dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7166
share rss forum feed


vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1

1 edit
reply to Kardinal

Re: [Serious] Scarborough block party turns violent

Do we not learn from history that simply banning something does not make the problem go away.

The Volstead Act did not make the American public's desire to consume alcohol go away, it's not working with drugs and it will not work with guns. All it does is provide a very lucrative market for criminals...

Taking away a pencil from someone who can not spell does not resolve the spelling problem... We need to find out why people want to get stoned, drunk and shoot each other. Then and only then we will have fixed the problem...


milnoc

join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:2
reply to vue666
Two of those three incidents required multiple shots to subdue the bear, with the three shots in the third incident described by the shooter as being a "lucky shot".

In my encounter with a bear at a work camp, the man with the hunting rifle needed one shot to cripple the bear, and a second shot to quickly put it out of its misery. And luckily, he had time to properly set up the shot.

While this might sound very Stephen Colbert-ish, bears are vicious wild animals. They will maul you to death with great efficiency if given half the chance, with polar bears being the most aggressive of the lot.

Now with that in mind, it's doubtful you'll ever encounter a bear in a big city unless it's at the zoo in a protective enclosure. So the possession or use of a firearm in heavily populated area by the general public is extremely difficult to justify.
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com/live


dirtyjeffer
Anons on ignore, but not due to fear.
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON
from what my colleagues who are members at the "gun club" say, a handgun is only good against a bear to buy you time to get your rifle...unless you "snipe" the bear in the head, good luck to you...the noise might scare it off, but unless you have a large calibre pistol, and are an excellent shot, you best pray you don't meet a bear if that is your only weapon...yes, it is better than nothing, but a rifle is what you really need.
--
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

- George Orwell
Expand your moderator at work


Robert
Premium
join:2002-03-11
St John'S, NL
reply to vue666

Re: [Serious] Scarborough block party turns violent

said by vue666:

said by DKS:

If the election promise is ethically bankrupt in the beginning...

Bankrupt how? And I'll ask once more...Do you really believe criminals will register their guns? Banning something does not work (prohibition, drugs, etc)...

So by that logic we should legalize pot, cocaine, heroine, bath salts, fully automatic weapons? Let us stop registering cars too.Are you pro life Ken? If so, then rethink wanting to change abortion laws too.
--
It's one thing to listen to an idiot talk. As soon as you respond, there are now 2 idiots having a conversation.


vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1
Pretty selective in your reading of my posts... I said identify why people want to do drugs, engage in criminal acts, drink excessively then and only then will you lick the problem....

We have severe economic, social problems in our society that no one wants to address...

AND please stop attempting to hijack these threads into a Robert vs Ken debate... The issue is too complex and too serious for that type of hijinx...


vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1
reply to Robert
said by Robert:

said by vue666:

said by DKS:

If the election promise is ethically bankrupt in the beginning...

Bankrupt how? And I'll ask once more...Do you really believe criminals will register their guns? Banning something does not work (prohibition, drugs, etc)...

So by that logic we should legalize pot, cocaine, heroine, bath salts, fully automatic weapons? Let us stop registering cars too.Are you pro life Ken? If so, then rethink wanting to change abortion laws too.

So kindly enlighten me how would've the long gun registry adverted this incident?


digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2
reply to DKS
said by DKS:

Cue the usual pro-gun/pro-RefomaTories chorus. It gets tiresome.

Thank you for confirming that evidence-based outcomes are subject to a political filter by progressives.
--
Logic requires one to deal with decisions that one's ego will not permit.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by digitalfutur:

Thank you for confirming that evidence-based outcomes are subject to a political filter by progressives.

While I agree with your original post in its entirety, this comment here is pretty rich. I don't think you're in a position to comment about other people's political filters.


digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2

1 edit
You missed the part upthread where DKS posted "foolish destruction of the gun registry", making no distinction between the long gun and the handgun registry. And the "tiresome" response to my post pointing that out.

When policies are advocated and continue to be supported where there is no evidence of their effectiveness, that is political filtering.

One only has to review this list of mass murders to see that banning handguns or gun control laws will not stop them from occurring:

»www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012···ist.html

Again, this does not mean that handguns and long guns ownership should not be be regulated, but the clear implication from gun control advocates is that gun control prevents mass murders, and its logical conclusion: If all guns are banned, there will be no mass murders. There is no evidence of either, and none will be provided by its proponents.
--
Logic requires one to deal with decisions that one's ego will not permit.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
I didn't miss anything. You must have missed the part where I said I agree with what you posted with regards to guns and the gun registry, though. Read that again - I agree. I've never hid the fact that I believed the long gun registry to be a fiasco that we're better off without and that further restrictions on handgun ownership are a futile effort which would have no realistic impact on public safety seeing as how they are severely restricted right now as it is.

I merely pointed out that you're not in a position to make comments about someone else's "political filters" as you're just as guilty of having those same filters on any different number of occasions as the person who you're attempting to call out.

But hey, you've called me a "progressive" in the past despite the above noted view completely contrary to the "progressive" you called out just now - hopefully you read it this time before repeating yourself a third time - so what do we all know, eh?


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to digitalfutur
said by digitalfutur:

When policies are advocated and continue to be supported where there is no evidence of their effectiveness, that is political filtering.

Perhaps you should ask the Chiefs of Police in Canada about the effectiveness of the long gun registry? Again, the political right whines, carps and complains from their bankruptcy.

Again, this does not mean that handguns and long guns ownership should not be be regulated, but the clear implication from gun control advocates is that gun control prevents mass murders, and its logical conclusion: If all guns are banned, there will be no mass murders. There is no evidence of either, and none will be provided by its proponents.

Both points are nonsense and not part of any legitimate gun control argument. They are only the paranoid arguments of the right, attempting to reduce the argument to their believed point of ridiculousness. Such strategies may assist in reduction of harm to society, but never reduce it to a zero point. That's impossible.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to digitalfutur
said by digitalfutur:

said by DKS:

Cue the usual pro-gun/pro-RefomaTories chorus. It gets tiresome.

Thank you for confirming that evidence-based outcomes are subject to a political filter by progressives.

And by the right. The ReformaTories are especially prone to filtering, as we have repeatedly seen in the last week (cue the Mayor of Toronto and his "leave the city" nonsense, among other spewings).
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to DKS
said by DKS:

Perhaps you should ask the Chiefs of Police in Canada about the effectiveness of the long gun registry? Again, the political right whines, carps and complains from their bankruptcy.

Why should I ask political lobbyists who accept gifts from the main company holding Government contracts for the maintenance of the long gun registry about the long gun registry? I might as well ask a new car salesman whether I should buy new or used.

BTW before you blindly follow the CACP you should look into their position on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unless you want that gone too.

»www.ualberta.ca/~clement2/cacp.pdf

said by DKS:

Both points are nonsense and not part of any legitimate gun control argument. They are only the paranoid arguments of the right, attempting to reduce the argument to their believed point of ridiculousness. Such strategies may assist in reduction of harm to society, but never reduce it to a zero point. That's impossible.

Yet there's no evidence of any potential "reduced harm to society" either, whatever that means.

You want to "reduce harm to society"? Ban alcohol. Alcohol has no useful purpose and is involve is many more Canadian deaths than firearms. Oh wait, you've tried that already and only created MORE crime and "damage to society" as a result. The very definition of insanity is repeating the same actions expecting different results.


Robert
Premium
join:2002-03-11
St John'S, NL
reply to vue666
said by vue666:

So kindly enlighten me how would've the long gun registry adverted this incident?

Big shock, Ken deflected with his own question instead of answering mine.

I think that semi automatics should be banned, not merely registered. Two separate things Ken.
--
It's one thing to listen to an idiot talk. As soon as you respond, there are now 2 idiots having a conversation.

NCRGuy

join:2008-03-03
Ottawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:

BTW before you blindly follow the CACP you should look into their position on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unless you want that gone too.

»www.ualberta.ca/~clement2/cacp.pdf

Now we're trotting out 30 year old policy statements to attack current policies? #FAIL


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
reply to WNGFAN 1
We really need to consolidate these threads into a gun control thread. It's also strange to see Canadians arguing on behalf of stricter American state gun laws in a thread about Scarborough, Ontario, Canada.


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to IamGimli
said by IamGimli:

You want to "reduce harm to society"? Ban alcohol. Alcohol has no useful purpose and is involve is many more Canadian deaths than firearms. Oh wait, you've tried that already and only created MORE crime and "damage to society" as a result.

Funny you brought that up, a group of us discussed that idea last night after dinner and it stemmed from a discussion on gun control!

I relayed that I was frustrated that despite my and 'our' (being my friends) respect for responsible behaviours and proper societal conventions, the rest of society may not be. Thus, people in power create laws that won't solve the problem that creates this fear in the citizens they're placating...

Then I suggested "why don't they ban alcohol? Look at what happens downtown St. Catharines on a Saturday night, fights everywhere, sometimes broken windows, or in the down town bar scene of Toronto? There they need officers everywhere, some on horses, and those booze fueled situations hurt plenty of people... and even encourage shootings."

I then compared to countries where alcohol is banned, where Thursdays and Fridays are social nights where people get together and eat and laugh and eat again later.

But then we also discussed countries like Italy, Spain, Austria, Germany, etc. where people use alcohol to enhance their social interactions without the same issues that we experience in North America and the UK. Hrm..

Then we realized that if people want alcohol or drugs, they'll find a way to get it like they've already done... just the same as they'll get guns, just the same as they've been getting guns - imported from other countries.

At that point the conversation ended.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to NCRGuy
said by NCRGuy:

Now we're trotting out 30 year old policy statements to attack current policies? #FAIL

The only #FAIL is gun control. It has failed everywhere it's been attempted and it's always the fascists that push for it in their quest to control every aspect of everybody else's life.

The goal of the CACP is to get Canada as close as they can to a police state and their policies (all their policies) have been proof of that ever since it's creation.


digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2

3 edits
reply to DKS
The Chiefs have not produced any evidence that the long gun registry reduces gun crime. As usual you are equating credentials with evidence.

The long gun registry was established in 1995 as a direct result of a single incident in Montreal in 1989, for the express purpose of reducing long gun crime, and was reported that way by the govenment in power at the time. Since there is no evidence that the long gun registry reduces crime, there is no reason for it to exist. In other words, establishment of a long gun registry for all long gun owners is not proportionate to the very rare incidents of mass murder that the registry was ostensibly designed to prevent.
--
Logic requires one to deal with decisions that one's ego will not permit.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke.


vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1
reply to Robert
said by Robert:
I think that semi automatics should be banned, not merely registered. Two separate things Ken.

Wow big shock. I asked you how would have the long gun registry averted this task... AND you reply about banning semi automatics...


Kardinal
Dei Gratia Regina
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-04
N of 49th
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Bell Sympatico
said by Robert:

said by vue666:

And I'll ask once more...Do you really believe criminals will register their guns? Banning something does not work (prohibition, drugs, etc)...

So by that logic we should legalize pot, cocaine, heroine, bath salts, fully automatic weapons? Let us stop registering cars too.Are you pro life Ken? If so, then rethink wanting to change abortion laws too.

said by vue666:

said by Robert:
I think that semi automatics should be banned, not merely registered. Two separate things Ken.

Wow big shock. I asked you how would have the long gun registry averted this task... AND you reply about banning semi automatics...

Statement: bans don't work
Question: shall we legalize all sorts of things if bans don't work? Or what?
Reply: Would long gun registry have done anything?

Most of us would see a logic fail here, as the reply has nothing to do with the question asked about the initial statement. In short, you deflect a question by going off on a tangent to avoid answering, and then denigrate for not answering your tangent and attempting to stay on topic? Living in a glass house, throwing stones, and all that.

What do you think should be done, if your opinion is that bans don't work?
--
All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer by the stars
All of us do time in the gutter, dreamers turn to look at the cars

- Peart / Lifeson / Lee
Join Team Helix


vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1

1 edit
reply to WNGFAN 1
I thought I answered that before....

said by vue666:

Pretty selective in your reading of my posts... I said identify why people want to do drugs, engage in criminal acts, drink excessively then and only then will you lick the problem ....

We have severe economic, social problems in our society that no one wants to address...

AND please stop attempting to hijack these threads into a Robert vs Ken debate... The issue is too complex and too serious for that type of hijinx...

Since these shooting are gang related (or appear to be) banning the legal purchase of guns will do very little to hamper criminal access to weapons since most criminals use illegal guns...

Better to identify why they are engaging in criminal activities... We must take away identify the desire/need/requirement to engage in illegal activities to really resolve these shootings. Anything else is a feel good, stopgap measure...


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
I'd like to see some sort of real world statistics, on how many legally registered handguns are used in crimes, vs illegal non-registered ones in Ontario.

I am willing to bet that the difference is heavily one-sided.


Kardinal
Dei Gratia Regina
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-04
N of 49th
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Bell Sympatico
reply to vue666
said by vue666:

Better to identify why they are engaging in criminal activities... We must take away identify the desire/need/requirement to engage in illegal activities to really resolve these shootings. Anything else is a feel good, stopgap measure...

I happen to agree that psychological/sociological studies of what creates the situations/desires for drugs and crime are important, and that sort of work is ongoing. Of course, if you believe you can change the situation to try and prevent crime and drug use in the first place, then it would follow that you should be able to also change an existing mindset so that people who had performed crimes could be shown the error of their ways and changed so that they aren't on that path anymore and they can be worthy contributors to society after they have been incarcerated.

Does "feel good, stopgap measure" include mandatory minimum sentences as part of a 'tough on crime' stance? After all, that's just a feel good for the a very specific group of voters and has been shown to have no effect on reducing crime or drug use.
--
All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer by the stars
All of us do time in the gutter, dreamers turn to look at the cars

- Peart / Lifeson / Lee
Join Team Helix

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:

I'd like to see some sort of real world statistics, on how many legally registered handguns are used in crimes, vs illegal non-registered ones in Ontario.

I am willing to bet that the difference is heavily one-sided.

As far back as I can remember that's only happened once in recent Canadian history, and that was a gang hangaround who did have all the proper licenses and illegally used his own handgun to shoot at a club bouncer and ended up killing an innocent by-stander.

Now even that isn't legal as he was in illegal possession of that firearm in a place he wasn't authorized to possess it.

As far as firearm that were once properly owned and registered, here's a couple of stats.

Vancouver PD admitted 97% of seized firearms are smuggled from the US in their 2004-08 strategic plan. That's only about 3% that could be legally registered in Canada, although it's conceivable that a lot of these had been stolen from lawful firearm owners and therefore were not legally held and registered when seized.

Toronto PD pinned the number of firearms that could be found in the registry at 16% in a 2005 report, even though both Toronto Mayor David Miller and TPS Chief Bill Blair were quoted as saying almost half of crime handguns came from lawful owners (also ended up earning the Chief a new nickname; Bill Bliar). Again most of those had been stolen and therefore were not legally held or registered when seized.
»www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/v···&t=54261

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to Kardinal
said by Kardinal:

Does "feel good, stopgap measure" include mandatory minimum sentences as part of a 'tough on crime' stance? After all, that's just a feel good for the a very specific group of voters and has been shown to have no effect on reducing crime or drug use.

Actually, mandatory minimum sentences actually help with rehabilitation as they ensure offenders are incarcerated long enough for rehabilitation programs to actually have an effect on those individuals and they ensure offenders are sent to the Federal penitentiary system, where such programs are more widely available and generally better funded.

You have to keep in mind that most offenders are eligible for parole at 1/3 of their sentence, non-violent offenders at 1/6. For a typical sentence of 18-23 months (which sends them to a provincial jail) that's only about 6-8 months where they have to be evaluated, transferred to the right facility, wait for the start of the next session, etc, minus time already served. That's not much time to significantly change life habits.

With a 3 or 5 year minimum sentence at least you have at least a full year to rehabilitate and twice that of parole supervision to evaluate if the rehabilitation is taking. It doesn't work for everybody but it does show a higher chance of success.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
Actually, Most Americans are now coming to the realization that mandatory minimum sentences have had zero benefit, and the US Sentencing Commission has urged reform on the matter, and most states - including even Texas - are moving away from the concept of mandatory minimum sentencing.

I'm not going to claim that further restrictions on firearm ownership will have any effect on crime - in fact, they most certainly will not. You're barking up a tree of ignorance if you think that mandatory minimums have any impact, as the Americans have been doing this for decades and are just now starting to see how the only thing they have done is cause a great deal of money to be pissed down the toilet.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
Do you know if American jails offer as much rehabilitation programs as Canadian Federal penitentiaries do? Do you have a reference for that as I suspect they're mostly talking about long mandatory sentences of 10+ years, where it wouldn't have any positive impact on rehabilitation programs and re-insertion. Canada doesn't do 10+ years minimum mandatory sentences. American offenders also generally spend a lot more of their sentence incarcerated vs. on parole, which also has a negative impact on re-insertion. One experience may not be applicable in a different environment.

I happen to know rehabilitation programs are VERY common in federal penitentiaries, having worked in some for three years before getting my current job. From discussions with case workers and offenders in that environment I also learned that such programs were pretty much non-existent in the provincial network, because the provincial network only deals with sentences of less than two years and that's not enough time for most programs.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
No one said anything about the rehabilitation programs in jail and prisons, and those are ultimately irrelevant to the topic of mandatory minimums. Recent US experience has shown that them to be a failure.

When one looks at the costs required to incarcerate people for longer periods of time versus any potential in crime reduction - and, indeed, the American experience shows it is negligible - one has to wonder what purpose it serves other than a political motivation.