Gun Registry - Gun Crime Measures

[jdobbin]

That's misleading. As you insist less legal guns would translate to less legal firearms being used in crime. However, as it stands the percentage of crimes that are committed with properly registered weapons is negligible compared to those committed with illegal/unregistered weapons. The gun registry only places further restrictions on people who already handled, stored and used their weapons legally, and it does essentially nothing to address gun crime.

I never mentioned anything about the gun registry. I just mentioned that countries with fewer guns have few gun crimes.

[jdobbin]

If I were moderator, I would warn/ban both jbg and jdobbin for the coloured, recopied nonsense above.

I apologize for replying to the post. I have deleted it now.

If the moderator wants to ban me, I'll accept his decision.

[jbg]

If I were moderator, I would warn/ban both jbg and jdobbin for the coloured, recopied nonsense above.

I apologize for replying to the post. I have deleted it now.

If the moderator wants to ban me, I'll accept his decision.

I deleted the repetitive re-quoting, and all highlighting and bolding.

[Wilber]

I never mentioned anything about the gun registry. I just mentioned that countries with fewer guns have few gun crimes.

Will more laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Highly debatable considering the length of border we have with the US.

[jdobbin]

Will more laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Highly debatable considering the length of border we have with the US.

Will more criminals in prison keep gun crimes down?

Harper is about to introduce the three strikes you're out law in Canada. He says it is about deterence but there has not been any evidence in the the U.S. that the law has deterred violent offenders.

[watching&waiting]

I am not that worried about what the CPC is going to do and I think that yes they will drop the registering of guns. As I stated earlier the lowest rates of violent gun crimes are in states where it is quite legal to own and carry guns. It is just a simple fact and all the stats say this. So if you wanted things to be safer and do the things that work, you would simply allow the people to arm themselves. Now I know that will not happen, but it is the one tried and proven thing in all of this.

Harper realises the need for guns in most of the area of Canada, and he is not ging to try to change that. The people who want to blame everything on everyone but themselves, will have to understand that yes some times people are driven to do insane acts. Just because this happens it does not mean that you then use this to take away others rights. It is that simple. England bans guns and most police do not carry guns, but the criminals still use them and that is even in lieu of very harsh sentences for gun crimes. There will always be those who do not care what the consequenses are.

In Switzerland every man is expected to have a rifle and ammo for it and all people do serve some time in the military. They all have been trained in the proper care and use of firearms. and every household has atleast one rifle for every adult living there. That would be a very good reason for a low gun crime rate there. Israel also has conscription and most adults have after their terms have kept arms in their homes. I am not sure of the nonterroist gun crimes, but I would assume they would be low.

So here we are in Canada and we think that there is a better way to do things, but so far all we have tried has failed to produce the desired results. So when do we finally decide to do the one thing that has been proven to work? I say this as I finish filling out my renewal for my FAC once again and will have to do every 5 years. I would say that it will come down to open gun ownership sooner or later. Even the Liberal will see that in the end, and the registry was only to throw a bone at the protesters to get them some votes, but no way will they ever ban guns period.

[jdobbin]

I am not that worried about what the CPC is going to do and I think that yes they will drop the registering of guns. As I stated earlier the lowest rates of violent gun crimes are in states where it is quite legal to own and carry guns. It is just a simple fact and all the stats say this. So if you wanted things to be safer and do the things that work, you would simply allow the people to arm themselves. Now I know that will not happen, but it is the one tried and proven thing in all of this.

I personally never supported the gun registry. I think the countries that have plentiful guns with low gun crime have better training and safety as well as responisbilities to their respective militaries.

I think there have been a few good ideas in regards to safety and training as well as screening mentioned here.

It isn't usually the lawful gun owners who are the source of problems to be sure.

I don't know that untrained people carrying guns would make things safer.

[jbg]

Harper is about to introduce the three strikes you're out law in Canada. He says it is about deterence but there has not been any evidence in the the U.S. that the law has deterred violent offenders.

It's "three strikes and you're in". The idea is not deterrence, but prevention. Prisoners at least prey on each other, not society.

[jdobbin]

It's "three strikes and you're in". The idea is not deterrence, but prevention. Prisoners at least prey on each other, not society.

But his justice minister is calling it deterrence.

[geoffrey]

Under what conditions can the Swiss own guns?

Not 100% sure, the arcticles I found aren't clear. But the stats are:

In some 2001 statistics[3], it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles stored at private homes, mostly SIG 550 types. Additionally, there are some 320,000 assault rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million; more liberal estimates put the number at 3 million.

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

It's all cited on the wiki page with links to reliable sources.

[Wilber]

Will more laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Highly debatable considering the length of border we have with the US.

Will more criminals in prison keep gun crimes down?

Harper is about to introduce the three strikes you're out law in Canada. He says it is about deterence but there has not been any evidence in the the U.S. that the law has deterred violent offenders.

If you put criminals in jail, they cannot commit crimes while they are there. The concept is quite simple. The murder rate in the US is higher but other crime rates including violent crime rates are lower.

The US three strikes you're out means you get life, Harper's three strikes means you get a jail sentence of some kind instead of the usual Canadian twenty strikes and you are still in.

[jdobbin]

If you put criminals in jail, they cannot commit crimes while they are there. The concept is quite simple. The murder rate in the US is higher but other crime rates including violent crime rates are lower.

The US three strikes you're out means you get life, Harper's three strikes means you get a jail sentence of some kind instead of the usual Canadian twenty strikes and you are still in.

That is not what Toews said. He said it was a deterrent to people committing crimes to begin with. A very different thing altogether.

And three strikes means that like similar jurisdictions in the States, Canada will have to build a much larger prison capacity. How much is that going to cost to permanently imprison that many people?

[geoffrey]

If you put criminals in jail, they cannot commit crimes while they are there. The concept is quite simple. The murder rate in the US is higher but other crime rates including violent crime rates are lower.

The US three strikes you're out means you get life, Harper's three strikes means you get a jail sentence of some kind instead of the usual Canadian twenty strikes and you are still in.

That is not what Toews said. He said it was a deterrent to people committing crimes to begin with. A very different thing altogether.

And three strikes means that like similar jurisdictions in the States, Canada will have to build a much larger prison capacity. How much is that going to cost to permanently imprison that many people?

I'd be willing to pay quite a high price for my personal safety, don't know about you.

[Hicksey]

That's misleading. As you insist less legal guns would translate to less legal firearms being used in crime. However, as it stands the percentage of crimes that are committed with properly registered weapons is negligible compared to those committed with illegal/unregistered weapons. The gun registry only places further restrictions on people who already handled, stored and used their weapons legally, and it does essentially nothing to address gun crime.

I never mentioned anything about the gun registry. I just mentioned that countries with fewer guns have few gun crimes.

And you completely ignored the point being made. You don't know who has illegal weapons. How do you rid a coutry of those? All you can do is reduce and eliminate legal ownership. And as pointed out by me, that would do almost nothing to eliminate gun crime because the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by illegal arms.

Were you purposely being overly simplistic? Did I miss something or do you have some sort of magic way to make them all disappear?

[Wilber]

If you put criminals in jail, they cannot commit crimes while they are there. The concept is quite simple. The murder rate in the US is higher but other crime rates including violent crime rates are lower.

The US three strikes you're out means you get life, Harper's three strikes means you get a jail sentence of some kind instead of the usual Canadian twenty strikes and you are still in.

That is not what Toews said. He said it was a deterrent to people committing crimes to begin with. A very different thing altogether.

And three strikes means that like similar jurisdictions in the States, Canada will have to build a much larger prison capacity. How much is that going to cost to permanently imprison that many people?

How many crimes does a person have go commit before it becomes more expensive not to put them in jail? All that is talked about is the cost of keeping people in jail. Nothing is said about the cost to victims or the increased costs we all pay for goods and insurance because of crime or how the fear of crime effects the way many Canadians have to conduct their daily lives.

Property and violent crimes are lower in the US. Maybe it is a deterrent.

[jdobbin]

I'd be willing to pay quite a high price for my personal safety, don't know about you.

Does it really keep people safer to have people in prison after the reach the age of say...65?

And it isn't just a high price. It's a price that grows and grows and grows. What do you think the breaking point in your taxes is before you start wondering if a senior citizen is really a threat to you?

[jdobbin]

How many crimes does a person have go commit before it becomes more expensive not to put them in jail? All that is talked about is the cost of keeping people in jail. Nothing is said about the cost to victims or the increased costs we all pay for goods and insurance because of crime or how the fear of crime effects the way many Canadians have to conduct their daily lives.

Property and violent crimes are lower in the US. Maybe it is a deterrent.

I have no problem putting someone in prison for a crime they commit.

I do have a problem with a prison full of 70 and 80 year olds who committed crimes in their 20s and who are probably a threat to no one anymore.

[Wilber]

How many crimes does a person have go commit before it becomes more expensive not to put them in jail? All that is talked about is the cost of keeping people in jail. Nothing is said about the cost to victims or the increased costs we all pay for goods and insurance because of crime or how the fear of crime effects the way many Canadians have to conduct their daily lives.

Property and violent crimes are lower in the US. Maybe it is a deterrent.

I have no problem putting someone in prison for a crime they commit.

I do have a problem with a prison full of 70 and 80 year olds who committed crimes in their 20s and who are probably a threat to no one anymore.

I think anyone would have a problem with that and I don't believe anyone honestly thinks it will happen. It could easily be avoided by putting some time limit between the commission of crimes for it to take effect. Like points on your driving record you could shed them over time if you don't have any more convictions.

[watching&waiting]

The issue of increasing the sentences and then overfilling the prison system is and will be a hard issue to pursue. But could we not have some other method of which it would get the troubled criminal out of our system and not cost us a lot. We have areas of vast wilderness where if you wandered out alone you would either die from the environment or the animals etc. Could that not be used in conjuction with the satelite ankle bracelets to remove these from our densely populated society and put them in a place where they have to work and get along together just to survive. Would this not then be a move towards their being rehabilitated?

Not every sentence would or should mean that the prisoner must be held in a foraml prison. Why can we not setup a city in our north that we can control what goes in and out and then let this guys go about setting up their own rules and order of things that need to be done so they could survive. That would be the ultimate rehab for many of these people. Canada has the land and the isolation to be able to do this, and it could be done at a reasonable cost. That way we do not worry about overloading our prisons and we would be actually doing rehabilitation which should be the major point in this.

[Charles Anthony]

I admire the suggestion of using isolated tracts of Canadian wilderness instead of penitentiaries. Usually the best ideas are simple.

Whether it moves towards rehabilitation or not is a different issue but I think it is a solution. It would be similar to exiling people to a desert island, a modern-day Australia or North America. Cynically, I would fear that it may have one draw-back: non-criminals may want join such a wilderness haven.

[Hicksey]

I admire the suggestion of using isolated tracts of Canadian wilderness instead of penitentiaries. Usually the best ideas are simple.

Whether it moves towards rehabilitation or not is a different issue but I think it is a solution. It would be similar to exiling people to a desert island, a modern-day Australia or North America. Cynically, I would fear that it may have one draw-back: non-criminals may want join such a wilderness haven.

So, instead of punishing people for crimes we are going to send them on a taxpayer funded vacation? That's worth a laugh.

[Charles Anthony]

So, instead of punishing people for crimes we are going to send them on a taxpayer funded vacation? That's worth a laugh.

Laugh at yourself. That is exactly what we do now.

What are YOUR goals for a justice system?

[Hicksey]

So, instead of punishing people for crimes we are going to send them on a taxpayer funded vacation? That's worth a laugh.

Laugh at yourself. That is exactly what we do now.

What are YOUR goals for a justice system?

I want a justice system that punishes people for the crimes they commit. I want it to try to rehabilitate those who will allow themselves to be rehabilitated and be prepared to keep those who do not incarcerated until they do. I want a reasonable expectation of safety for our citizenry and victim's rights to have as much weight as a criminal's rights in matters of punishment. 3 indicatable offenses indicate that someone cannot function within the rules of society and should be removed from it. I want to rid society of the nonsense that a criminal is just someone who hasn't been adequately been subsidized/coddled by our paychecks. Criminals do not commit crimes because of social ills -- they do it because they are either too lazy to ply a trade honestly or because of pure greed. IMO a crime committed against a person or their property is not just committed against them, but also against society. If they cannot function within the rules of our society they should be removed from it.

[watching&waiting]

You do not get my point. If we had a city lets say in the middle of what is now call Nunavtik, where it is at least 500 miles to the nearest city. We would have a basic shelter and food to start their sentence, but while they were their they would have to grow food in a green house and have other work to be done. This work would earn them points for things etc. If they do not work they only get basic needs and that is it. Any crimes committed there would mean being put out with only the clothes on your back. Let them see if they can dodge the bears and other things and show them how tough they are. We would send the criminal that have life sentences here or anyone with more then 10 years to serve. They would either setup their own rules and run as a society or they would sooner or later pay the big price for not doing so. The ankle bracelets could keep track of them and make sure they are all where they should be and if any try to escape they would be quickly caught.

This would easily be expanded to what ever capacity was needed and as for guard go there would be little need for any but the most skeleton of guards. If the prisoners work and earn the TV and extra food and sweets then they will learn that certain behaviour has rewards an wrong behaviour has punishments. They would fine that they will probably setup their own order of things and then work towards that. The costs would be low compared to todays prisons and it would make for the public a better security knowing that criminal can be locked up without the over crowding.

[Hydraboss]

w&w, I do believe that I have seen your vision in a few sci-fi movies.

That being said, I'm all for it. Instead of ankle bracelets, could we go with the neck bracelets that explode if the convicts cross a certain invisible line?

The bleeding hearts of this country would no doubt cry and moan about Canada setting up another Siberia. Still, a good idea none the less. While this idea may have merit, I still like the idea of forced labour camps better (in the Arctic> Fine!). I have been involved in discussions here that followed along the same lines, and the opposition always comes up with the same line, "And how would that reform the (poor & downtrodden) prisoners? What about when they get out? What then?"

Who cares.

The types of crimes that would get you sent to a camp like this would reassign you to the "couldn't care less if you live or die" category. Rehab means nothing to a murderer. And if it does, and he's truly sorry?

Who cares.