ivperformance

All this ****ing debate about this 11 yo is driving me ****ing crazy.

Let me put it this way. If 50% of the population had carried a concealed firearm violent crime against civilians would drop to a fraction of what it is right now. What criminal in their right mind would assult, rape, or rob when he knows that there is a 50% chance of him staring down the wrong end of a gun in the next few seconds.

Very simple issue guns to half of the canadian population over age of majority that do not have a criminal record and pass the phsychological exam.

Supra_RZ

iTrader: (1)

we just need more gun shops

R/T kota

Ya that really works in the USA

6Msentra

wow, what a stupid post

so what you are suggesting is having MORE guns on the street... and as a result MORE shootings....

wow , you're brilliant...

buzzelli

lol i guess it would work until the 50% of the population who would own guns, lose them to ill minded criminals you then use the easily obtained firearms to commit more crimes

ivperformance

Well lets put it this way, criminals don't follow gun control laws now do they Einstein, that why they are called criminals. They get them on the dark market. And if you need a fuc.king gun in toronto, you'll get a fuc.king gun. its not a problem, even right now there are more gun out on the dark market then there are criminals needing them.

The supply is higher than the demand.

what you are doing here is restricting the regular citizen from the means to defend themselves.

Lets say 50% of the people at that birthday party carried guns, I'm telling you those 2 guys wouldn't even be able to pull out their guns before looking like swiss cheese.


"The picture becomes even more complex when comparing other nations. For those who argue that U.S. firearms-crime rates prove that the number of guns in a society determines the amount of gun crime, the experiences of countries like Switzerland and Israel are difficult to explain. In Switzerland, males between the ages of twenty and forty-two are required to have firearms at home, yet the country has a very low rate of violent gun crime. (All able-bodied Swiss males are part of the military reserve.) In Israel, likewise, all young citizens (that is, the very group most likely to commit crimes) are armed, yet there too the rate of violent crime is extremely low. In fact, World Health Organization data comparing fifty-two nations placed Switzerland and Israel as the twelfth and ninth safest countries in terms of homicides. Their rates are approximately one-seventh that of the U.S. One explanation for this disparity is that Switzerland and Israel generate extremely low rates of illegal firearm possession, whereas the U.S. focuses on the regulation of legal possession. The U.S., it would appear, is actually hindering not too many or too few handgun owners but the wrong ones."

just found article:
Hudson Institute > American Outlook > American Outlook Article Detail

6Msentra

do you honestly believe that you can grab statistics that have no correlation and use them to prove that point?

i think you should try correlating gun crimes against armed citizens versus gun crimes against unarmed citizens in both countries. then look at the socio-economic conditions of both populations and reference those statistics against the usa if you want to even begin to form an intelligent argument. otherwise you are simply using statistics that will never explain whats in the heads of the criminals.

certainly you will find stories about how some clown was trying to rob a bank, and thankfully some armed citizen shoots the guy... these stories happen a dozen or so times a year. so i will take a wild guess and guess that they make up less than 0.1% of all gun crimes (where the "good guys" shoot the bad guys).

now lets add some intelligence to this post and look inside the mind of the criminal and the mind of the innocent citizen in your perfect world where everyone is carrying a gun.

crimes today that arent "gang on gang" where firearms are used (for example robbery, carjacking etc), the firearms are used to scare the victims into submission. they are power. who is going to say no to a man with a gun?
so everyone ends up alive, the crook gets his loot, you go home and puke.. life goes on. sometimes people get shot, die, etc... however most of the time (including gang on gang shootings) the people that get shot are not the intended targets, or the criminal was intending on shooting the victim in the first place, but it is still rare that someone gets shot during a "simple" gun crime here.

now...

everyone is packing.

the criminal no longer has "power" by using a gun. the gun is no longer a symbol of power and a means to scare the average person. now the gun is only a killing tool. there is a knock at your door... do you reach for your gun everytime the doorbell rings? because now if someone wants to do a home invasion they will start shooting the second they get through the door... why? because now the criminal is scared to get shot! they will still do the crimes... but now they will start shooting to protect themselves, so everyone dies... most people are just enjoying their lives not thinking about being the victims of crime... so you will never be prepared to defend yourself with a gun when the chance arises. the criminal will always have a head start on you because he knows that he is about to commit the crime. so the second you turn the door ****? bullets are flying. the second the robber enters the convenience store? bullets are flying. the second the robber walks up to the gas station attendant? bullets are flying. the second he gets to the bank teller? bullets are flying..

what you are suggesting will really only increase the amount of shootings, and deaths in this city/province/country.

THAT is why there are so many shooting deaths in the usa... because all the criminals know that they had better be the first to pull the trigger so that the nice looking grandma in the corner wont shoot them...

i would not want to live in a society where i know that the someone that wants to carjack me, or rob me in the street thinks that he has to shoot me to get what he wants. i would much rather him think that his gun is POWER, and that he doesnt have to actually use it.

random shootings will always happen. nothing you can do to stop it. but making yourself sound like michael bryant and making knee-jerk nra charged reactions wont help our society either. there is no way to stop crime. but turning ourselves into people that have to live in fear will reduce our quality of life.

if those guys knew that people at the party would have guns the death toll would have been higher... and the two that are now charged would probably still be alive... but the other kids entire family would be dead.

i just re-read this and laughed. do you know why?

first you say "defend themselves"
then you say "those 2 guys wouldn't even be able to pull out their guns before looking like swiss cheese. "

so which one is it? the guns are to protect yourself? or they are there for you to shoot first when someone walks by? if the family shot the 2 guys before they pulled their guns out... wouldnt that be murder? it wasnt to defend themselves because their lives werent being threatened. does that mean that the average "innocent" citizen would be able to shoot anyone that makes them feel threatened?
in that type of society gang killings would end up being legal. you could not convict a person who acts in self defence right? well if you are a gang banger and you are able to convince a judge that your (now perfeclty legal) handgun was fired to defend yourself against another gang banger that pulled a gun on you.... well i think you get the point. now theres a possibility of even more thugs back out on the street because they courts will not be able to convict all of them because they will have a perfectly legitimate defence.
at least now, if you have a handgun it is illegal. period.

viper-blue

All very good points. Truth be told a lot of the people that use guns to intimidate and have their way really aren't scared of guns either. Many of the gang members out their know that their friends and enemies are packing and its just a way of life, so like 6msentra is saying the criminal will just learn to shoot first, or blitz attack their victims by smashing them on the head and inciting more violence on the rest of us who respect the law, and society in general. Your idea also puts a deadly weapon in the hands of a public that already is forced to live in fear. A pretty girl walking in a not too well-lit area sees a man, or men she thinks looks like a criminal and kills them just to find out they are honor students who never meant to harm anyone. Not to mention the law, a cop has to answer for his/her use of their gun - so are you gonna have the law amended so that all shootings are justifiable? or over-load the courts and prison system so that real criminals are let off for their crimes, or leave jail early cause the system just can't handle feeding every one who shoots first and asks questions later?

Its never gonna happen and I feel safer knowing thata

birdie92k

iTrader: (1)

Iver...you'er in wayyy too far over your head in this post. The problem is not that simple and the solution is even more complex yet. Not that the solution is that complex, but in order to please John Q. Public, it is. The easiest solution is the cops need to raid the KNOWN criminal hideout areas like Jane and Finch etc. and keep on these guys of course with the courts ready to give these people fair and prompt trial unlike what happened recently. I sense that you are focused on the Jane/Finch type criminal and not looking at mafia types because you don't see them as a direct "in the street" type criminal, but they are also part of the problem because they are the suppliers. Either way cops keeping on these areas and letting John Public cry fowl is the easiest solution because it's no coincidence that the known "hoods" are where the criminals dwell. Just look at the young men from these areas and it paints itself. We're not talking wiggas from Oshawa here who just need a good *** whoopin' and better parenting. You have't even mentioned the drugs and gun correlation. Canada was recently found to have more than the world average per capita cocaine users. We're third in the world for cocaine use per capita!!! Fourth for pot use and with pot Canada uses 4 times the world average per capita. That amounts to about 15% of Canadians using pot...sure pot's great and all but someone's gotta sell it and someone's gotta provide it and in that line thre's money to be made and where there's money to be made, there's money to be stolen = guns. It's a complex problem that more guns will not fix

ivperformance

**** im at work and its a long post that deserves a proper reply, so i will do it later on in the evening sorry for delay.

OK i got a bit of time so gonna start from the top, and try and explain my point of view to you.

If the risk is too high, a criminal wont go for it. What you are saying is that it doesn't matter how much risk there is in getting shot or caught they will do it anyways and that logic is flawed.

If you know that i have a gun in my house, you will think 3 times about breaking in, its the same thing as if you see a boomerang alarm on a car for example(just an example, not sure how good those alarms are) you prolly wont take it; the risk of getting caught or ****ed is too high. Hence if you have a gun in the house, you are going to be less likely to get a home invasion. very simple.

Yes a gun will always be power, but you have a choice here one way or another if you think you will be able to pull it out in time or no, you dont need to shoot every time a gun is pointed in youre face, to tell you the truth that would be already too late. You are actually using the gun to equalize power between the criminal and the regular citizen if you know what i mean, to even out the playing field.

There are alot more good guys than bad guys in this world man, i want more of the good guys to have guns, i feel safer that way, and if you bring up the police, then who is going to police the police? if they are the only ones with guns, were ****ed my friend remember that.

ah cmon man, you gotta be f.ucking kidding me, you know what i meant, let me rephrase that so you dont feel too smug about yourself. "they would of been swiss cheese before being able to pull the triggers". There you go, now you don't have murder, you have self defense(which includes the defense of loved ones etc.) i hope you feel better.

beside the point, I'm pretty sure if they knew everyone there would be packing they wouldn't thought it was a good idea to start there would of went to some forest and had field day with it, **** it, one of them would be down the other prolly paralyzed, 2 stupid guys off the streets, id feel better already don't you? .

Viper: No, not all shooting will be justifiable, you are really not thinking straight here, i swear i feel like i'm surrounded by people who grew up in ****ing suburbia under some rock. PEOPLE ARE NOT DOING CRIMES BECAUSE THEY ARE ADDICTED TO IT, ITS NOT A HABIT EITHER its just easier than working. There is only one consideration involved : is the reward greater than the risk, if you think that there is too much risk in doing something, and you need money you will go make that money another way such as working, or begging, either one is better than robbing in my opinion.

Another example: Ask somebody who lets say dealt weed for a long time why they quit dealing? Well believe me its never because the money is , its either A im too lazy and mooching my parents(which means the guy was a shitty dealer anyways) or B its getting too dangerous AKA they got caught and if they get caught again they will be ****ed, once again the risk(of getting caught because he is now known and more likely to get checked again) is greater then the reward, the crime stops.

Bottom line is really this, and answer this question honestly "I'll feel safer driving down driftwood with a gun under my seat, wont you?"
(driftwood is a street in jane and finch area by the way, first thing popped into my head, please driftwood residents don't get too excited for the plug, its pretty tough but i've seen worse)

Mafia types/Supply Chain:

The supply chain will decrease if the demand decreases and to decrease the demand you have to decrease demand, and to decrease the demand you need to discourage criminals from doing crimes where guns are used and i just explained how to do it

its really weird seeing this kind of backlash here, i thought it would be a much more open minded forum. Guys please try and put everything you see in the media and government aside and really think this through.

Its hard to change on opinion and go against the grain but this is really the only way to move forward in this issue.

judgez24

i say you let all those hardcore gangstas kill themselves and then we kill the last one and voila, peaceful commuity, lol

buzzelli

I say let the cops worry about gun control so they keep themselves busy instead of ripping and crushing all our cars

birdie92k

iTrader: (1)

I've said it once and will say it again..you are wayy too far in over your head here. Well why don't I give you a real life experience. Where I come from it was very difficult for John Public to get a gun but criminals didn't have much either. So it was a machete war. Guns came along and only criminals had them so people paid by letting the criminals rape their sister/daughter/moms etc. The cops didn't do ! Gun then became accessible to the public easily so now tons of people have a gun. So what is the end result now? The criminals have bigger fcukin' guns and shoot first and ask no questions later. Not only that but normal people turn into trigger happy folks in the smallest of arguments. Brandishing their weapon is as normal as flipping someone the bird. Soooo you sir are the one who needs to sit and think about it some more. Canadian society is not built on the mental foundation of being a gun toting habitat and will not be that way for a longggg time if ever. Hell we hardly give our military guns and such and you want it to be accessible by everyone? Again my opinion is that cops need to stay on the high crime areas such as driftwood etc. and no I don't give a **** if I'm labelling them because places don't get labels based on lies. A good example of this working is malvern in scarborough. Sure it has a here and there minor crime these days but it is wayyyyyyy better than before. This is because the cops did their raids and kept on them. The other thing we need is seriously tough sentences for people who commit crime with guns and even tougher for those involving illegal guns. Do you think if life in prison was the penalty for committing a crime with an illegal firearm and 25 years before parole was for being caught with an illegal firearm, a 17 year old kid would have one? I'm 100% sure he'd think twice versus "oh he might have a gun too". One problem this creates is that the families of the criminal would say, "he's a good kid that never harmed anyone," and that's when we have to tell them suck it up and deal with the fact that he is a criminal.

P.S. The justice system should be redesigned to have the same penalties for all fcukin races. And by redesigned I mean harsh penalties for judges who make decisions that clearly do not fit the crime. And no I'm not black nor white. I'm beige. This is unlikely to happen anywaz but just putting that out there.

6Msentra

unfortunately for you, the usa is the perfect case study to debunk your theory.
there are more murders per capita, more crime in gun infested cities per capita than here... yet there are alot of citizens carrying/owning handguns.
why would this same scenario magically work up here?

like birdie posted, normal people will now begin to use their handguns where previously they would have used their fists.

i'm sorry, but your views are very "simple" and hardly begin to crack the surface of what goes on in peoples minds when they are in command of such "power" (a handgun and a collective mindset that using one to defend oneself is acceptable to society)

ivperformance

@6m:
Well the guns are not the problem, the people are the problem. Its a funny quote but its true, guns don't kill people, people kill people. The mentality is different down there, thats you're problem.
And normal people don't usually go out beating other people now do they ? And believe me if you have a gun it doesn't mean you will resort to it during every argument that ensues, rather both parties will think twice before moving things from verbal to physical.

If you are standing with a pipe in you're hand and the guy across from you is standing with a pipe too, same size, believe me you will try and work things out, if only he has a pipe though he will definetly be more aggressive in the verbal argument and more eager to move it to physical.

The simple solutions are the ones that usually work. you guys are really too stubborn. i dont remember who said this but with the US its like this: "The problem with America is stupidity, so why don't we just take the warning labels off everything and let the problem solve itself" .

I will reply to birdies post a bit later, at work again.