# Innocent bystander killed ~ Mayor calls for ban of Handguns



## Lisa (Jan 18, 2008)

> Others, like Jerry Duffet, said that unfortunately it's part of life in an increasingly violent city.
> 
> 
> "When you're younger, it's a shocking thing, it's terrible. But as you get older and you see so much of it, it's a desensitizing thing, unfortunately, but that's just the way it is," he told CBC News.
> ...



Full Story

So how effective would it be for a major urban area like Toronto to ban hand guns...we live in Canada and can't carry already so....how is this going to help????  Ya think the bad guys are gonna listen?


----------



## Monadnock (Jan 18, 2008)

Lisa said:


> Full Story
> 
> So how effective would it be for a major urban area like Toronto to ban hand guns...we live in Canada and can't carry already so....how is this going to help???? Ya think the bad guys are gonna listen?


 
So there already is a ban on carrying guns, yet the gun violence goes on? Sounds like gun conrol really works...


----------



## Kacey (Jan 18, 2008)

It's a knee-jerk reaction.  It's much easier, if generally not effective, in many cases, to call for tighter laws than to enforce the laws already in place - but when legislators call for tighter laws, it looks like they're doing _something_, even though what they're doing is generally not going to change anything.

And, of course - gun-control laws do not prevent _lawbreakers_ from carrying laws; they just make criminals safer from the law-abiding; "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" may be an old, tired bumper sticker, but it's stayed around so long because of the truth it contains.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Jan 19, 2008)

Monadnock said:


> So there already is a ban on carrying guns, yet the gun violence goes on? Sounds like gun conrol really works...



*WORD.*


----------



## jamz (Jan 19, 2008)

See the dictionary definition of Circular logic, as well as insanity. (i.e. repeating the same action and expecting a different result).

One day, they might aspire to be as safe as Washington D.C.!


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 19, 2008)

Do we, therefore, have to accept that innocent people will be killed in the streets, on their way to work? Although the mayor said, "It goes without saying", he still needed to repeat it. What choices can have a positive impact on the "innocent bystander"?


----------



## Lisa (Jan 19, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> Do we, therefore, have to accept that innocent people will be killed in the streets, on their way to work? Although the mayor said, "It goes without saying", he still needed to repeat it. What choices can have a positive impact on the "innocent bystander"?



I would say tougher CRIME laws, not strangling the law abiding gun owner with stricter gun laws.  Implement and actually follow through with laws that include if a crime is committed with a weapon you do X amount of time, no if's, and's or but's.  Social programs to help youth stay away from gang's and violence.  That would be a start.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 19, 2008)

There was a time when in the mid/late 1800's in the western U.S. if a man killed someone and justice was a bit slow on getting him where he needed to be... then folks would've hunted him down themselves or busted into the holding jail he was at and dragged his sorry *** to the nearest tree and left him dangling there. 
This also was a time where a lot (not everyone as the movies led one to believe) of folks carried their own and weren't afraid to use them. 
Then you had a professional posse (Brinks) that went out and hunted one down til they were brought back in ... dead or alive.
There weren't too many criminals back then and not a lot of them survived long enough to pass on their expertise in prison to the next generation.  

Ahh, the good ole' days.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jan 19, 2008)

Lisa said:


> ...we live in Canada and can't carry already so....how is this going to help????  Ya think the bad guys are gonna listen?




Exactly. Laws are for the "good people", I don't think it's going to change a thing. The only way to get through to criminals is a heavy price to pay for breaking the law, and even then plenty just don't care. Sad.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 19, 2008)

Lisa said:


> I would say tougher CRIME laws, not strangling the law abiding gun owner with stricter gun laws. Implement and actually follow through with laws that include if a crime is committed with a weapon you do X amount of time, no if's, and's or but's. Social programs to help youth stay away from gang's and violence. That would be a start.


 
In the United States, we have the highest incarceration rate of any Western Nation. 

Would you agree, that this is an indicator of "tough crime laws"? 

If you would agree with that statement, what do we do when our 'tough crime laws' prove insufficient? 

Social programs are a good idea, but take many years to bear fruit. That does little to help our society now.


----------



## Ray (Jan 19, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> In the United States, we have the highest incarceration rate of any Western Nation.
> 
> Would you agree, that this is an indicator of "tough crime laws"?
> 
> ...


The incarceration rate in the US is not an indicator of being tough.  I don't think incarceration in the US is handled in a way to reduce repeat offenses...it should either be rehabilitation or punishment; not an ineffective mix of sometimes this and sometimes that.

What social programs really bear fruit?  I believe LBJ was on a good track -- education.  Unfortunately for him (and us) he couldn't have guns and butter both at the same time.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 19, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> In the United States, we have the highest incarceration rate of any Western Nation.
> 
> Would you agree, that this is an indicator of "tough crime laws"?
> 
> ...



The best thing we can do is two fold:

1. Try to create a community that nurtures stable and happy people. This has to start with our youngsters and our education programs, and it has to build from the values we espouse as adults. We have to promote a stable economy (not just a "rich" but unbalanced one) where we remove external stressors, such as worries over employment, paying bills, healthcare, etc. If we promote values and remove environmental stressors that contribute to people turning to violence, we will have a much less violent society where shootings are far less likely to occur. The problem is violence, not available weapons.

2. Allow people to maintain their individual rights, especially those of self-defense. This means not restricting people from reasonable methods of self-defense, like firearms. By banning weapons, all you do is create a "survival of the fittest" environment. The toughest street fighter is the one who rules, and the elderly or disabled or people who are physically weaker have to now succomb to the stronger criminals wishes. No matter how great you are with #1, and no matter how wondeful your community is, there is always a chance that you will need to defend yourself. By not restricting this right, you at least have less chances of people becoming victims.

Those are the answers. Canada is great with #1, at least through my experience. Canadian people, at least the ones I have met, have always had great personal values. They have been very welcoming and nice; you can see a real difference in the culture when you visit Canada (at least I can). However, they suck at #2. Most Canadians are victims waiting to happen. That can be said about any society, but in order to decide to not be a victim, you might have to break Canadian law. This is not condusive of a safe envornment.

Here in the US, we are great with #2 (although we could be better), because we value individual and 2nd amendment rights. However, we suck right now at #1, and that is why our crime rates are horrible. 

The ideal situation would be to improve #1 while maintaining and improving number 2. That means we maintain our individual rights, and promote a stable society. Violence would be a very small issue if we did this properly.

That all said, Toronto's gun control measures are already very high; and this incident just shows that gun control measures are not the answer...


----------



## Lisa (Jan 19, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> In the United States, we have the highest incarceration rate of any Western Nation.
> 
> Would you agree, that this is an indicator of "tough crime laws"?



No I would agree that you have a system that enables people to reoffend countless times, live in incarceration their entire lives on the state's dime and never really pay the price of the heinous crimes they do.



michaeledward said:


> If you would agree with that statement, what do we do when our 'tough crime laws' prove insufficient?



My off the cuff answer would be something along the lines of an eye for an eye, or a bullet to the head.  Incarceration does not necessarily mean you have tough crime laws.



michaeledward said:


> Social programs are a good idea, but take many years to bear fruit. That does little to help our society now.



True but when looking at a solution, it can never be a band aid answer.  Tougher crime laws in conjunction with prevention is necessary.


----------



## Monadnock (Jan 19, 2008)

Trying to guarantee a 100% safe utopian society is kind of pointless isn't it? You can't beat human nature. But this is what the gun grabbers are trying to sell. They use fear and lies to scare us into surrendering our rights. Just look at the Democratic Party Presidential candidate lineup here in the States this year. Once they get all the guns, we'll be safe - except from them.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 19, 2008)

As far as reoffending criminals goes:

When was the last time a criminal was paroled from a cemetery.


This being Canada there is unfortunately no 2nd Amendment argument or equivalent, but for pure practical purposes as far as banning any entire class of firearms goes:

Yeah, I really think it's the thing to do,  'cause, y'know, once all the guns are illegal, everyone'll just stop having them.


Sure we will. Yep. You betcha.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 19, 2008)

"Tough" crime laws by themselves don't do as much as we would like because of the nature of criminals. A big problem with Criminals is that they often lack empathy, and they lack a true understanding of consequence. Studies have shown that the death penalty as a consequence vs. imprisonment or something else has done virtually very little to deter criminals because of their lack of understanding or perception of consequence.

So laws really need to be "tough" but accurate, and our incarceration system needs to be geared towards rehabilitation rather then only removal from society only. No, this does not mean nurturing and babying criminals. This would mean having a tier system of some sort based on behavioral psychology.

This means that if someone commits a violent crime, for example, then they start at the bottom of the tier where there is maximum security and a strong reduction of privledge and social interaction. They would only be able to attend group counciling sessions, and other limited social sessions. They would have to earn through good behavior another tier, which would give them more privlidges and MORE RESPONSABILITIES. There would be several tiers, with each higher level involving more privledges and responsibilities until the final tier that everyone would go through regardless of crime, which would be a work release program  of some  sort where the criminal  would  do supervised work or community service until the final release back into society. The work they would do should be directed towards giving them job skills so they can be employable in the real world. They would have to earn their way up each tier by upholding responsibilities and by good behavior; they can also earn their way down a tier by not upholding responsibilities or by violating rules.

Basically, a criminal would have to earn their way out. Someone might have a 5 year sentence, but they have to earn their way to the final tier, which would demonstrate that they can function in society as a productive citizen. So their sentence could actually be a little less then 5 years if they earn their way out, or more. But it is up to them. 

You get the idea. Obviously the model would have to be studied to work out the particulars, but the basic idea is that criminals either earn their way out and demonstrate their capabilities of being productive citizens, or they stay in the system until they prove otherwise. Because right now, our prisons are simply training grounds for becoming better criminals. Then we simply release them when their time is up, leaving a criminal little prepared to do anything else but crime when they get out.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 19, 2008)

Monadnock said:


> Trying to guarantee a 100% safe utopian society is kind of pointless isn't it? You can't beat human nature. But this is what the gun grabbers are trying to sell. They use fear and lies to scare us into surrendering our rights. Just look at the Democratic Party Presidential candidate lineup here in the States this year. Once they get all the guns, we'll be safe - except from them.


 
Language like this, just sort of ends all pretense of discussion.

Doesn't it.


----------



## Monadnock (Jan 19, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> Language like this, just sort of ends all pretense of discussion.
> 
> Doesn't it.


 
Would you like me to play devil's advocate?


----------



## Doc_Jude (Jan 19, 2008)

Jade Tigress said:


> Exactly. Laws are for the "good people", I don't think it's going to change a thing. The only way to get through to criminals is a heavy price to pay for breaking the law, and even then plenty just don't care. Sad.



ARM THE POPULACE. That gets through to violent criminals, when they don't know who's going to pull a gun and defend themselves, or their family, friends, or neighbors. Ask any violent criminal what makes them the most nervous about committing crimes. Armed citizens that will defend themselves are at the top of the list. ESPECIALLY when the citizens can conceal. Then the criminals don't know who to hit.

Canada's got it wrong if they want to end crime. I've spent some time in Canada, though, the people are very nice, great country. Their politicians don't get the criminal mindset, however.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 19, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> Language like this, just sort of ends all pretense of discussion.
> 
> Doesn't it.


Considering it's you:
:roflmao:


----------



## Kacey (Jan 19, 2008)

Lisa said:


> I would say tougher CRIME laws, not strangling the law abiding gun owner with stricter gun laws.  Implement and actually follow through with laws that include if a crime is committed with a weapon you do X amount of time, no if's, and's or but's.  Social programs to help youth stay away from gang's and violence.  That would be a start.


See, I don't think new laws are needed - I think enforcement of the existing laws would be sufficient.  Writing new laws when existing ones are not being enforced _looks_ like something is being done, but it's really just spitting into the wind.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 19, 2008)

Kacey said:


> See, I don't think new laws are needed - I think enforcement of the existing laws would be sufficient.  Writing new laws when existing ones are not being enforced _looks_ like something is being done, but it's really just spitting into the wind.


You want a monumental task? Rewrite the laws. Remove the chaff and send Congress and the state legislatures out to get real jobs for six months out of each year. 
ooops, is congress even in session 180 days in a year?


----------



## Lisa (Jan 19, 2008)

Kacey said:


> See, I don't think new laws are needed - I think enforcement of the existing laws would be sufficient.  Writing new laws when existing ones are not being enforced _looks_ like something is being done, but it's really just spitting into the wind.



True, I agree with you.  And it seems that is what the Canadian politicians want to do.  Innocent bystanders getting gunned down, well then lets ban handguns in Toronto.  In a city where you can't conceal carry already!!!!!  Cause you know, by banning them, the gang members etc won't be carrying them either.

As far as the existing laws are concerned, they are enforced now.  The problem is that they are plea bargained to lesser offenses.  The time doesn't seem to justify the crime.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 19, 2008)

Lisa said:


> True, I agree with you.  And it seems that is what the Canadian politicians want to do.



Well, lemme tell you... thats not just Canada.


----------



## Lisa (Jan 19, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Well, lemme tell you... thats not just Canada.



True, I wonder where the US would be without its right to bear arms.


----------



## MJS (Jan 19, 2008)

Lisa said:


> Full Story
> 
> So how effective would it be for a major urban area like Toronto to ban hand guns...we live in Canada and can't carry already so....how is this going to help???? Ya think the bad guys are gonna listen?


 
A ban isn't going to help IMO.  If someone wants something bad enough, they'll find a way.  If anything, I'd say taking a harder stance on gun related crimes would be more effective than a ban.


----------



## MJS (Jan 19, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> In the United States, we have the highest incarceration rate of any Western Nation.
> 
> Would you agree, that this is an indicator of "tough crime laws"?
> 
> ...


 
The laws are insufficient due to the wonderful legal system that we have.  It makes you wonder when you see a rap sheet for someone and they have 50+ arrests!  Makes ya wonder, "Hmm...and this person is still on the street because why???"


----------



## MJS (Jan 19, 2008)

Ray said:


> The incarceration rate in the US is not an indicator of being tough. I don't think incarceration in the US is handled in a way to reduce repeat offenses...it should either be rehabilitation or punishment; not an ineffective mix of sometimes this and sometimes that.
> 
> What social programs really bear fruit? I believe LBJ was on a good track -- education. Unfortunately for him (and us) he couldn't have guns and butter both at the same time.


 
I agree with this!!  The programs for rehab are useless IMO, because the people in the programs don't want help.  Its simply an excuse to get out of the cell for a while.  If they really wanted to turn their life around, they would take them more serious.  That being said, stronger punishment seems like the better route to take.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 20, 2008)

Lisa said:


> True, I wonder where the US would be without its right to bear arms.


 

Gone. because that's not America anymore.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 20, 2008)

MJS said:


> The laws are insufficient due to the wonderful legal system that we have. It makes you wonder when you see a rap sheet for someone and they have 50+ arrests! Makes ya wonder, "Hmm...and this person is still on the street because why???"


 

If you see a rap sheet for someone and they have *50+ arrests*, that person should not still be alive, wasting my, your, and everyone else's tax money because by that point there is no question of that person's disinterest in being any kind of productive, or at the very least *nondestructive* member of the society that person preys upon. We DO NOT need them, we SHOULD NOT keep them. Mercy to the wolf is cruelty to the sheep.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 20, 2008)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Brian R. VanCise
MartialTalk Super Moderator
*


----------



## terryl965 (Jan 20, 2008)

MJS said:


> The laws are insufficient due to the wonderful legal system that we have. It makes you wonder when you see a rap sheet for someone and they have 50+ arrests! Makes ya wonder, "Hmm...and this person is still on the street because why???"


 
Mike I agree laws are for the criminal, they do not protevt the innocense and never had. We as a society give in to these self rightous premise that we can change everybody into good people. We have laws to protect animals, child getting wacked on the backside but God forbid we have a law that will actually take a criminal off the street for more than a year and then as a society lets make sure we give these criminals three meals a day plus a comminsary and visitation rights oh yea and before I forget we must provide a library cable TV and a workout room for them as well. Plus Medical and dental, hell why not tell the poor to become criminals so they can get better coverage why work for anything, become a prisoner so the government will give you legal advise so you can get out to do it again.

Man I hate all of these self rightgous people with all the high morals and never having anybody ever hurt by a criminal.  Sorry a little tanget, we need to go back to the laws where you are actually punished and not sent to day camp for a year.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 20, 2008)

Lisa said:


> True, I wonder where the US would be without its right to bear arms.


 
Where you ask?  I'll tell you where... no... wait... I'll let her tell you:






IMO, THAT is what happens when you ban guns.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 20, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Where you ask?  I'll tell you where... no... wait... I'll let her tell you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Awesome link... very telling...


----------

