Crime In Rural Areas

542 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I know you were just making a turn of phrase; the real point is assuming that everyone who walks up to your door might be there to kill you is paranoid.

I certainly don't assume that.  FWIW, I don't even have a fence, and the mail carrier walks up to my door five days a week without issue.

If the gate is open, feel free to walk up to the door.  If the gate is locked, it's trying to tell you something (and it isn't "hop the fence").  If the door is locked, it's saying the same thing:  "No."

I get that people might have legitimate reason to be at my doorstep without "permission" but I can't really think of any legitimate reasons for bypassing a lock (unless you're the Fire Department).

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

If your solution is outlawing private gun ownership good luck to you. 

Go read #231

And you know, with all the paranioa and hyperbolae on here, there's something you three might be forgetting. That everyone having guns around is going to mean those who might have that kind of intent will be better prepared.

And there are people for whom some cracker with a squirrel gun isn't a challenge at all.

But then I'm not wondering about what sickos and torturers might be jumping over my fence. This is going to wind up with more people getting maimed and killed in situations where that is completely unnecessary. Like last weekend.

 

6079_Smith_W

And this.

https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/shot-was-fired-by-homeowner-during-reported...

I bet people are going to be thinking it is easy now, and anyone can do this.

Just fire a couple of rounds in the air, and you won't get charged. CBC reported the cops warned people AGAIN that bringing a gun into a crime sitiation makes it far more dangerous. But what do they know? He didn't get charged, so it must be fine.

Also worth noting that the person who got the weapons charge (understandable) didn't fire a shot.

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 

And you know, with all the paranioa and hyperbolae on here, there's something you three might be forgetting. That everyone having guns around is going to mean those who might have that kind of intent will be better prepared.

So don't have guns to defend yourself because if you do then people who want to harm you might be better prepared.

Quote:
And there are people for whom some cracker with a squirrel gun isn't a challenge at all.

What's the definition of a cracker?

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 

Also worth noting that the person who got the weapons charge (understandable) didn't fire a shot.

That's because the police caught him. It almost sounds like sympathy or you're making an excuse. Suggesting the home owner is somehow the bad guy for firing a shot in the air to scare theives away?

Quote:
The first man arrested, the 28-year-old, is charged with break and enter, vehicle theft, unauthorized gun possession, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, possession of property obtained by crime and driving a vehicle while disqualified.

Good catch by the police. Sounds like a POS.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

If your solution is outlawing private gun ownership good luck to you. 

Go read #231

And you know, with all the paranioa and hyperbolae on here, there's something you three might be forgetting. That everyone having guns around is going to mean those who might have that kind of intent will be better prepared.

And there are people for whom some cracker with a squirrel gun isn't a challenge at all.

But then I'm not wondering about what sickos and torturers might be jumping over my fence. This is going to wind up with more people getting maimed and killed in situations where that is completely unnecessary. Like last weekend.

The law does apply to everyone. The law gives people the right to use whatever force necessary to prevent intruders from getting into your home including shooting them. 

Yes escalation is a possibility if home invaders decide they too should carry guns. But I don't have a lot of faith in home invaders limiting their violence anyway. Casual thieves won't carry guns because it would add a lot of risk for them. Unless they have a licence to carry they could get arrested for that alone and they would have much more trouble talking their way out of trouble. Armed robbery is a lot more serious than just robbery. 

The only paranioa and hyperbolae I see is coming from you not us. I'm satisfied with current laws on self-protection. I don't want them loosened. 

I think the homeowner who shot at people rummaging through his car should be charged with attempted murder if what we have read so far is accurate so I don't think I am an extremist. I do not agree with protecting property through potentially lethal force. 

No one here is recommending that people buy guns to protect themselves or shoot at anyone knocking on their door. All we are saying that if someone is breaking into someone else's home the someone else has the right to use the force necessary to prevent that person from entering or remaining in the home. That is the law. 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And this.

https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/shot-was-fired-by-homeowner-during-reported...

I bet people are going to be thinking it is easy now, and anyone can do this.

Just fire a couple of rounds in the air, and you won't get charged. CBC reported the cops warned people AGAIN that bringing a gun into a crime sitiation makes it far more dangerous. But what do they know? He didn't get charged, so it must be fine.

Also worth noting that the person who got the weapons charge (understandable) didn't fire a shot.

So sounds like everything worked out the way it should have. The warning shots may well have prevented those men from shooting the homeowner. In my opinion most criminals have a gun to threaten people not to get into a gun fight. That makes warning shots an effective tool. Just occurred to me it might not be a bad idea for some people to get a recording of gunshots. Have your alarm sound like gunshots. 

Do you think people should be charged for warning shots in the air? I think of it as a conversation. The criminal is declaring their intent to do you harm when they invade or attempt to invade your home. Warning shots are the homeowner warning the criminal that the cost may be higher than they had planned. Would it be better to not fire warning shots, wait till someone is coming through the window, then shoot them? 

If you are a gun owner I think shooting in the air first is the responsible thing to do. 

I would never recommend to anyone that they buy a gun but I have always assumed farmers and ranchers have guns and many people with remote homes have guns. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Anyone who owns a gun will use it for self-defence even if that isn't its usual purpose. 

I think underneath the back and forth we are really all in agreement with the exception of the outcome of Stanley's trial.  None of us believe Stanley had the right to shoot Colton. 

We differ in interpretation not in fundamentals.  

You seem to agree that the current law is adequate you just don't like the way it is being interpreted and you fear it is a licence to kill for homeowners. 

6079_Smith_W

Again, not that that fellow shouldn't have gotten a weapons charge. You commit a crime and have a gun, that will get you a weapons charge. But considering all the speculation about how bad these people might be I think it is important to point out who escalated the situation in these cases by firing the gun.

Yes I was a gun owner. Go back and read what I said about using guns like this. I think firing a gun in any direction in a situation like this is about the stupidest, most irresponsible and most dangerous thing anyone could possibly do. It means being prepared to kill or be killed.

And you know what a cracker is as well as I do. A stupid arrogant white guy who thinks he knows better than everyone, including the cops, thinks the law doesn't apply to him, thinks his stuff is more important than other people, and thinks that all he has to do is pick up a gun and he is in control of this situation.

And these gun nut crackers are all over this situation like flies on shit because they know they have people believing them. That much is clear from reading that story about the Okotoks rally. And no one seems to realise they are pushing the same fear, hatred and stupidity that is coming out Donald Trump's mouth, and from the NRA.

And believing stuff like everything worked out in this case, and the farmer didn't get charged, so all you have to do is fire a shot in the air and there's no chance anything could possibly go sideways.

Pondering

I wasn't the one who asked what a cracker is but I didn't know.  I guess we don't watch the same programs or mix with the same people or have the same conversations. When I discuss crackers it's because I am thinking of something to eat. 

6079_Smith_W

I know. I was answering Paladin.

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 And believing stuff like everything worked out in this case, and the farmer didn't get charged, so all you have to do is fire a shot in the air and there's no chance anything could possibly go sideways.

Nope. In this case everything worked out. It did not in the Boushie case nor in the case that the homeowner shot into the car. 

If you have owned a gun than you know more than I do but I can't imagine what this man would be charged with for shooting into the air? If he had not shot in the air do you not think the criminal with the gun could have shot him?

I know that Paladin knows a lot about guns and that he is not a gun nut. He is in favor of stricter laws that he thinks would be helpful, like stricter storage laws. 

Paladin1

I took a look just to be sure. Cracker is a derogotory term used against white people, usually poor white people from rural backgrounds.

 

Quote:
But considering all the speculation about how bad these people might be I think it is important to point out who escalated the situation in these cases by firing the gun.

Escalated what situation? The man who was arrested with the firearm was arrested elsewhere by the police along with 2 others. He wasn't confronted by the home owner. He had the vehicle that was stolen earlier fromt he home owner.  But the home owner fired in the air to scare someone off but he shot a gun in the air so we should really see him as the dangerous one right?

It seems like criminals out there target the same victims over and over, no wonder people are fed up.

Pondering the police have some pretty wide arcs when it comes to charging people with firearm violations in cases like this.  They'll often charge homeowners with a handful of things then either drop the charges OR use it as a negotiation tactic.  I've seen police offer to drop charges against someones spose if they took a plea deal of sorts or admit guilt to a lesser charge.  Even the act of charging someone with charges that won't ultimately stick can be incredibly expensive to a gun owner so it can be a tactic in itself. Spend $20'000 on lawyers, even if charges are dropped you don't get the money back. I think Ian Thompson spent something like $80'000 and had to remortgae his house (ultimately having to sell his and downsize).

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

I know that Paladin knows a lot about guns and that he is not a gun nut. He is in favor of stricter laws that he thinks would be helpful, like stricter storage laws. 

I would support some really orwellian type of stuff. Finger prints, DNA, random police checks to ensure people aren't selling handguns without proper approval, maybe heavier storage rules. In exchange though I'd want to see other aspects lightened. Storage laws are huge and help prevent suicides, children from accessing firearms and theft.

6079_Smith_W

Right.

Everyone here has been treating them like "poor white people" under assault from sickos. I'm just calling this gun lobby what they are - would be murderers. "Crackers" is me being polite.

Pondering, you don't seem to get that these incidents are all part of the same problem of normalizing gun use. This time no one got injured or killed or charged, but in fact it is more problematic than last weekend's shooting because everyone is looking at this one as evidence that there is a way to shoot your gun and have it work out okay. In fact there is no guarantee that is going to happen when you decide to use deadly force.

It is actually the other side of the coin of Paladin's death porn videos and the imaginary sicko and torturers rhetoric. Scare the shit out of people to tell them they need guns, then show that all you have to do is pick up a gun and fire it in the air and you are in control and nothing can possibly go wrong.

Meanwhile you just shut your ears to what the police have said after every one of these incidents - that if you pick up a gun you make these situations exponentially more dangerous.

6079_Smith_W
Paladin1

I'm not sure if it's just me Smith but you seem really anti-white lately.  If you want to use derogotory terms, especially targeting poor rurual people of a specific race, then fill your non-rubber boots, but passing it off as you being polite?   "Right".

 

And death porn videos? Come on, have I posted any graphic videos of people getting murdered? Any blood? I think you're the one toting scare tactics. The last video I posted was a simple example of how quickly a robbery situation could turn violent. From the minute that tenant realized there was trouble and presumably called the police do you think they would have responded by the time the guy busted through the door? What if they were on a 4th floor appartment with no fire escape? I know, don't shoot because bullets travel far. Other video was a vlog testamony of a victim and ones before that mechanical animations.  You're really trying hard to push a narrative here. 

Quote:
Meanwhile you just shut your ears to what the police have said after every one of these incidents - that if you pick up a gun you make these situations exponentially more dangerous.

I'd have an easier time agreeing with this if police responded to calls unarmed.  But they're not unarmed. They're all upgrading to the same rifle the military and special forces use. With not just soft body armor but better-than-military-issue ballastic plates.

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Why are white men stockpiling guns?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stoc...

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38297345

Why US liberals are now buying guns too

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-39480041

Why more women are getting into shooting

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Paladin1 wrote:

I'm not sure if it's just me Smith but you seem really anti-white lately. 

I just live at ground zero for these gun nuts, and I hear this racist fearmongering crap every day on the radio and in the news and on the street. So believe me, I use the term advisedly, and directed at the people who think they should be able to shoot people and get away with it. And nice try on the "poor" card, but the justification is supposedly that their cars and farm equipment is more important than people's lives. These are actually the people who have economic advantage, and government, and the cops and the courts and the whole system of racism on their side.

They have hijacked the legitimate issue of rural crime with their gun propaganda in the same way that this thread is now all about why it is okay to kill people.

And yes, I saw your porn video. Guy breaks through a door. Gets the money shot.

 

6079_Smith_W

And if you think the most important thing here is that I am anti-white give your head a shake. I AM white, which is why white people being stupid and acting like jerks is of personal concern to me.

This is something that affects all of us. I caught myself doing it a couple of nights ago. Told the people in the store about some fellow freezing in the bus shelter but was so concerned about having an uncomfortable encounter that I didn't do the simple thing and tell him that there was a ride coming. When I walked a block and gave my own head a shake I went back and talked to someone who I discovered was just a scared and cold kid. The idea that I was going to get attacked by some drunk was all in my head.

 

Pondering

Some facts:

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p2.html

In all nine countries, more households owned long guns than handguns. According to the survey, 95 percent of households in Canada owning firearms had a long gun and less than 12 percent owned handguns. Similarly, in England and Wales, nearly 94 percent of households owning firearms possessed a long gun, while 13 percent owned handguns. In the United States, 81 percent of firearm-owning households had long guns and 58 percent had handguns (Block, 1998:3-6).

Canada is not the US. We have similarities and we are not immune to the same or similar problems but there are some very big differences too. Fox News North couldn't survive. Canadian gun owners are far less likely to have hand guns. That isn't 12% of Canadians, it is 12% of firearm owners. I would have guessed higher. That is in comparision to 58% in the states. 12% vs 58%, huge difference. 

...48 percent of U.S. households owned at least one firearm,...Canada’s rate of 22 percent ...

The percentage of households owning at least one firearm varies considerably across Canada (Angus Reid, 1991; Block, 1998). The results of a 1991 Angus Reid survey indicate that 67 percent of households in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories owned firearms, compared with 15 percent of Ontario households (Angus Reid, 1991: 7). More recently, the 1996 International Crime (Victim) Survey (ICVS), which did not include the two territories, found that 35.8 percent of households in the Atlantic provinces owned firearms, compared to the 32 percent reported by Angus Reid. Households in Ontario still had the lowest percentage of firearms at 14.2 percent (Block, 1998:7).

Overall, surveys suggest that more people in rural areas own firearms than in urban locations. For example, 37.3 percent of respondents from small towns own a firearm compared to 2.8 percent in communities with populations over one million. Residents of small towns are also more likely to own long guns than people living in large cities: 33.6 percent compared to 1.2 percent respectively (Block, 1998: 24).

The 1991 Angus Reid survey asked respondents to indicate how many firearms household members owned. The data suggested that 60 percent of Canadian households with firearms have one or two; 13 percent own three; 14 percent own five; and 10 percent own seven or more firearms. On average, firearm owners possess approximately 2.7 firearms (Angus Reid, 1991:6). Few other surveys have included such a question.

Available estimates for Canada indicate that private individuals collectively own approximately 7 million firearms (Gabor, 1997:3) and, of these, about 1.2 million are restricted firearms (RCMP, 1997). Surveys consistently indicate that Canadians typically own more long guns than other types of firearms. The 1996 ICVS found that 95 percent of households that owned firearms possessed at least one long gun, while fewer than 12 percent claimed to own a handgun (Block, 1998: 3-4). Again, the author noted some regional variations with respect to the type of firearm respondents claimed to own. In all regions except Quebec, more households were likely to possess a rifle than a shotgun (Block: 1998: 7). At 16 percent, more respondents in British Columbia reported owning handguns than elsewhere in Canada; persons in Quebec reported the least at six percent (Block, 1998: 9)....

I don't see a big gun problem in Canada. The percentage in urban areas is low and it's higher in rural areas. That doesn't tell me people in rural areas are gun happy or ignorant. It tells me they live in an area where hunting is common and isolated households feel they need protection from home invasion not just property theft.

No one has ever tried my door and walked into my apartment. I still keep my door locked. It's not paranoia. I don't have to see an ax murderer behind every bush to take that precaution. Isolated homes are more vulnerable so I don't think it's unreasonable for them to have firearms and to pick them up when someone invades their property in a hostile manner. 

6079_Smith_W

You don't see a big gun problem in Canada because so far we aren't buying this wheelbarrow full of shit that the cops don't know what they are talking about and people should be free to shoot people.

 You are not helping the situation with this argument.

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 And yes, I saw your porn video. Guy breaks through a door. Gets the money shot. 

The videos of police killing people are far more porn like than either of the videos Paladin linked to. If that's gun porn then the glimpse of an ankle is porn. Don't think so. It's a ridiculous exageration to call that gun porn. If he linked us to actual "gun porn" we would be beside ourselves with outrage. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 They have hijacked the legitimate issue of rural crime with their gun propaganda in the same way that this thread is now all about why it is okay to kill people. 

No one is defending "Farmers with firearms" if that is what you are referring to. I am referring to individuals living in remote locations. No one in this thread has suggested it is okay to kill people for any reason other than self-defence. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 I just live at ground zero for these gun nuts, and I hear this racist fearmongering crap every day on the radio and in the news and on the street. So believe me, I use the term advisedly, and directed at the people who think they should be able to shoot people and get away with it. And nice try on the "poor" card, but the justification is supposedly that their cars and farm equipment is more important than people's lives. These are actually the people who have economic advantage, and government, and the cops and the courts and the whole system of racism on their side. 

When this conversation began I though you knew more than I did about the area so would have accepted your assessment to some degree. Your comments calling the links Paladin provided "gun porn"  and suggesting we think it's okay to kill people are such a wild exageration that you have undermined everything else you say. Now I figure you are wildly exagerating the situation.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
This is something that affects all of us. I caught myself doing it a couple of nights ago. Told the people in the store about some fellow freezing in the bus shelter but was so concerned about having an uncomfortable encounter that I didn't do the simple thing and tell him that there was a ride coming. When I walked a block and gave my own head a shake I went back and talked to someone who I discovered was just a scared and cold kid. The idea that I was going to get attacked by some drunk was all in my head.  
  

Then maybe you are projecting your own paranoia on others. I would have stopped and told him. If I needed to take the bus myself I wouldn't have feared waiting at the same stop. 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
You don't see a big gun problem in Canada because so far we aren't buying this wheelbarrow full of shit that the cops don't know what they are talking about and people should be free to shoot people.

 You are not helping the situation with this argument.

It's not my argument so more evidence that you simply have no clue what you are talking about. 

No one is claiming the police are wrong.

No one is claiming people should be free to shoot people. 

6079_Smith_W

Let me spell this out:

The firearms lobbyists who are calling for changes to the law to be their own "trained first response" ARE saying that the police are wrong in warning that using a gun makes things far more dangerous.

And they absolutely are asking for the freedom to shoot people. Why else did they hold a rally in defense of someone who shot someone for breaking into his car?

You can pretend you are talking about other people, but in fact this IS the gun lobby.

And I wasn't waiting for a bus. But clearly you missed the point.

 

 

Paladin1

Smith, you treated someone a certain way out of fear and that's society's fault and not your own?   I think you should worry about fixing your own perceptions before you worry about anyone else. It feels like there is a certain amount of projecting going on.

I'm also inclined to agree with Ponderings opinion about your hyperbole.

Quote:
And nice try on the "poor" card, but the justification is supposedly that their cars and farm equipment is more important than people's lives

You're the one using derogotory terms not me.

Quote:
Cracker, sometimes white cracker or "cracka", is a colloquial term for white people,[1] used especially for poor rural whites in the Southern United States. It is also at times used indiscriminately and pejoratively against any person of white background. However, it is sometimes used in a neutral or positive context or self-descriptively with pride in reference to a native of Florida or Georgia (see Florida cracker and Georgia cracker).
  I don't think you were using it in a positive context but I digress.

 

Are you anywhere near North Battleford? I remember one of the recent stories of rural crime was from there so I did a search.  When you look at crime rates in Canada here's how North Battleford rates out of Canada's most dangerous places to live.

Violent Crime #2

Sexual Assault #4

Assault #2

Firearms Offenses #1

Robbery #4

Breaking and Entering #1

Fraud #5

Impaired driving #1

Pot Trafficking #11

Cocaine Trafficking #12

Other Drugs #6

Youth Crime #1

 

It does sound like there is a firearms problem out that way but looking at those numbers I can see why people there want guns to defend themselves.  Is there an actual write up of the farmers making some kind pitch to be armed first responders? What's their proposed rules of engagement? From the gist of it (I think) I don't see it as a good idea. Self-defense is one thing, being an armed reaction force? Off someones property? Way too much to go wrong. Police responding to a call would have twice as many people brandishing guns to deal with (one of the major points against armed teachers). 

Maybe the police should look at auxillery or reserve policing force fo the area.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/auxiliary-program

6079_Smith_W

Yes, I am familiar with North Battleford, Paladin. I was there yesterday afternoon.

Though we have enough arrogant and racist white people here in Saskatoon. It's not just my perception, but not surprising you're taking it as me just hating white people or having some personal hangup that has nothing to do with anything.

And no, I did not call them crackers as a compliment. They were there rallying behind someone who shot a man for no good reason. If you have a problem with that I don't really care. Sorry man, but I have been up close and personal with their kind.

And no, I don't think they have a writeup. Didn't stop a majority of municipal reps to vote in favour of whatever it is they want. If you actually care what the cops say why don't you acknowledge they might know something about NOT using a gun in a situation like this? Besides, that isn't what these gun nuts have  been asking for, and it isn't what you have been asking for.

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Yes, I am familiar with North Battleford, Paladin. I was there yesterday afternoon.

Holy shit. I have some body armor I can lend you.   Is North Battleford actually a pretty nice place or does it look like a warzone?

Quote:
Though we have enough arrogant and racist white people here in Saskatoon. It's not just my perception, but not surprising you're taking it as me just hating white people or having some personal hangup that has nothing to do with anything.
I didn't go so far as to suggest you hate white people Smith. Just that the content of your posts seem to have a very anti-white narrative. Then again maybe my heads up my ass.

Quote:
And no, I did not call them crackers as a compliment. They were there rallying behind someone who shot a man for no good reason. If you have a problem with that I don't really care. Sorry man, but I have been up close and personal with their kind.
Well if we're being honest it's a derogotory term towards white people so who cares.

Quote:

And no, I don't think they have a writeup. Didn't stop a majority of municipal reps to vote in favour of whatever it is they want. If you actually care what the cops say why don't you acknowledge they might know something about NOT using a gun in a situation like this? Besides, that isn't what these gun nuts have  been asking for, and it isn't what you have been asking for.

But I did acknoledge it Smith. I said it would mean police have to deal with twice the amount of armed people (to figure out) and pointed out it was a major negative point about arming teachers.

It seems strange that they would vote for something without having a clear definition (like voting against islaophobia). Do they want to carry guns just for self-defense? Do they want to respond to calls for help? Do they want to drive around looking for bad guys to smite? What exactly is their argument?

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The firearms lobbyists who are calling for changes to the law to be their own "trained first response" ARE saying that the police are wrong in warning that using a gun makes things far more dangerous.

How would they feel about Police being the trained first response?

I guess if the Police were to be that first response (and no, not 45 minutes late to the party) and these people still demanded their guns, we could know for sure that they're really just interested in their guns.

But if the Police cannot or will not be that first response, it's not so clear that we're just talking about wannabe killers here.

The second most perverse part of the whole "Lucky Moose" incident here in Toronto is that Lucky Moose is only a few hundred metres from the headquarters of 52 Division -- a mere couple of minutes, even on foot -- but evidently they could do nothing, even when the thief came back "for seconds".  So, then what?  "Suck it up, buttercup"?

6079_Smith_W

Actually, considering that I am white, I did grow up in the country, I am quite familiar with this kind of attitude, and any of these guys who own quarters are wealthier than me, I have every right to call out white entitlement, especially the kind that seems to get people killed. I am not sure who you think I am discriminating against.

I have no idea why the municipal reps voted for it, especially considering that one of their leaders said no one had actually told him personally this was a problem. I expect they just knuckled under to a loud and concerted lobby group, even though there was no plan, and it is very clearly against the law. Perhaps that is part of the reason why our justice minister immediately ruled it out as illegal and impossible.

It isn't clear that a lot of this isn't heresay (after all, the cops pointed out at both of those meetings that if there's a problem they need to hear about it, and that the complaints don't match the stats), and even less clear that people using guns is going to do anything other than make it worse (which indeed, it has done so far). Remember, Gerald Stanley didn't even call the cops until after he had shot Colten Boushie.

As I said, I think this so-called solution is coming from the gun lobby, and those gullible enough to believe them.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
and that the complaints don't match the stats

Don't we hear this about lots of complaints that we're still to take seriously?

What other crimes apparently often go unreported?  Should we still rely on official statistics when considering them?

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Let me spell this out:

The firearms lobbyists who are calling for changes to the law to be their own "trained first response" ARE saying that the police are wrong in warning that using a gun makes things far more dangerous.

And they absolutely are asking for the freedom to shoot people. Why else did they hold a rally in defense of someone who shot someone for breaking into his car?

You can pretend you are talking about other people, but in fact this IS the gun lobby.

And I wasn't waiting for a bus. But clearly you missed the point.

No you missed the point. Not only would I stop and tell him the bus is coming, I would go so far as to stay and wait. You intended it as an example of feeling fear and discovering there was no danger.  But that man gave you no reason to fear. He didn't invade your home.

Let me spell this out for you. 

No one here is agreeing with Firearms for Farmers. I agree they are a lobby group. I have said in multiple posts I don't agree with FFF. Nobody here has defended FFF. You are the only person talking about FFF. Everyone else is talking about the right of any individual to self-defence including farmers. Not all farmers belong to FFF. 

Let me be really clear. In every post I have mentioned FFF I have condemned their goals. I will say it again. I do not agree with protecting objects with lethal force. I only support it to defend against bodily harm. 

I said the man who shot into the car should be charged and convicted of attempted murder. 

Do you get it now? 

I'm not just pretending to be talking about other people I am talking about other people.

I am talking about the individual right to self-defence if someone breaks into their home. That is not code for Farmers for Firearms. 

6079_Smith_W

I get what you are saying. I'm not buying it.

There really is no practical difference between your position and theirs if you are in favour of people carrying guns around in case they need to shoot people, even if you say they are for shooting animals.

And that you condemn those who actually do shoot people?  (well, except the ones who say it was an accident)  

Doesn't really mean much if you promote people using guns as a solution to crime and then get all outraged when some  trigger happy nut does that exact thing and injures or kills someone.

Why do I keep bringing this back to Farmers with Firearms? Because their central argument is that farmers need to have guns to deal with crime because cops can't do it. And it seems to be your argument too.

And they have used that argument to hijack the rural crime issue. Read this story, from the fall before the last SARM convention. The president obviously doesn't want to piss his constituents off, but he doesn't exactly ring the alarm bells about crime rates, and all the solutions he offered are based on RCMP enforcement.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sarm-more-police-officers-far...

Of course that changed a few months later. This year's SARM convention started tonight in Regina, by the way. It will be interesting to see what comes out of it on this issue.

 

 

 

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I get what you are saying. I'm not buying it.  

If you argue with what I am not saying you are arguing with yourself. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 There really is no practical difference between your position and theirs if you are in favour of people carrying guns around in case they need to shoot people, even if you say they are for shooting animals. 

I'm not in favor of it, I'm saying there is no law against carrying a gun on your own property and having it loaded. I don't think you could get enough support for passing a law saying people can't hold a loaded gun on their own property.  

6079_Smith_W wrote:
And that you condemn those who actually do shoot people?  (well, except the ones who say it was an accident)  

Doesn't really mean much if you promote people using guns as a solution to crime and then get all outraged when some  trigger happy nut does that exact thing and injures or kills someone. 

Again, I don't promote it, I don't own guns, I would have no problem with it if all personal ownership of guns were outlawed, even hunting guns, because I don't hunt and I don't like guns. The pragmatic me knows that will not fly. I might as well try to outlaw ski hills. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 Why do I keep bringing this back to Farmers with Firearms? Because their central argument is that farmers need to have guns to deal with crime because cops can't do it. And it seems to be your argument too. 

No, my argument is:

  • People who live in remote locations usually own guns if only a shotgun. 
  • People who have guns and feel threatened will go get their gun and load it if at all possible.
  • People who have a loaded gun while confronting an intruder in their home are likely to fire. 
  • If they fire in the air the intruder is lucky to be given a chance to leave before proceeding farther. 
  • The sole reason to fire a gun is to defend from physical injury not merely protect property. 
  • Lethal force can only be used if an individual has reason to believe there is a physical threat to their safety and there is no other method to ensure their safety. (running away)
  • Farmers can reasonably claim they have a gun with them to fire on animals they want to keep out of their combines.
  • It is impossible to prove they are really carrying a gun to shoot people who threaten them while they are harvesting. 
  • If someone threatens a farmer while the farmer has a loaded weapon the farmer is legally permitted to use that weapon to defend themselves and their family. 
  • If someone wants to carry a loaded gun around the house all day long it is legal. Stupid, but legal. 

Public pools by law must have lifeguards on duty when open. A few years back some teens climbed over a fence to a public swimming pool and one drowned. Very sad, but we are not going to demand that outdoor pools have 24/7 lifeguards because stupid people may decide to break in and go swimming. 

Farms with Firearms want the laws loosened to give them greater protection if they shoot someone. I am against changing the laws. I think they already give people plenty of latitude when they are confronting an intruder. They already get the benefit of the doubt to the homeowner. 

The Stanley case was tricky and has its own thread so I will leave that aside. Two other recent cases are better examples.

In one case the owner shot in the air scaring off intruders who drove off in his vehicle and were later apprehended by police. In the other case the owner shot at the intruders in the car wounding one. 

In the first case in my opinion the owner acted responsibly. He did not try to stop the thieves. He shot in the air in the hopes of scaring them off and it worked. Then he called police. 

In the second case the owner fired at the intruders even though there is no indication that they were a threat to him in the moment. As far as I understand the law that was illegal as it should be. 

Our current gun laws (in my opinion) are fairly well balanced not that they can't be improved. 

That's why I ask, is there some way you think the laws could be changed to prevent what you fear, petty criminals getting shot?

As long as the laws are as they are I don't see any means of preventing this sort of thing just like we can't stop stupid people from swimming drunk even with high fences topped with barbwire. People shouldn't die for being stupid but it happens.

It is stupid to try to rob rural properties when someone is at home. It's a good way to get yourself killed. 

The best way to save the lives of petty thieves is to tell them homeowners can legally shoot them dead if they consider them a threat. 

It did occur to me that then the thieves could carry guns too, but thieves already carry guns if they are home invaders. If they are just thieves they make sure the home is unoccupied.

Opportunistic petty thieves aren't going go get guns because they are stealing on a lark. They don't plan in advance and they know they would be arrested just for carrying a loaded gun.

Spread the news far and wide. It is legal for homeowners to shoot home invaders. Invading a home is as good as saying " I will kill you if I can". If you are breaking into a house imagine that written across your chest. 

To potential home invaders, imagine yourself hearing someone breaking into your place. You have a gun and bullets. 

6079_Smith_W

I don't have to imagine it.

I have had an angry neighbour with a gun show up at my door. Didn't even cross my mind to run and get one of my own guns because I am aware of what guns can do, and I am not that stupid.

Pondering wrote:

The best way to save the lives of petty thieves is to tell them homeowners can legally shoot them dead if they consider them a threat.

Sorry, but it is not legal. And not every farmer is interested in murdering someone, or taking the risk they might get killed themselves.

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I don't have to imagine it.

I have had an angry neighbour with a gun show up at my door. Didn't even cross my mind to run and get one of my own guns because I am aware of what guns can do, and I am not that stupid.

I didn't realize you are a potential home-invader.

Now imagine yourself breaking into your neighbour's house knowing he has that gun and isn't afraid to use it. He would be within his rights to shoot you dead if you cross his threshold. 

If you still go over there and break in then sadly you are too stupid to save from yourself or you are just suicidal.

So yes. More people will die. Railing about the injustice of it all will accomplish nothing because there will always be stupid people who risk their lives. Public information campaigns do help. 

Maybe it would make a good high school course. I recall two young men, honor students, who died on a bobsled track. I recall 2 died doing graffiti in a train underpass. Colton died for being drunk with the wrong people who took him into a dangerous situation. Some man got swept off a famous rock after crossing the safety barrier. Same goes for someone who fell in a volcano. The link is that none of these people saw death coming. There was a recent house trashing. No one died, but had someone died I wouldn't have been shocked. 

You want to put all the blame on homeowners with guns. I don't see it as an issue of blaming. The goal should be preventing deaths. 

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

So yes. More people will die. Railing about the injustice of it all will accomplish nothing because there will always be stupid people who risk their lives. Public information campaigns do help.  Maybe it would make a good high school course.

Sounds like what is happening south of the border, except the solution  offered by Donald Trump and the NRA isn't courses. It is more like your plan of more people with more guns.

And Colten Boushie was not killed because he was drunk. He was killed because Gerald Stanley shot him in the back of the head while he posed no threat at all.

 

6079_Smith_W

The provincial government is open to stiffer penalties for trespassing, in addition to the over 250 new officers they are funding around the province. The government has ruled out SARM's policy for loosening self-defense laws:

http://thestarphoenix.com/news/politics/moe-tells-sarm-province-open-to-...

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

So yes. More people will die. Railing about the injustice of it all will accomplish nothing because there will always be stupid people who risk their lives. Public information campaigns do help.  Maybe it would make a good high school course.

Sounds like what is happening south of the border, except the solution  offered by Donald Trump and the NRA isn't courses. It is more like your plan of more people with more guns.

And Colten Boushie was not killed because he was drunk. He was killed because Gerald Stanley shot him in the back of the head while he posed no threat at all.

He was there because his reckless friends were trying to rob farms and chose the wrong target. It seems he was asleep when everything started so he trusted these friends with his life. They put him at risk when they decided to be criminals. 

I'm fully aware the cause of death is a bullet to the head from close range from Gerald Stanley's gun. If you refuse to look at the surrounding circumstances you will not prevent further deaths. 

Driving around with drunks to the point where you are passing out, shooting a gun out a window at targets, using a gun as a crowbar, and finally driving up Gerald Stanley's property to his yard driving on a rim and trying to get into vehicles, is all dangerous behavior that can get you killed. It happened to be Gerald's bullet that killed Colton. He could just as easily have died in a rollover, (drunken driving is illegal because it is deadly). He could have died when the gun was being used as a crowbar. He could have killed someone while target shooting recklessly. He wasn't just a little tipsy. 

Anyone breaking into your neighbour's house is taking their life in their hands. Simple as that. 

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:

He was killed because Gerald Stanley shot him in the back of the head while he posed no threat at all.

So why did the jury unanimously find Gerald Stanley not-guilty?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Oh, man. 

Youve never been to Biggar, have you?

6079_Smith_W

Pondering, you seem to be making a big deal about it being okay to shoot people if they pose a threat to your person or come in your house, but not in other cases.

That guy in Okotoks, you said you think he should be jailed. But you think if someone comes into your house you say he's fair game for a death sentence.

That's why I mention that Stanley shot him in the back of the head. Because Boushie was doing nothing to him. He didn't pose any threat to him. He was sitting passive, looking the other way. Yet you say he died because he was drunk.

Never mind that your bloodthirsty distinction doesn't follow the law, or even what the gun lobby is asking for, it doesn't make sense with  what you are saying. How do you square your thinking that the Okotoks shooter to blame with your claim Colten Boushie got himself killed?

Though I like your new one - he might have died anyway, so Gerald Stanley didn't do anything wrong. So it is okay for me to go into an intensive care ward and open fire?

And if I understand you correctly, if some partygoer happens to pass out in my front yard it would be perfectly okay to plant an axe in his head to teach him a lesson and it's his fault (because after all, we aren't allowed to discharge firearms in city limits).

Have I got that right? And if not, what am I missing in your reasoning?

More on the SARM convention: The big deal seems to be the cost and effort of posting no trespassing signs. Right now the onus is on landowners to post signs, and the penalty is a ticket. Farmers want automatic charges for coming on someone's land. Many of those signs just wind up getting shot up. But then, so do road signs. But it is an understandable concern.

Considering that that a lot of these people are hunters, and cutting through yards or walking dogs in pastures, or riding snowmobiles, or having a swim in the gravel pit, or cutting between grid roads via someone's dirt road are all pretty common. While you might have permission to hunt on someone's land what happens if you shoot something and it falls, or you have to track it onto someone else's land?

And here on the South Saskatchewan that also applies to putting your canoe ashore to have lunch or go to the bathroom, or if a system moves in and you suddenly have to get off the water because of lightning (that happened to me last summer).

I wonder if these people realize such a law applies to themselves and their good neighbours, not just thieves.

One wonders how they imagine they will be able to tell the difference.

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But you think if someone comes into your house you say he's fair game for a death sentence.

That seems a bit inflammatory.

How about "you say that using lethal force is reasonable"?

I'm sure you'd agree that if I don't host your essay on my blog, you're not being "censored" -- only the State can truly censor.  Similarly, individuals, no matter what their circumstances, aren't the State issuing a death sentence.

If they were, we'd have to call it that ANY time an individual used lethal force in self defense, yes?  Or what would be the specific difference if someone were coming at you pointing a gun?  Someone coming at you waving a knife?  Someone coming at you wildly swinging a screwdriver?  Someone coming at you while reaching into their pocket?  Someone continuing to come toward you in your own home when you tell them to stop, and to leave?

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 Pondering, you seem to be making a big deal about it being okay to shoot people if they pose a threat to your person or come in your house, but not in other cases.  
No, only if they pose a threat to my person. Breaking into my home while I am in it poses a threat to my person. 

I am not the one making a big deal of it. That is the law. You can only use the force necessary to end the threat. If the person in my home has their back to me then I can't shoot them unless they are still posing a threat to another person in the home. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 That guy in Okotoks, you said you think he should be jailed. But you think if someone comes into your house you say he's fair game for a death sentence.  

As a non-state actor I don't get to pass sentences on people. The guy in Okotoks, from the description of events, was not at risk. The individuals had not broken into his home. Neither he nor his family appears to have been at any risk. The vehicle was not being driven. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 That's why I mention that Stanley shot him in the back of the head. Because Boushie was doing nothing to him. He didn't pose any threat to him. He was sitting passive, looking the other way. Yet you say he died because he was drunk.  

No he didn't pose any threat at all. So if Gerald has shot him deliberately that would be murder. I did not say he died because he was drunk. I said that there are a host of ways to die when you behave stupidly and no matter which way you die it's still tragic. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  Never mind that your bloodthirsty distinction doesn't follow the law, or even what the gun lobby is asking for, it doesn't make sense with  what you are saying. How do you square your thinking that the Okotoks shooter to blame with your claim Colten Boushie got himself killed? 

It doesn't make much sense when you put words in my mouth. The Okotoks shooter deliberately shot at people who were no threat to him. Gerald Stanley took out his gun to fire warning shots which he did. Shortly after he shot Colton accidentally.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 Though I like your new one - he might have died anyway, so Gerald Stanley didn't do anything wrong. So it is okay for me to go into an intensive care ward and open fire?  

I never said that. I have stated specifically that a lot of things were done wrong by both Gerald and his son Stanley that escalated the situation. It just isn't convenient for you to acknowledge it. I don't see how this has anything at all to do with going into an intensive care ward and opening fire. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 And if I understand you correctly, if some partygoer happens to pass out in my front yard it would be perfectly okay to plant an axe in his head to teach him a lesson and it's his fault (because after all, we aren't allowed to discharge firearms in city limits).  

I don't know the laws on discharging firearms in city limits. If the partygoer is passed out how do they pose a threat to you?

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 Have I got that right? And if not, what am I missing in your reasoning?  

The posing a threat part. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 More on the SARM convention: The big deal seems to be the cost and effort of posting no trespassing signs. Right now the onus is on landowners to post signs, and the penalty is a ticket. Farmers want automatic charges for coming on someone's land. Many of those signs just wind up getting shot up. But then, so do road signs. But it is an understandable concern. 

Well it is your choice if you want to support that.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  Considering that that a lot of these people are hunters, and cutting through yards or walking dogs in pastures, or riding snowmobiles, or having a swim in the gravel pit, or cutting between grid roads via someone's dirt road are all pretty common. While you might have permission to hunt on someone's land what happens if you shoot something and it falls, or you have to track it onto someone else's land?

And here on the South Saskatchewan that also applies to putting your canoe ashore to have lunch or go to the bathroom, or if a system moves in and you suddenly have to get off the water because of lightning (that happened to me last summer).

So I don't understand why you would support such a measure. 

6079_Smith_W

I agree it's inflammatory, Magoo. I truly appreciate that you noticed that.

But go back and read the quote at 285 and tell me it's not accurate. You all seem to be saying these things, and when I quote them for truth freak out like you didn't understand what you were really saying.

Or cobbling together these ridiculous scenarios that make no sense when you actually look at them. Like this one:

It happened to be Gerald's bullet that killed Colton. He could just as easily have died in a rollover, (drunken driving is illegal because it is deadly). He could have died when the gun was being used as a crowbar. He could have killed someone while target shooting recklessly. He wasn't just a little tipsy.

Right. He just happened to be there pointing the gun at his head and pulled the trigger. Sheer coincidence.

 

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:

He just happened to be there pointing the gun at his head and pulled the trigger. 

That's not Stanley's version of events as he stated that a hangfire occurred. The jury seems to have believed Stanley and the forensic evidence that indicated a hangfire may have occurred.

6079_Smith_W

Sure.

A hangfire lasts a fraction of a second. Perhaps a bit more. There was no time warp here either. That means he pulled the trigger with the gun pointed at his head.

And in fact the evidence did not indicate a hangfire occurred. That was just speculation.

 

JKR

There was testimony at the trial that a hangfire could have lasted much longer.

JKR

And a firearms expert said that he did not understand how the gun produced the bulging bullet.

JKR

If some of the testimony about the hangfire was bogus, the Crown should have appealed the case.

6079_Smith_W

JKR we have been around this mulberry bush countless times. Neither expert said that casing had any effect on the firing of the gun. And no, they don't last much longer.

There are were number of possible grounds for the crown to appeal that case. They did not.

 

 

Pages