Shooting at the Eaton Centre

[Canuckistani]

So clearly New York and California are safer states to live………..Does your statistics break down firearms per capita legal ownership by state and/or deaths caused by accidents? I.E. I’d assume more people die a year hunting in Northern Alaska then New York City.

Gun homicides NY 2.67/100,000 (that includes NYC, popn 8,000,000).

Gun homicides AL 2.58/100,000 (that includes Anchorage popn ,300,000)

Louisiana is number one with 10.13/100,000

Louisiana gun laws among weakest in nation, report finds

Louisiana tied for second to last place in America, along with Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky and Oklahoma -- earning just two points out of total of 100. Only Utah, with zero points, fared worse on the Brady index.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/02/louisiana_gun_laws_among_weake.html

Edited June 3, 2012 by Canuckistani

[Guest Derek L]

It's not the severity of the sentence that's been shown to reduce crime, but the chance of getting caught. So it's the strictly enforced part that is important. But laws won't do much to deter gangsters. For that we need drug legalization to make a large dent in their income, as well as preventive strategies, including poverty reduction, to prevent kids form joining gangs. But absolutely there should be some significant jail time if you're caught illegally carrying a gun, and more for an illegal gun.

So one can assume that criminals are not deterred by legislation and said legislation only impinges upon lawful citizens ? Why don’t we enforce laws relating to recreational drug usage, surely that would curb drug related crime no?

Does the individual in Canada have a right not to have bodily harm inflicted upon them?

[Guest Derek L]

Gun homicides NY 2.67/100,000 (that includes NYC, popn 8,000,000).

Gun homicides AL 2.58/100,000 (that includes Anchorage popn ,300,000)

Source?

[Canuckistani]

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

[Guest Derek L]

Gun homicides NY 2.67/100,000 (that includes NYC, popn 8,000,000).

Gun homicides AL 2.58/100,000 (that includes Anchorage popn ,300,000)

Louisiana is number one with 10.13/100,000

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/02/louisiana_gun_laws_among_weake.html

So New York State, which includes NYC with its ban on private ownership of handguns, contrasted with Alaska where one can legally own and carry near anything they desire have a comparable murder rate…….This proves gun control is effective how?

[dre]

So one can assume that criminals are not deterred by legislation and said legislation only impinges upon lawful citizens ? Why don’t we enforce laws relating to recreational drug usage, surely that would curb drug related crime no?

Does the individual in Canada have a right not to have bodily harm inflicted upon them?

That entirely depends on what that legislation is, and where it is. If it reduces the total number of small arms then it will by extension make it a bit harder for criminals to get guns. If it targets black market guns it will be a little more effective.

I think buy-back programs actually do more to curb gun violence than legislation because target high risk people and areas, as opposed to rural farmers and hunters. If we had spent all the money that was wasted on the gun registry trying to actually get guns off the streets instead of registering legal ones it probably would have helped a fair bit.

[dre]

So New York State, which includes NYC with its ban on private ownership of handguns, contrasted with Alaska where one can legally own and carry near anything they desire have a comparable murder rate…….This proves gun control is effective how?

You arent going to get any sort of conclusive "smoking gun" by comparing disparate regions and thats exactly what both of you have tried to do.

[Guest Derek L]

That entirely depends on what that legislation is, and where it is. If it reduces the total number of small arms then it will by extension make it a bit harder for criminals to get guns. If it targets black market guns it will be a little more effective.

I think buy-back programs actually do more to curb gun violence than legislation because target high risk people and areas, as opposed to rural farmers and hunters. If we had spent all the money that was wasted on the gun registry trying to actually get guns off the streets instead of registering legal ones it probably would have helped a fair bit.

I agree, and as I stated gun related crime is more a reflection on society in general then restrictions (or lack there of) placed on sport shooters and hunters.

[Canuckistani]

So New York State, which includes NYC with its ban on private ownership of handguns, contrasted with Alaska where one can legally own and carry near anything they desire have a comparable murder rate…….This proves gun control is effective how?

It proves that your contention that Alaska with lax gun laws has low gun crime is not valid. I thought I'd check up on the claims you made about Alaska and Wyoming, and none have proven accurate.

[Guest Derek L]

You arent going to get any sort of conclusive "smoking gun" by comparing disparate regions and thats exactly what both of you have tried to do.

That's not what I'm trying to do, as I posted on the first page:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20972

The “States” gun laws very from State to State unlike Canada, as for the correlation between State law and crime, simply contrast States with “lax” laws such as Wyoming, Vermont and Alaska contrasted with States like California and New York that have laws similar (or more restrictive than Canada) and their gun crime rates………..Would you rather live in Compton or Casper? In one of those cities you can legally own automatic weapons and carry concealed guns, the other not so much, yet the one with the stricter gun laws has one of the highest homicide rates in the United States.

And confirmed by the above stats, gun control has a minimal effect on crime rates when contrasting drastically different jurisdictions with differing laws.

[Guest Derek L]

It proves that your contention that Alaska with lax gun laws has low gun crime is not valid. I thought I'd check up on the claims you made about Alaska and Wyoming, and none have proven accurate.

Perhaps you should reread my third post again........

[Canuckistani]

Here is your 3rd post. I've shown data that what you contend is just no true

The “States” gun laws very from State to State unlike Canada, as for the correlation between State law and crime, simply contrast States with “lax” laws such as Wyoming, Vermont and Alaska contrasted with States like California and New York that have laws similar (or more restrictive than Canada) and their gun crime rates………..Would you rather live in Compton or Casper? In one of those cities you can legally own automatic weapons and carry concealed guns, the other not so much, yet the one with the stricter gun laws has one of the highest homicide rates in the United States.

I didn't look up total homicides, just gun deaths. I felt that more relevant to the discussion.

Also, you started the discussion by saying that the Eaton shooting is an example of why we need CCW in Canada. I then pointed to a recent killing of 5 people in Seattle, which has very lax carry laws. You dodged that by asking if they were indeed carrying - so what you seem to be saying is we need compulsory carry laws. I think other posters here have made good arguments why CCW is not a good idea and will likely cost more lives than it saves.

Edited June 3, 2012 by Canuckistani

[Guest Derek L]

Here is your 3rd post. I've shown data that what you contend is just no true

I didn't look up total homicides, just gun deaths. I felt that more relevant to the discussion.

Do you contend the rate of homicide in Casper (per 100000 people) is greater than Los Angles?

Also, you started the discussion by saying that the Eaton shooting is an example of why we need CCW in Canada. I then pointed to a recent killing of 5 people in Seattle, which has very lax carry laws. You dodged that by asking if they were indeed carrying - so what you seem to be saying is we need compulsory carry laws. I think other posters here have made good arguments why CCW is not a good idea and will likely cost more lives than it saves.

Again how would CCW play into the equation of the murders in Washington if the victims weren’t armed? And as asked prior, are there statistics that prove CCW increases crime? As provided by your own references we can illustrate that gun control laws play little into addressing crime………So does CCW cause it?

You’ve asked if I’d thought it would reduce it, which as I responded, I doubt it, since CCW is not meant to enforce legislation nor encourage Charles Bronson Death Wish vigilantisms, but as a measure of personal protection………With that said, in instances like the OP shooting or any other public shooting spree, quite obviously armed members of the public are better able to respond to such actions then unarmed members hiding under a food court table.

[jbg]

Why didn’t the registry of restricted firearms prevent this? I’ve heard on the news that 12 gun shots were reported, what about the magazine restrictions limiting to 10 rounds? Or the Authorization to transport?

Clearly another reason for CCW in Canada………As it clearly demonstrates (as with the recent shootings in the lower Mainland) “gun control” laws aimed at lawful citizens don’t prevent gun crime.

Most murderers are very serious about murdering only with a registered gun.

[dre]

Most murderers are very serious about murdering only with a registered gun.

[Guest Derek L]

To add the Murder rates (per 1000 people) of:

Casper = 0.04

Juneau = 0.03

Montpelier = 0.00

All of the above are CCW cities

And the cities without CCW:

Compton = 0.26

New York = 0.04

Chicago = 0.16

As stated, gun control doesn’t work.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Derek L

[Canuckistani]

Do you contend the rate of homicide in Casper (per 100000 people) is greater than Los Angles?

Now you're cherry picking cities? Your contention was that Wyoming had a low gun crime rate vs CA. I've shown it has a higher one. I'm sure I could cherry pick some burg in CA with the same population as Casper that has a lower gun crime rate.

Again how would CCW play into the equation of the murders in Washington if the victims weren’t armed? And as asked prior, are there statistics that prove CCW increases crime? As provided by your own references we can illustrate that gun control laws play little into addressing crime………So does CCW cause it?

Your statement was "this is why we need CCW." WA has CCW - didn't deter that killing. Apparently the guy killed in Eatons was a gangbanger - maybe he was carrying, since they certainly don't care about the law. Didn't stop him from getting capped. As far as CCW goes, as others have said here, I don't want a bunch of numbnuts running around with guns, shooting when provoked or missing what they're aiming at.

You’ve asked if I’d thought it would reduce it, which as I responded, I doubt it, since CCW is not meant to enforce legislation nor encourage Charles Bronson Death Wish vigilantisms, but as a measure of personal protection………With that said, in instances like the OP shooting or any other public shooting spree, quite obviously armed members of the public are better able to respond to such actions then unarmed members hiding under a food court table.

No, it's exactly an example of why we don't want CCW. We don't want a bunch of exited civilians blasting away, it wouldn't have prevented this killing. The police know who did it, let them do their jobs. In fact in most gang situations we don't want civilians blasting away - the shooters are after their gang banger victims. You turn that into a shootout, and a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt. Definitely don't want CCW for gang shootings. For the Seattle shooting, yep having somebody with a gun who knew how to use it(ie not very lax carry permits) might - might - have saved some lives. How many shootings of that type do we get, vs the carnage that would come from everybody carrying a gun? I certainly don't want to live in a society like that.

[Guest Derek L]

Now you're cherry picking cities? Your contention was that Wyoming had a low gun crime rate vs CA. I've shown it has a higher one. I'm sure I could cherry pick some burg in CA with the same population as Casper that has a lower gun crime rate.

Did I not mention Casper and Compton? How is that Cherry-picking?

But as I’ve stated, my contention, was that gun control doesn’t work in response to your post:

Your contention seems to be that looser gun restrictions like in the US will prevent gun crimes. Can you back that up? Seattle just had a shooting, 5 dead. WA has some of the loosest gun laws on the West Coast. How did they help?

Wanna look at the murder rate of Seattle:

Seattle = 0.03

Your statement was "this is why we need CCW." WA has CCW - didn't deter that killing. Apparently the guy killed in Eatons was a gangbanger - maybe he was carrying, since they certainly don't care about the law. Didn't stop him from getting capped. As far as CCW goes, as others have said here, I don't want a bunch of numbnuts running around with guns, shooting when provoked or missing what they're aiming at.

You have evidence to prove CCW creates "a bunch of numbnuts running around with guns, shooting when provoked or missing what they're aiming at"?

No, it's exactly an example of why we don't want CCW. We don't want a bunch of exited civilians blasting away, it wouldn't have prevented this killing. The police know who did it, let them do their jobs. In fact in most gang situations we don't want civilians blasting away - the shooters are after their gang banger victims. You turn that into a shootout, and a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt. Definitely don't want CCW for gang shootings. For the Seattle shooting, yep having somebody with a gun who knew how to use it(ie not very lax carry permits) might - might - have saved some lives. How many shootings of that type do we get, vs the carnage that would come from everybody carrying a gun? I certainly don't want to live in a society like that.

So you defer your life to folks like the RCMP/OPP/Municipal police forces members that have several weeks of initial firearms training then a week annually? As I suggested in another earlier thread about gun licensing and CCW, if we started issuing ATC, we could mandate applicants pay out of pocket the exact same firearms training as the RCMP, conducted by the RCMP.

Now in many of the CCW States, the requirements of said permit are administrated by the local county Sheriff……I lived in Texas for near two years, a state with ~5 handguns per capita for ever man, woman and child and legal CCW, and I’ve yet to hear of a murder conviction by a CCW holder.

Perhaps you can demonstrate how CCW creates "a bunch of numbnuts running around with guns, shooting when provoked or missing what they're aiming at"?

[dre]

Did I not mention Casper and Compton? How is that Cherry-picking?

But as I’ve stated, my contention, was that gun control doesn’t work in response to your post:

Wanna look at the murder rate of Seattle:

Seattle = 0.03

You have evidence to prove CCW creates "a bunch of numbnuts running around with guns, shooting when provoked or missing what they're aiming at"?

So you defer your life to folks like the RCMP/OPP/Municipal police forces members that have several weeks of initial firearms training then a week annually? As I suggested in another earlier thread about gun licensing and CCW, if we started issuing ATC, we could mandate applicants pay out of pocket the exact same firearms training as the RCMP, conducted by the RCMP.

Now in many of the CCW States, the requirements of said permit are administrated by the local county Sheriff……I lived in Texas for near two years, a state with ~5 handguns per capita for ever man, woman and child and legal CCW, and I’ve yet to hear of a murder conviction by a CCW holder.

Perhaps you can demonstrate how CCW creates "a bunch of numbnuts running around with guns, shooting when provoked or missing what they're aiming at"?

Perhaps you can demonstrate how CCW creates "a bunch of numbnuts running around with guns, shooting when provoked or missing what they're aiming at"?

That would depend entirely on how the system was administered and what the rules were. But thats putting the cart before the horse anyways because theres no real evidence that this would reduce gun crimes.

[Guest Derek L]

To add:

Conviction Rates in Texas

One CCW/CHL holder convicted of murder.......ONE......Not even Capital Murder:

Waldo, here's some mullets

[Guest Derek L]

That would depend entirely on how the system was administered and what the rules were. But thats putting the cart before the horse anyways because theres no real evidence that this would reduce gun crimes.

That’s the rub. CCW/ATC would not be a vehicle for law enforcement, but one of personal protection and quite obviously our laws on self-defence and property rights would have to be clearly defined further.

If my home were home invaded, should I be able respond with my Remington 870P? Should my wife and daughter be afforded the right to carry a handgun in their purses to ward off a potential rapists? If I’m shopping at Metrotown and a nutbar opens up in the food court, should I be able to defend my family?

Edited June 4, 2012 by Derek L

[dre]

If my home were home invaded, should I be able respond with my Remington 870P? Should my wife and daughter be afforded the right to carry a handgun in their purses to ward off a potential rapists? If I’m shopping at Metrotown and a nutbar opens up in the food court, should I be able to defend my family?

The problem is the answers to those questions have no bearing on whether or not this would be effective public policy, or whether it would reduce the rate of crime, or rate of violent crime, or rate of gun crime.

Whats really at issue here is your own psychology it seems to me. Its hard for me to relate to these types of questions because I have absolutely no fear for my personal safety what-so-ever. If I lived in a place where I felt I needed to pack a gun around to be safe I would just move. Maybe you should move your family somewhere safer?

In relative terms Canada is a very safe place to live, and our CJ system works pretty well. Theres no need for these types of programs, or the huge expense to enact them and administer them.

If I lived in Somalia I would probably see things differently.

All all in you are proposing a radical change here and a very expensive one as well. I wouldnt support it unless there was a good reason. From what I can tell the system we have works pretty well and violent crimes are decreasing.

Furthermore, in this thread you drift from characterizing this as a very carefully regimented program managed by law enforcement, to talking about your wife and daughter which makes it sound like you think everyone oughtta be doing this. What youre really talking about is a gigantic government program, meant to address what is a fairly small problem.

[Guest Derek L]

The problem is the answers to those questions have no bearing on whether or not this would be effective public policy, or whether it would reduce the rate of crime, or rate of violent crime, or rate of gun crime.

Whats really at issue here is your own psychology it seems to me. Its hard for me to relate to these types of questions because I have absolutely no fear for my personal safety what-so-ever. If I lived in a place where I felt I needed to pack a gun around to be safe I would just move. Maybe you should move your family somewhere safer?

In relative terms Canada is a very safe place to live, and our CJ system works pretty well. Theres no need for these types of programs, or the huge expense to enact them and administer them.

If I lived in Somalia I would probably see things differently.

All all in you are proposing a radical change here and a very expensive one as well. I wouldnt support it unless there was a good reason. From what I can tell the system we have works pretty well and violent crimes are decreasing.

Furthermore, in this thread you drift from characterizing this as a very carefully regimented program managed by law enforcement, to talking about your wife and daughter which makes it sound like you think everyone oughtta be doing this. What youre really talking about is a gigantic government program, meant to address what is a fairly small problem.

As I’ve said prior when we’ve discussed this mater, I too don’t lie awake at night in fear for myself and family, but I feel said options when dealing with such a topic should be afforded to the individuals discretion and not solely with the State………Circumstances can change drastically and without warning that could force the individual into acting in their own interests of personal protection (I.e. South Africa circa 1980s or New Orleans post Katrina)

As for cost, the legal framework (and the ATC) are already, for the most part in place and at the discretion of the Provincial CFO’s…..As for the laws themselves, well isn’t that what we pay Parliament for already? As to costs of training and administration of a Canadian ATC/CCW/CHL program, simply make it a user pay system incorporated into already existing programs for law enforcement.

As I stated, it’s not a proposal to help nor hinder the enforcement of the law, but a guarantee for the individual that if they are required to defend themselves in the absence of law enforcement they won’t end up bankrupt from legal fees and/or in jail.

[Moonlight Graham]

The firearm is the worst invention in the history of humankind. The nuclear bomb will likely take that spot at some point, but until then...

I refuse to possess or even learn to fire a gun, and will hopefully do so for the rest of my existence unless myself or my loved ones are in imminent violent threat. Also, jiu-jitsu is way more badass.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest Derek L]

The firearm is the worst invention in the history of humankind. The nuclear bomb will likely take that spot at some point, but until then...

I refuse to possess or even learn to fire a gun, and will hopefully do so for the rest of my existence unless myself or my loved ones are in imminent violent threat. Also, jiu-jitsu is way more badass.