going too far. I'd say we could apply my last post above, minus the requirement to have a recording, to any citizen as long as he has minimum two witnesses.

And again, if people have issues with firearms, when what about non-projectile weapons, such as swords, staffs, etc.? With the police wielding firearms, and citizens wielding non-projectile weapons, and with the law granting both the right to strike at proven vandals, I'm sure vandals will start thinking twice.

[bloodyminded]

The real point is that they are self-serving self-righteous people who have decided that societal restraints don't apply to them. But I do love how your type always excuse their actions. You guys just can't quite say "They are bad."

Like I said. I think we should give store owners guns and give them free reign to shoot anybody in a mask during these things.

But that's not a belief in "societal restraints." That's defense of vigilante lawlessness, and is approximately 100% gauranteed to get innocent people killed.

[Machjo]

But that's not a belief in "societal restraints." That's defense of vigilante lawlessness, and is approximately 100% gauranteed to get innocent people killed.

That's why you introduce certain criteria. But otherwise ensure they have the right, within certain restraints, to use lethal force in the defense of themselves, others, and property.

[bloodyminded]

That's why you introduce certain criteria. But otherwise ensure they have the right, within certain restraints, to use lethal force in the defense of themselves, others, and property.

That's already the case.

But the restraints," which happily you mention, are crucial. For example, in protecting one's "property": if someone smashes your storefront window, and you use lethal force...you are far, far worse a criminal than he is, infinitely more dangerous, and a lot more depraved.

That's elementary.

[Machjo]

That's already the case.

But the restraints," which happily you mention, are crucial. For example, in protecting one's "property": if someone smashes your storefront window, and you use lethal force...you are far, far worse a criminal than he is, infinitely more dangerous, and a lot more depraved.

That's elementary.

I think that depends. If a person smashes my window, and I try to make a citizen's arrest, and others help me with that, then I agree with you. But if I try to make a citizen's arrest, and others oppose me, at that stage they are not only obstructing the law, but I must assume that should I fully exercise my right to make a citizen's arrest that they could hurt me, at that stage I ought legally be allowed to announce in a loud voice that I am going to attempt a citizen's arrest and will interpret any obstruction of my attempt as a potential threat to myself.

We're no longer dealing with an individual case, but an organized mutiny resulting in a breakdown of law and order.

Or another way of looking at it:

Should an organized group cause a breakdown of law and order (i.e. an inability on the part of citizens and the police to defend their property within the regular constraints of the law), then the participants in this group forfeit all protection under the law for the duration that the breakdown lasts, with defenders of their property being expected to target any force, lethal or otherwise, strictly towards those intentionally obstructing his right to defend his property or make a citizen's arrest.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Machjo