Gun Violence

[OneOfTheseDays]

the only effective weapon against violence and drug abuse is EDUCATION.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
the only effective weapon against violence and drug abuse is EDUCATION.

Did you know in the era of D.A.R.E. that there was a surge in drug use among junior high schoolers? Kids that had no previous knowledge about drugs now found it more comfortable to start now that they actually knew what to expect. Sometimes too much knowledge is more dangerous that no knowledge at all.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
the only effective weapon against violence and drug abuse is EDUCATION.

Did you know in the era of D.A.R.E. that there was a surge in drug use among junior high schoolers? Kids that had no previous knowledge about drugs now found it more comfortable to start now that they actually knew what to expect. Sometimes too much knowledge is more dangerous that no knowledge at all.

Well, it wasn't exactly a bright move to teach poor kids that drugs dealers all drove cool cars.

 

[canadageek]

y'know the constitution says "the right to bear arms" not "firearmes" or anything specific. let everybody carry Katanas and the like...at least people who take the time to learn how to use it will be able to use it wisely.
guns make killing easy, therefore, people who carry them are far more likely to kill someone.

jus' my canadian 0.02

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: canadageek
y'know the constitution says "the right to bear arms" not "firearmes" or anything specific. let everybody carry Katanas and the like...at least people who take the time to learn how to use it will be able to use it wisely.
guns make killing easy, therefore, people who carry them are far more likely to kill someone.

jus' my canadian 0.02

And your Canadian .02 is worth about a penny American. Your definition is like a revision of popular culture, and doesn't do anything but justify an agenda that represses the people.

We need a new word for people that take away freedoms. Conservatives used to be protectors of the status quo - I mean the Establishment - and Liberals used to be the protectors of the Individual. The Establisment is the set of rules that govern, but it didn't necessarily mean working backwards against the Constitution. Neo-Conservative is not a very good word to describe walking against the rights of the Individual. Forum people should just refer to the anti Liberal forces as "Antiliberals" and not conservatives to be more accurate.

Our current administration is not conservative, its Antiliberal.

 

[imported_Oderus]

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: canadageek
y'know the constitution says "the right to bear arms" not "firearmes" or anything specific. let everybody carry Katanas and the like...at least people who take the time to learn how to use it will be able to use it wisely.
guns make killing easy, therefore, people who carry them are far more likely to kill someone.

jus' my canadian 0.02

And your Canadian .02 is worth about a penny American. Your definition is like a revision of popular culture, and doesn't do anything but justify an agenda that represses the people.

We need a new word for people that take away freedoms. Conservatives used to be protectors of the status quo - I mean the Establishment - and Liberals used to be the protectors of the Individual. The Establisment is the set of rules that govern, but it didn't necessarily mean working backwards against the Constitution. Neo-Conservative is not a very good word to describe walking against the rights of the Individual. Forum people should just refer to the anti Liberal forces as "Antiliberals" and not conservatives to be more accurate.

Our current administration is not conservative, its Antiliberal.

* Crazy Alert *

Gun crazy people always start with the 'you're taking away my rights to have a weapon that is designed to kill people so you must be a bad guy' attitude. It's no wonder the US has the highest percentage of handgun deaths on the planet. Your right to own a weapon creates the handgun market and because US companies love money more than the health of the people that buy guns they flood the market so everyone can afford them. Now because your supply of handguns is insanely high not only is it cheap to purchase them but the blackmarket thrives on selling them to people that shouldn't have them.

If Americans are truly patriotic, they would voluntarily give up their handguns and destroy the market so companies wouldn't make them and criminals would have a hard-ass time trying to get them. Only because of the NRA has this not happend.

To quote the biggest ass on the planet, ... " they can take my gun from my dead fingers." - Charlton Heston. (I'm probably wrong on the quote but I don't care...)

FYI, thanks to Bush your Greenback is in the shitter and $0.02 cents CAD is more like $0.017 USD.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Sabot

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Sabot

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Sabot
Topic Title: Gun Violence
Topic Summary: I cannot believe this - there must be a solution

I live right at Jane and Finch in Toronto, for anyone who doesn't know it is pretty much the worst part of the city. There have been constant gun problems there.

So, you may have heard that on boxing day 2 groups of teenagers all wielding pistols (a total of 15 of them) began shooting at each other in the downtown core. Not one of them hit their intended target, the only people shot are believed to be innocent by-standers, one of which was a young girl who has died.

My question is this: Is there anything that can be done to help stop this gaining gun violence?

Solution is simple, arm everyone possible and with instructions to fire back.

In no time the idiots you cite here in the article, around Toronto and the rest of Canada experiencing this problem would not only begin to aim better but they most likely would go away, for good.

To put it another way, the problem is not gun violence, the problem is that not enough citizenry is armed.

That is so absurd, more guns will not solve the problems of gun violence. The idea that you can arm every person and expect there to be any sort of decrease in the amount of gun related crimes is just ridiculous. What about the elderly being mugged who use strollers, or the kids who are 14 and younger being held at gun point?

It is not any kind of solution, it just expands the possibilities for gun violence immensly.

You are part of the problem, you have no backbone whatsoever. You must be an extreme liberal wuss.

Look at Cities such as Kenesaw Georgia where it is mandatory for all citizens to own and CARRY there gun at all times and you will see they have an extremely low gun incident rate per capita.

I'm only part of the problem in your extreme ideology of how society should function, and thank god it isn't that way.

I am a liberal, but I was brought up with guns and know how to operate them. I have no problem with them in the correct hands, it has nothing to do with my 'backbone'.

However, as someone pointed out, you cannot compare a place with a population that is a mere fraction of Toronto, and use it as your main point. It isn't applicable.

You have to be insane to think that arming every kid from their teens upwards, along with every single citizen past them, would solve the problem where I live. There would be a shooting every second.

Past all of this, you cannot expect people to be able to suddently adapt to having a gun in their life at all moments outside, and understand when and when to not use them.

So instead of making this personal, why don't you stop sounding like a complete moron and promote your side intelligently.

I'm not making it "personal".

I am a complete Moron but at least I can handle and would use a gun if need be.

I did not say for Teens to be armed, only adults that are capable of handling a gun.

A well armed population and the thugs know it would certainly deter the thugs from stepping out of their miserable existence into mainstream. No doubt about it.

Show me where a well armed Society is not able to keep thugs in check.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Oderus
If Americans are truly patriotic, they would voluntarily give up their handguns and destroy the market so companies wouldn't make them and criminals would have a hard-ass time trying to get them. Only because of the NRA has this not happend.

Please refrain from throwing down the patriotism card (you are Canadian according to your profile anyway), it is a tired and exceptionally weak argument in this case.

An effective voluntarily ban would never, ever happen. So lets focus on an involuntarily ban.

From purely a practical standpoint it would be almost impossible to confiscate very many of them since very few states require registration. From a legal standpoint, any such law would undoubtedly make it's way to the Supreme Court for a decision (this would include amending the Constitution to repeal the 2nd. amendment). It is quite likely that the court would strike down any such law.

Criminals don't acquire their firearms legally. They are usually stolen or smuggled in and sold on the black market. While the number of handguns used in crimes would likely fall, the usage of other weapons (knives, shotguns, etc) would undoubtedly rise.

It makes much more sense to address the roots of crime (drug trade mainly) than the symptoms. Unfortunately we seem unwilling to learn our lesson.

 

[imported_Oderus]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Oderus
If Americans are truly patriotic, they would voluntarily give up their handguns and destroy the market so companies wouldn't make them and criminals would have a hard-ass time trying to get them. Only because of the NRA has this not happend.

Please refrain from throwing down the patriotism card (you are Canadian according to your profile anyway), it is a tired and exceptionally weak argument in this case.

An effective voluntarily ban would never, ever happen. So lets focus on an involuntarily ban.

From purely a practical standpoint it would be almost impossible to confiscate very many of them since very few states require registration. From a legal standpoint, any such law would undoubtedly make it's way to the Supreme Court for a decision (this would include amending the Constitution to repeal the 2nd. amendment). It is quite likely that the court would strike down any such law.

Criminals don't acquire their firearms legally. They are usually stolen or smuggled in and sold on the black market. While the number of handguns used in crimes would likely fall, the usage of other weapons (knives, shotguns, etc) would undoubtedly rise.

It makes much more sense to address the roots of crime (drug trade mainly) than the symptoms. Unfortunately we seem unwilling to learn our lesson.

Throwing down the patriot card isn't a weak argument at all, it's a statement. You don't like it because you're taking it personally, which is not my problem.

You just proved my point by saying that Americans wouldn't voluntarily give up their guns. That's the root issue. The only way you could force people is to remove that stupid amendment which allows every idiot to own a weapon, which won't happen. Drug problems happen in Canada as do most other crimes, the difference is that there's a lot less use of handguns due to the rules we have here. If the US was as pro-citizen as Canada is, their rules would be more sensible. You could have an addendum to your 2nd amendment which states that you can only have one gun per person but then again, that also wouldn't happen. NRA would end that in a New York minute.

Your last line sums it all up...

"Unfortunately we seem unwilling to learn our lesson."

 

[AragornTK]

http://www.gunowners.org/fs9712.htm


there it is again... with all those "statistics" and "words" and... dare I say it... TRUTH!

I think your sig sums up your stupidity pretty well Oderus...

The 2nd Amendment is there so we can protect our other rights from anybody who tries to take them. Therefore, take the 2nd, the rest are real easy to get rid of.

If all you dems are so worried about your rights being taken(which they aren't) then do something about it...via...the 2nd amendment???

 

[imported_Oderus]

LOL.. check your source. Your quoting from a site called www.gunowners.org and it's dated 1997, I wonder if they're biased?

It's very predictable and sad that you would launch an insult at me based on my tagline. You're doing your fellow Americans a disservice. The right to bear arms is applicable to everyone in your country, sane or otherwise. If this seems normal, then you should be happy living in a country with the worst statistics on handgun deaths.

http://neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm <- if you need a non-biased site to verify these claims.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Oderus
If Americans are truly patriotic, they would voluntarily give up their handguns and destroy the market so companies wouldn't make them and criminals would have a hard-ass time trying to get them. Only because of the NRA has this not happend.

Please refrain from throwing down the patriotism card (you are Canadian according to your profile anyway), it is a tired and exceptionally weak argument in this case.

An effective voluntarily ban would never, ever happen. So lets focus on an involuntarily ban.

From purely a practical standpoint it would be almost impossible to confiscate very many of them since very few states require registration. From a legal standpoint, any such law would undoubtedly make it's way to the Supreme Court for a decision (this would include amending the Constitution to repeal the 2nd. amendment). It is quite likely that the court would strike down any such law.

Criminals don't acquire their firearms legally. They are usually stolen or smuggled in and sold on the black market. While the number of handguns used in crimes would likely fall, the usage of other weapons (knives, shotguns, etc) would undoubtedly rise.

It makes much more sense to address the roots of crime (drug trade mainly) than the symptoms. Unfortunately we seem unwilling to learn our lesson.

Throwing down the patriot card isn't a weak argument at all, it's a statement. You don't like it because you're taking it personally, which is not my problem.

You just proved my point by saying that Americans wouldn't voluntarily give up their guns. That's the root issue. The only way you could force people is to remove that stupid amendment which allows every idiot to own a weapon, which won't happen. Drug problems happen in Canada as do most other crimes, the difference is that there's a lot less use of handguns due to the rules we have here. If the US was as pro-citizen as Canada is, their rules would be more sensible. You could have an addendum to your 2nd amendment which states that you can only have one gun per person but then again, that also wouldn't happen. NRA would end that in a New York minute.

Your last line sums it all up...

"Unfortunately we seem unwilling to learn our lesson."

Prohibition creates an underground market worth billions. Various groups and individuals fight violently over this vast source of income with the means at their disposal. Innocent people are sometimes caught in the middle.

Do you see the major liquor distributors having shootouts in the streets? Of course not. How often do people kill eachother over a 12-pack? Not very damn often.

You have irrationally focused on a symptom of a larger problem with the delusion (sold to you by politicians to gain power) that more laws are somehow the answer despite all evidence to the contrary.

Also, if by ?Pro-citizen? you mean us suffering even more government interference in our lives then I am glad the US is not more like Canada.

 

[imported_Oderus]

Prohibiting handguns will have a positive effect on deaths in your country, they have in mine. Those various groups like the NRA (we don't have an NRA with as much political pull thankfully) and others don't really care about how many people die each year. They always repeat that lame statement time and time again, guns don't kill people, people do. Guns don't kill people if people wouldn't use guns.

I don't understand the relevance of your comment about liquor stores, please explain.

Why you would jump to the conclusion that because you are 'pro-citizen' you would be made to suffer is unthinkable.

I too am glad that the US is not more like Canada. If it was, why would anyone live in Canada?

 

[Vic]

Anti-gun nuts like Oderus are hilarious. They openly admit that they hate and distrust the common people and that prohibition legislation is the cause to all ails. Their banner is an ostrich with its head in the sand.

My question for him: if the people cannot be trusted with guns, then how can we trust the government with guns, as the government is the people?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Oderus
Prohibiting handguns will have a positive effect on deaths in your country, they have in mine. Those various groups like the NRA (we don't have an NRA with as much political pull thankfully) and others don't really care about how many people die each year. They always repeat that lame statement time and time again, guns don't kill people, people do. Guns don't kill people if people wouldn't use guns.

I don't understand the relevance of your comment about liquor stores, please explain.

Why you would jump to the conclusion that because you are 'pro-citizen' you would be made to suffer is unthinkable.

I too am glad that the US is not more like Canada. If it was, why would anyone live in Canada?

You mean like England where other categories of violent crime skyrocketed after their ban? You would merely trade one type of assault for another. Canada's population is also far more homogeneous than ours so it is hard to make the argument that your solution would work for us with much certainty.

Legalize and watch drug related violence (a huge chunk of the overall problem, especially in the US) quickly drop to almost nil.

FYI: You are really pro-government and anti-citizen (rights at least). We are in this position becase our governemnts have stuck their noses into places they don't belong by selling many of us on the idea that protecting us from ourselves is necessary and desirable (and that they should set most of those standards).

Again, you have focused on the symptom and not the problem.

 

[Vic]

I'm of the firm opinion that Canada buries its crime and poverty statistics somehow. Vancouver, for example, has a really seedy underbelly, and streets as scary to walk as any in LA. The gap between rich and poor seems as bad or worse than in the US as well. Hastings St. is lined with the homeless worse than the "old town" areas in American cities used to be in the downturn of the 1980's (after Reagan cut funding to all the mental institutions). Except the Canadian homeless are young heroin toughs instead of the old drunk crazies.

 

[imported_Oderus]

Originally posted by: Vic
Anti-gun nuts like Oderus are hilarious. They openly admit that they hate and distrust the common people and that prohibition legislation is the cause to all ails. Their banner is an ostrich with its head in the sand.

My question for him: if the people cannot be trusted with guns, then how can we trust the government with guns, as the government is the people?

Vic you are sadly misinformed. I never admitted to hating or distrusting the common people nor that prohibition is the cause of any ailment. Which thread are you reading anyway?

We can trust the government as long as they are trustworthy. When they become untrustworthy we vote them out of power. Your overly simplification of goverment = people is absurd. Politicians do not live like the common people so it's hardly accurate to imply such a statement.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm of the firm opinion that Canada buries its crime and poverty statistics somehow. Vancouver, for example, has a really seedy underbelly, and streets as scary to walk as any in LA. The gap between rich and poor seems as bad or worse than in the US as well. Hastings St. is lined with the homeless worse than the "old town" areas in American cities used to be in the downturn of the 1980's (after Reagan cut funding to all the mental institutions). Except the Canadian homeless are young heroin toughs instead of the old drunk crazies.

Our news doesn't dwell on Crime like their US counterparts, but locally these issues are not "hidden". As so many Americans like to point out, Americans just don't pay much attention to Canadain issues.

 

[imported_Oderus]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Oderus
Prohibiting handguns will have a positive effect on deaths in your country, they have in mine. Those various groups like the NRA (we don't have an NRA with as much political pull thankfully) and others don't really care about how many people die each year. They always repeat that lame statement time and time again, guns don't kill people, people do. Guns don't kill people if people wouldn't use guns.

I don't understand the relevance of your comment about liquor stores, please explain.

Why you would jump to the conclusion that because you are 'pro-citizen' you would be made to suffer is unthinkable.

I too am glad that the US is not more like Canada. If it was, why would anyone live in Canada?

You mean like England where other categories of violent crime skyrocketed after their ban? You would merely trade one type of assault for another. Canada's population is also far more homogeneous than ours so it is hard to make the argument that your solution would work for us with much certainty.

Legalize and watch drug related violence (a huge chunk of the overall problem, especially in the US) quickly drop to almost nil.

FYI: You are really pro-government and anti-citizen (rights at least). We are in this position becase our governemnts have stuck their noses into places they don't belong by selling many of us on the idea that protecting us from ourselves is necessary and desirable (and that they should set most of those standards).

Again, you have focused on the symptom and not the problem.

Wow.. I knew ignorance and racism was bad in the US but I didn't think I would read it here... "Canada's population is also far more homogeneous than ours so it is hard to make the argument that your solution would work for us with much certainty."

"Legalize and watch drug related violence (a huge chunk of the overall problem, especially in the US) quickly drop to almost nil." I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or just agreeing with what I've been saying.

"FYI: You are really pro-government and anti-citizen (rights at least)." You've got 1 out of 2 right here. I'm not anti-citizen, I'm pro-life. If the rights of one person means that other people are going to die or suffer than that right must not prevail. Like abusing my freedom of speech by littering a hip-replacement parking lot with ball bearing just because it's my right. That is wrong.

You think deaths related to guns is a symptom? That's weak.

 

[imported_Oderus]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm of the firm opinion that Canada buries its crime and poverty statistics somehow.

Somehow... that's rich.

I once drove through Detroit with my family and was shocked to see that no gas stations in the US allows you to fill up before paying. Weren't you the one telling me that I don't trust the common people? Your hypocracy is amazing.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: Vic
Anti-gun nuts like Oderus are hilarious. They openly admit that they hate and distrust the common people and that prohibition legislation is the cause to all ails. Their banner is an ostrich with its head in the sand.

My question for him: if the people cannot be trusted with guns, then how can we trust the government with guns, as the government is the people?

Vic you are sadly misinformed. I never admitted to hating or distrusting the common people nor that prohibition is the cause of any ailment. Which thread are you reading anyway?

We can trust the government as long as they are trustworthy. When they become untrustworthy we vote them out of power. Your overly simplification of goverment = people is absurd. Politicians do not live like the common people so it's hardly accurate to imply such a statement.

And you misunderstand completely. What I was pointing out is that your argument is fundementally flawed. If the people vote in and vote out the government as they see fit, choosing from amongst themselves who will serve and who will not, then the people ARE the government.
And are not the police (and all other government employees) also "the people"? Or did they lose their right to be among "the people" when they put on the badge? And yet the police will still be armed under your system while the rest of the people will not, thus you establish castes of privilege, those who have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves and those who do not.
And as to the living conditions of the politicians, that is so irrelevant as to be absurd to bring it up. Are you suggesting that no one but politicians live that way? Of course not. The people are represented by the widest range.

Basically, you're just another Ivory Tower elitist. Daddy Gubment knows best, the people must be controlled for their own good, etc. Your argument is logically flawed to its core, and fundamentally unworkable, but I know that that will not stop your idealism.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm of the firm opinion that Canada buries its crime and poverty statistics somehow.

Somehow... that's rich.

I once drove through Detroit with my family and was shocked to see that no gas stations in the US allows you to fill up before paying. Weren't you the one telling me that I don't trust the common people? Your hypocracy is amazing.

As are your strawmen.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Oderus
Prohibiting handguns will have a positive effect on deaths in your country, they have in mine. Those various groups like the NRA (we don't have an NRA with as much political pull thankfully) and others don't really care about how many people die each year. They always repeat that lame statement time and time again, guns don't kill people, people do. Guns don't kill people if people wouldn't use guns.

I don't understand the relevance of your comment about liquor stores, please explain.

Why you would jump to the conclusion that because you are 'pro-citizen' you would be made to suffer is unthinkable.

I too am glad that the US is not more like Canada. If it was, why would anyone live in Canada?

You mean like England where other categories of violent crime skyrocketed after their ban? You would merely trade one type of assault for another. Canada's population is also far more homogeneous than ours so it is hard to make the argument that your solution would work for us with much certainty.

Legalize and watch drug related violence (a huge chunk of the overall problem, especially in the US) quickly drop to almost nil.

FYI: You are really pro-government and anti-citizen (rights at least). We are in this position becase our governemnts have stuck their noses into places they don't belong by selling many of us on the idea that protecting us from ourselves is necessary and desirable (and that they should set most of those standards).

Again, you have focused on the symptom and not the problem.

Wow.. I knew ignorance and racism was bad in the US but I didn't think I would read it here... "Canada's population is also far more homogeneous than ours so it is hard to make the argument that your solution would work for us with much certainty."

"Legalize and watch drug related violence (a huge chunk of the overall problem, especially in the US) quickly drop to almost nil." I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or just agreeing with what I've been saying.

"FYI: You are really pro-government and anti-citizen (rights at least)." You've got 1 out of 2 right here. I'm not anti-citizen, I'm pro-life. If the rights of one person means that other people are going to die or suffer than that right must not prevail. Like abusing my freedom of speech by littering a hip-replacement parking lot with ball bearing just because it's my right. That is wrong.

You think deaths related to guns is a symptom? That's weak.

I like how you can't refute one of my points and so decide to insult me instead.

As to your "pro-life" position: You better be out there working to make alcohol, cars, blunt objects, half full buckets of water, and the like illegal as well. That people can be injured or killed in the abuse of some rights is something that we accept as part of the price of having them. Some of us don?t desire to live in a rubber room for our own protection.

Guns are not the cause of gun violence. That is like saying the existence screwdrivers make people screw things in all on their own without reason.

 

[AragornTK]

It's stupid to listen to anything foreigners have to say about domestic issues guys, different strokes for different folks and whatnot. Canadians love being liberal pussies with no handguns and a serious drug problem, where we prefer to have less drugies(legally) and a method of personal protection.

Why don't you canucks just go smoke a joint and mellow out, maybe go get an injection at the local methadone clinic...

Listening to canadians about US policy is like listening to Bill Gates about being poor. They have no experience with it, and nobody likes them anyway

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Oderus

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm of the firm opinion that Canada buries its crime and poverty statistics somehow.

Somehow... that's rich.

I once drove through Detroit with my family and was shocked to see that no gas stations in the US allows you to fill up before paying. Weren't you the one telling me that I don't trust the common people? Your hypocracy is amazing.

Brilliant, you drew that entire conclusion from visiting one very limited area of the US.

I'm sure I could manage to only visit one crappy area of Canada and draw a similarly flawed generalization.