dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7165
share rss forum feed


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

Re: [Serious] Scarborough block party turns violent

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.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
said by Gone:

No one said anything about the rehabilitation programs in jail and prisons, and those are ultimately irrelevant to the topic of mandatory minimums.

I do believe I just did say something about rehabilitation. Just because you're unable to find an argument to counter mine doesn't make it irrelevant.

said by Gone:

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.

None of which can be directly applied to the Canadian implementation of mandatory minimum sentences as the two systems are fundamentally different.

It's ok if you don't have any argument that directly relate to Canadian minimum sentencing. At least be honest enough to admit it.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by IamGimli:
Actually, mandatory minimum sentences actually help with rehabilitation
The American example, as I will now say for a third time, runs counter to this very example you cited here. If rehabilitation was so wonderful and successful there would be a net-benefit on crime levels when American statistics show there is none, particularly when one takes into account the costs and the fact that programs can be delivered in a community setting rather than through incarceration.

As for the recent Canadian move toward mandatory minimums, you're in no more of a position to say it will work than someone who says it won't, because we haven't had MMSes long enough for anyone to determine their impact to any sort of statistically accurate level. As I said earlier, you own experiences with whatever rehabilitation is available in federal prisons is irrelevant when it comes to judging the long-term impact of such policies. It's opinion, nothing more.

Considering that Canada, for all intents and purposes, is America Jr. culturally when compared to other countries on Earth, I tend to think the American experience is a good indicator of how things would go here and that it would be a colossal waste of time and money with no realistic impact on crime levels. I should note that this is my own educated opinion, and is no more or less valid than the one you hold yourself.

Get back to us in 10-20 years, then we can have proper discussion on the topic of just how well they work.


dirtyjeffer
Anons on ignore, but not due to fear.
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

1 recommendation

i think IamGimli's point (which if i understand him correctly, i agree with), is 3 years in a Canadian jail for mandatory sentencing, where he can get rehab is far more effective than 10 years in a US prison where he rots in his cell.


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

i think IamGimli's point (which if i understand him correctly, i agree with), is 3 years in a Canadian jail for mandatory sentencing, where he can get rehab is far more effective than 10 years in a US prison where he rots in his cell

Maybe, but we have no real way of knowing how effective a mandatory minimum would be versus judicial discretion, because many of these mandatory minimums haven't been in place long enough to realistically determine the impact they may or may not have had.

All things considered, the American failure would most likely translate into something similar for Canada, at the very least the cost of delivering programs while incarcerated versus costs to deliver programs while under community supervision would be a sham considering that it most likely - based on the American example, anyway - translate into any reduction in crime.


dirtyjeffer
Anons on ignore, but not due to fear.
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON
if someone is in prison, it ensures they can get the rehab...when left to their own demise, and let out early, it perpetuates the issues we see too often today...i have no problem with mandatory minimums for crimes committed with firearms...at the very least, it keeps them off the streets, which eliminates and chance of recidivism during that time...the phrases "known to police", "previous charges" and "out on bail/parole" are all too common nowadays.
--
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

- George Orwell

IamGimli

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

The American example, as I will now say for a third time, runs counter to this very example you cited here.

The American example, as I will also say for the third time, cannot be directly extrapolated to the Canadian environment due to the differences I mentioned previously. Care to go for a fourth round?

said by Gone:

If rehabilitation was so wonderful and successful there would be a net-benefit on crime levels when American statistics show there is none, particularly when one takes into account the costs and the fact that programs can be delivered in a community setting rather than through incarceration.

Actually, rehabilitation does work to a certain degree, and the Canadian experience with rehabilitation is much more successful than the American experience with rehabilitation, due to many factors. Some of those factors are the longer periods Canadian offenders spend on parole vs. American offenders, the generally shorter sentences Canadian offenders are sentenced to vs. American offenders and the much greater availability of rehabilitation programs available to Canadian offenders, and their generally greater quality.

A lot of American prisons are privately owned and run and it's not in the interest of the privately owned institution to release offenders early or to spend considerable amounts of money on rehabilitation programs. That doesn't exist in Canada.

said by Gone:

As for the recent Canadian move toward mandatory minimums, you're in no more of a position to say it will work than someone who says it won't, because we haven't had MMSes long enough for anyone to determine their impact to any sort of statistically accurate level. As I said earlier, you own experiences with whatever rehabilitation is available in federal prisons is irrelevant when it comes to judging the long-term impact of such policies. It's opinion, nothing more.

I never said it was certain to be a good thing, only that my personal experience talking with people who do this for a living is that it will help. I take that knowledge to have a greater value to evaluate OUR system than your claim that the American experience, which has almost nothing in common with the Canadian environment, is a guaranty of failure.

said by Gone:

Considering that Canada, for all intents and purposes, is America Jr. culturally when compared to other countries on Earth, I tend to think the American experience is a good indicator of how things would go here and that it would be a colossal waste of time and money with no realistic impact on crime levels. I should note that this is my own educated opinion, and is no more or less valid than the one you hold yourself.

Actually, that only shows that you have absolutely no clue how the Canadian correctional system works as it's absolutely nothing that can be compared to the American correctional system. As a matter of fact our correctional system is much closer to the system used in European countries, especially on the Scandinavian peninsula.

That is in no small part due to Ole Ingstrup, a Danish-Canadian who was commissioner of Correctional Services Canada for nine years and chairman of the National Parole Board for two.

said by Gone:

Get back to us in 10-20 years, then we can have proper discussion on the topic of just how well they work.

You do the same instead of just claiming it can't work because the American couldn't make it work.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
And you have zero proof that mandatory minimum sentences would work just because Canadian prisons offer better inmate services. I never argued that rehabilitation doesn't work. I also quite clearly said that the American parallel is not a direct one, but it is the best example we have to look at versus your example of a Canadian practice so new that we have no way to base any figures on it, which is what your whole argument is based upon.

If you want to base your entire argument in favour of mandatory minimum sentences on a) unproven theories and b) things that were never said, I can't stop you.


digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2
reply to WNGFAN 1
Hopefully someone higher up than whoever sent the email will reverse this knee-jerk decision. If some posters here had their way though, it'd all be banned anyway. All guns = bad.

quote:
Toronto disinvites elite youth target shooters from city sports event.
»fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201···s-event/
--
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.


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Good grief. I just shake my head, there's nothing more I can do.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply to Gone
said by Gone:



As for the recent Canadian move toward mandatory minimums, you're in no more of a position to say it will work than someone who says it won't, because we haven't had MMSes long enough for anyone to determine their impact to any sort of statistically accurate level.

And we never will. People who argue that statistics "prove" that mandatory minimum sentences aren't working where they have been implemented don't understand statistics, or experimental method.

You have condition "A", the current state, as well as trends from the past. Condition "A" has known inputs and outcomes for the most part. But ascribing certain outcomes to certain inputs is utterly impossible. You can theorize all you like. There's no basis of comparison to truly judge or to separate variables.

Which brings us to condition "B". In this case, the present as well as trends IF mandatory minimum sentences weren't put in in the US. ???? Have an alternate-universe-o-scope? Who the heck knows. Purely conjecture, for those advocating MMSs or those saying that they don't work.

That said, serious crime in the US, where there are tough mandatory minimum sentencing laws is at a 48 year low.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to urbanriot
If anyone can explain to me what bullshit like this accomplishes, I'm all hears.


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

That said, serious crime in the US, where there are tough mandatory minimum sentencing laws is at a 48 year low.

A citation would be nice.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
said by Gone:

said by Ian:

That said, serious crime in the US, where there are tough mandatory minimum sentencing laws is at a 48 year low.

A citation would be nice.

Google is your friend. But here's "A" source.

»www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/au···plunging

"America's serious crime rate is plunging, but why?"

"Police investigate a crime scene in Washington DC. Serious crime across America has fallen to a 48-year low."

"One of the most widely accepted explanations is also one of the most politically and socially sensitive – that the imposition of sharply stiffer prison sentences since the early 1980s, which has resulted in the US having the highest rate of incarceration in the developed world, has kept large numbers of criminals off the streets." But as I said, impossible to really "know" why things are the way that they are.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
Well, crime is also down significantly in Canada over the same period without the same sentencing policy, so you're right - we'll never know for sure.

Still, when one looks at the cost vs. benefit of such policies, are they worth the money? It is worth putting yourself into debt for limited reductions in crime? I suppose that depends on who you ask, but it certainly isn't a very fiscally conservative way of looking at things.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
said by Gone:

Still, when one looks at the cost vs. benefit of such policies, are they worth the money? It is worth putting yourself into debt for limited reductions in crime? I suppose that depends on who you ask, but it certainly isn't a very fiscally conservative way of looking at things.

Well? Do you want violent crime like Scarborough shootings to drop more, or not? I just think that things that actually might work, such as putting violent thugs behind bars, away from society, might actually help; whereas further restricting lawful handguns.....likely won't.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong

IamGimli

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

Hopefully someone higher up than whoever sent the email will reverse this knee-jerk decision. If some posters here had their way though, it'd all be banned anyway. All guns = bad.

quote:
Toronto disinvites elite youth target shooters from city sports event.
»fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201···s-event/

This is despicable, yet not surprising. The Politically Correct crowd has always supported meaningless smoke and mirrors rather than real solutions.

That's just like the Thames Valley District School Board forbidding one of it's schools from accepting a $5,000 donation to go towards student activities because it came from the East Elgin Sportmen's Association and was collected during a provincial shooting competition sanctioned by the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC).

»www.ofah.org/news/Students-pawns···politics


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

If anyone can explain to me what bullshit like this accomplishes, I'm all hears.

It's a reminder of the overzealous political correctness decade of the 90's, when everyone was oversensitive, men were encouraged to embrace their inner femininity, people used terms like "metrosexual" and anything that could affect the sensitivities of an oversensitive person with too much time that isn't even remotely connected to a non-offensive issue was disrupted.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Ian
said by Ian:

"One of the most widely accepted explanations is also one of the most politically and socially sensitive – that the imposition of sharply stiffer prison sentences since the early 1980s, which has resulted in the US having the highest rate of incarceration in the developed world, has kept large numbers of criminals off the streets." But as I said, impossible to really "know" why things are the way that they are.

Although slightly OT there is a competing theory here:

»pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/···2001.pdf

quote:
Far more interesting from our perspective is the possibility
that abortion has a disproportionate effect on the births of those
who are most at risk of engaging in criminal behavior. To the
extent that abortion is more frequent among those parents who
are least willing or able to provide a nurturing home environment,
as a large and growing body of evidence suggests, the
impact of legalized abortion on crimemight be far greater than its
effect on fertility rates.

I'm *not* bringing this up to discuss abortion, but I am offering a counter point to "stiffer sentences are the only way to reduce crime".
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


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

1 edit
reply to Ian
said by Ian:

Well? Do you want violent crime like Scarborough shootings to drop more, or not? I just think that things that actually might work, such as putting violent thugs behind bars, away from society, might actually help; whereas further restricting lawful handguns.....likely won't.

1) I have never disagreed that further restricting handguns would be a futile and useless way of trying to solve violent crime. Quite the opposite in fact, and I'm on the record saying such many times over.
2) There is no tangible proof, as you already outlined, that mandatory minimum sentences are directly responsible for the reduction in violent crime that the United States has experience over the last few decades. Considering that Canada has also experienced a similar declined without the implementation of such policies until very recently, that calls into question whether they had any impact at all.
3) If there was a reduction, how much of a reduction would you consider acceptable for the cost to be worthwhile? A 50% drop? 10% drop? 1%? Furthermore, if the cost is high (as incarceration always is), are you willing to accept a potentially significant fiscal impact (e.g. higher taxes) to pay for these sentencing policies?

As I said earlier, mandatory minimum sentences are not a fiscally conservative way of dealing with the problem. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's throwing money at a problem when there are better approaches that cost far less money.


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

It's a reminder of the overzealous political correctness decade of the 90's, when everyone was oversensitive, men were encouraged to embrace their inner femininity, people used terms like "metrosexual" and anything that could affect the sensitivities of an oversensitive person with too much time that isn't even remotely connected to a non-offensive issue was disrupted.

It goes even beyond that. I mean for christ's sake, did these people not stop to consider that they are banning a positive use for firearms? As in, people not going around shooting each other and being responsible in their firearm usage? What are they trying to prove?

It's so retarded that I can't even properly put into words how frustrated shit like that makes me.