Well I'm actually going by the evidence, and you said yourself he should at least have been convicted of manslaughter.
I was not so optimistic, and was expecting a hung jury, myself.
Not exactly. I think he is guilty of manslaughter but not that it was proven. I feel he was guilty of careless use of a firearm, like drunk driving. It doesn't seem like that argument was made.
Actually the judge in his charge to the jury did lay out what would have constituted manslaughter, which includes using that gun in a careless way that one might expect would cause death, and does in fact cause death.
Like pointing it at the back of someone's head and pulling the trigger and killing someone.
And I think I already had a simple suggestion to reduce these deaths. Don't shoot people.
Actually the judge in his charge to the jury did lay out what would have constituted manslaughter, which includes using that gun in a careless way that one might expect would cause death.
Like pointing it at the back of someone's head and pulling the trigger.
And I think I already had a simple suggestion to reduce these deaths. Don't shoot people.
I don't think you or I are in danger of shooting anyone. The issue is stopping gun owners from shooting home invaders. How do you suggest we stop them?
And we're all law abiding until someone shoots someone, which is what we are talking about.
Unless it's in self-defense and deemed reasonable force.
You don't need to go out on a ledge. I think stand your ground laws in the States makes their terrible record of gun death and racist shootings far worse. Those up here who promote it either aren't paying attention, or want to be able to do the same thing.
I'll fall into the latter. I'm not sure if I would choose to stand my ground, but I like the option. Tools for the tool box.
Again, criminals can avoid all the unpleasentness of being shot if they don't tresspass and try to steal.
Did you know victims of robbery and theft can develop PTSD, Hypervigilance and a bunch of other medical issues? Still not feeling a lot of sympathy for theives, sorry.
Like pointing it at the back of someone's head and pulling the trigger and killing someone.
Was the Crown able to convince jurors that that's the order that happened in?
Well however the jurors felt it happened, you know how they decided.
The issue is stopping gun owners from shooting home invaders. How do you suggest we stop them?
Let's not forget those shot for going through someone's car, and just sitting in their cars; it would be good to stop them from being shot too. Continuing to arrest and charge the shooters is a good start.
Funny that you are asking how to stop it and yet you continue to fearmonger about attackers, to repeat false claims about shooting people being legal, to claim that nothing can be done about it, and to claim that someone firing shots at a robbery are an example of things working just because no one got killed.
Do you not realize your rhetoric here is the very thing that is promoting this vigilanteeism, and putting more lives at risk? It is exactly what the gun lobby is saying.
Which might be alright if this was really about self defense, and not what it is - a front for some who would cheerfully shoot people if they had the chance and could get away with it.
But without actually restricting access to firearms (which can also be done), to stop spinning this rhetoric and recognize that getting out of dangerous situations is a better course of action, and that there are actually things that can be done to reduce gun violence, starting with fewer people having them.
Or heaven forbid, making the first line trying to deal with the root causes of why people steal. Or walk up people's drives looking to buy gas.
et's not forget those shot for going through someone's car, and just sitting in their cars; it would be good to stop them from being shot too.
Can't the law treat that differently from some home invading asshat, though? If people are being shot for sitting in the cars, what does that have to do with people being shot for smashing their way into someone else's home?
Or heaven forbid, making the first line trying to deal with the root causes of why people steal.
People steal because it's easy. Or else tell us why rich people also steal.
I knew someone who was comfortably well off who wound up stealing. It was the habit, after he lost his livelihood, and his family, and had to get locked out.
He OD'd. I don't think any of it was easy for him.
I don't like bringing it up because his former partner made a point of saying he was more than his addiction, and it shouldn't define him. But if you want to know why some people steal, there is no getting around that one. When that is the root rich people just have more of a cushion before they hit the wall.
It is actually also the reason why a family member of mine stole too. She wasn't rich.
Let's not forget those shot for going through someone's car, and just sitting in their cars; it would be good to stop them from being shot too. Continuing to arrest and charge the shooters is a good start.
I told you the man who shot at people rummaging through his car should be charged as it doesn't sound like self-defence to me. That is already illegal.
Funny that you are asking how to stop it and yet you continue to fearmonger about attackers, to repeat false claims about shooting people being legal, to claim that nothing can be done about it, and to claim that someone firing shots at a robbery are an example of things working just because no one got killed.
It is not fearmongering to acknowledge that home invaders often harm or kill the people in the homes they invade. Do you not read the news? It is legal to shoot someone in self-defence if that is the only way you have to assure your safety or that of other occupants of your home.
In the case you are referring to the owner shot a warning shot in the air, not at the robbers, and it did scare them off which was his intent.
Do you not realize your rhetoric here is the very thing that is promoting this vigilanteeism, and putting more lives at risk? It is exactly what the gun lobby is saying.
You need to look up the word vigilante
a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.
Someone shooting at a home invader is not a vigilante nor is someone who shoots a warning shot in the air.
But without actually restricting access to firearms (which can also be done), to stop spinning this rhetoric and recognize that getting out of dangerous situations is a better course of action, and that there are actually things that can be done to reduce gun violence, starting with fewer people having them.
You are the one spinning rhetoric. I have said, several times, the best response is to escape if you can. I don't have a gun but I don't see farmers giving up having guns. It isn't realistic to think that they will. It would be an excellent idea to prevent people like Colton's friend from having a gun. I don't see how we can.
Or heaven forbid, making the first line trying to deal with the root causes of why people steal. Or walk up people's drives looking to buy gas.
I think dealing with the root causes is a great idea but once someone has breached security and is invading your home it has reached the point of last defence.
As to the gas story, that was 30 years ago. At this point in time it seems thieves are so brazen they try to rob people that are home in broad daylight and at night. That is scary to me. A moderately intelligent thief, even one that never finished highschool, is bright enough to target homes when no one is there. So when you are dealing with home invaders we already know they are unpredictable.
Let's not forget those shot for going through someone's car, and just sitting in their cars; it would be good to stop them from being shot too. Continuing to arrest and charge the shooters is a good start.
I told you the man who shot at people rummaging through his car should be charged as it doesn't sound like self-defence to me. That is already illegal.
Funny that you are asking how to stop it and yet you continue to fearmonger about attackers, to repeat false claims about shooting people being legal, to claim that nothing can be done about it, and to claim that someone firing shots at a robbery are an example of things working just because no one got killed.
It is not fearmongering to acknowledge that home invaders often harm or kill the people in the homes they invade. Do you not read the news? It is legal to shoot someone in self-defence if that is the only way you have to assure your safety or that of other occupants of your home.
In the case you are referring to the owner shot a warning shot in the air, not at the robbers, and it did scare them off which was his intent.
Do you not realize your rhetoric here is the very thing that is promoting this vigilanteeism, and putting more lives at risk? It is exactly what the gun lobby is saying.
You need to look up the word vigilante
a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.
Someone shooting at a home invader is not a vigilante nor is someone who shoots a warning shot in the air.
But without actually restricting access to firearms (which can also be done), to stop spinning this rhetoric and recognize that getting out of dangerous situations is a better course of action, and that there are actually things that can be done to reduce gun violence, starting with fewer people having them.
You are the one spinning rhetoric. I have said, several times, the best response is to escape if you can. I don't have a gun but I don't see farmers giving up having guns. It isn't realistic to think that they will. It would be an excellent idea to prevent people like Colton's friend from having a gun. I don't see how we can.
Or heaven forbid, making the first line trying to deal with the root causes of why people steal. Or walk up people's drives looking to buy gas.
I think dealing with the root causes is a great idea but once someone has breached security and is invading your home it has reached the point of last defence.
As to the gas story, that was 30 years ago. At this point in time it seems thieves are so brazen they try to rob people that are home in broad daylight and at night. That is scary to me. A moderately intelligent thief, even one that never finished highschool, is bright enough to target homes when no one is there. So when you are dealing with home invaders we already know they are unpredictable.
Scary. Unpredictable. And that would be fearmongering.
As to the 30-year-old shooting, do you really want me to start listing cases of people shot by mistake, shot for holding toy guns, shot for telling the cop he had a legally-owned firearm in the car, shot for carrying a bag of skittles.
This is not a 30 year old story. It happens on a regular basis in the United States. I don't want that here.
Unpredictable. And that would be fearmongering.
As to the 30-year-old shooting, do you really want me to start listing cases of people shot by mistake, shot for holding toy guns, shot for telling the cop he had a legally-owned firearm in the car, shot for carrying a bag of skittles.
This is not a 30 year old story. It happens on a regular basis in the United States. I don't want that here.
Only if I can list people who have used guns to stop criminals from committing assault, robbery and rape.
PS- You probably don't want to see the amount of CZ858s that are being bought and sold, especially outwest. The Liberals new gun laws are shaking things up and everyones moving those suckers around. They look like AK47s, same bullet. There's about 10'000 to 15'000 of them estimated in Canada I believe.
PSS- those cops you're talking about know more about gun violence then any of us. We shouldn't question when they shoot someone.
Well my point was that 30 years later innocent people are still being shot by accident, and because they aren't white.
What was your point? That that is perfectly acceptable collateral damage so long as your buddies can still murder people for theft?
And yeah, I bet they can barely keep it in their pants at the thought of pulling a fast one over on the Liberals before the deadline. More guns. Real smart.
Well my point was that 30 years later innocent people are still being shot by accident, and because they aren't white.
And because they break the law.
What was your point? That that is perfectly acceptable collateral damage so long as your buddies can still murder people for theft?
*My* buddies? Not in my neighbourhood my friend. Lots of people around my place don't bother locking their car doors over night or while at work. I live in a very low crime area. Not a lot of shooting goes on around here (like any). Which is weird considering 7 out of 10 houses probably have guns. Correlation? Maybe.
And yeah, I bet they can barely keep it in their pants at the thought of pulling a fast one over on the Liberals before the deadline. More guns. Real smart.
The Liberals are dumb but they're not stupid. They knew exactly what would happen. They're playing the long game. They know the gun laws they're changing effects average canadian firearm owners and not criminals. Despite their claims gun violence iasn't on a drastic rise in Canada, it's level with the increase in population.
The new laws are suposed to come into effect sometime this summer. The two guns that will be prohibited are flying off the shelves. People are buying 2 or 3 CZ858 rifles because they'll triple in price. The government will be giving any owner of one of these guns a new special prohibited class gun liscence. The same class group that allows people to own "true" assault rifles (automatic) and actual machineguns. So anyone who owns one will still be able to take them to the range shooting, sell them to other people with the same class liscene. I've sold a few guns (legally, of course) which might become restricted and made close to $6000 profit. Thanks Justin.
Do you think Farmers out west will rush to register firearms like Quebec has? 4000 out of an estimated 1.6 million?
Anyhow this argument has gone full circle multiple times. You seem wholly uninterested in what farmers are going through because, and I'm making an observation here, it seems like you consider most of them just racist crackers. You really seem unsympathetic and unempathic to what farmers are going though. I'm actually pretty surprised. The police aren't up to the task of dealing with crime out there. Farmers know it. Criminals know it. Police know it. Farmers are going to do what they feel they need to to defend themselves. Moving the goal posts to suggest white men just want to murder people doesn't jive.
Hire more police. Tougher sentences and penalties for criminals while offering more access to rehabilitation programs, easier access to education and more work oppertunities.
Well my point was that 30 years later innocent people are still being shot by accident, and because they aren't white.
And because they break the law.
So you are saying that you are okay with the innocent people who get killed, often by racists, so long as your buddies (that is, those who act on the policy you support) get to murder people for theft.
And I am not unsympathetic to victims of crime at all. I have actually posted regularly about measures that can be taken, and which are being taken to actually reduce crime, rather than cause MORE violent deaths. Like the fact there are more police here, like proposed changes to trespass laws, revived community watches and other security measures.
And the fact that some of this alleged crime wave seems to be made up. It certainly doesn't match police statistics, and even SARM said they weren't hearing about it until for some reason someone started lobbying them on the freedom to shoot people. In fact, the problem they were warning about was these farmers staying within the law.
And no, I don't have sympathy for crackers (sorry, I won't shy away from calling racist bullies who rejoice over murder and think the law doesn't apply to them exactly what they are). They are the ones hijacking this issue here in the prairies, and giving them free rein to threaten, intimidate and shoot people is a recipe for murder.
And I am not buying that tactic here either. You care about crime and people's safety? What do you have other than shooting people? Or putting people in a position where they are likely to get killed themselves?
Or does the fact you mention other measures (which have already been raised) mean it is something more than just a foil, and you are ready to talk about something other than killing?
I posted in the other thread about a legal think tank that has been formed by lawyers across Canada to look at the outcome of the Stanley trial. One of the things they will be looking at is property rights as they apply to these situations.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/lawyers-academics-doing-deep-div...
Well my point was that 30 years later innocent people are still being shot by accident, and because they aren't white.What was your point? That that is perfectly acceptable collateral damage so long as your buddies can still murder people for theft?
People are not getting shot because they aren't white. It is most definitely illegal to shoot people because of their colour. In the two later incidences we don't even know the colour of the perpetrators.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4096862/edmonton-teenage-theft-ring/
Edmonton police have laid hundreds of charges against a large group of men and boys, mainly teenagers, believed to be responsible for nearly 100 violent robberies, thefts and attacks at places throughout the LRT system, at various recreation centres and malls in the city.
Your perception of the trustworthiness of thieves to be non-violent is naive to say the very least. It is not in the least bit unreasonable to be afraid of thieves in general and home invaders more specifically.
The law recognizes that it is reasonable for people to be physically afraid of thieves particularly home invaders.
The article I linked to is about thieves, mainly teens, willing to viciously attack people on public transit. I don't think they will be nicer once they graduate to home invasions.
Perhaps you are the racist as you seem to think people should make assumptions about the harmlessness of FN thieves as opposed to white thivves.
You want to take your chances that the thieves are just misunderstood under-privileged kids that mean you no harm. That is absolutely your right. It is my right to rely on the security of my building and my apartment more specifically. It is the right of other people to choose gun ownership and to use them for self-defence if their home is invaded.
It is probably best to avoid invading the homes of people in rural communities because they might own guns and they might shoot you in fear for their safety. I am not saying they should do that. I'm saying that you are taking your life in your hands if you invade someone's home or even just steal from them.
If someone saw that teen about to kick the woman down the stairs and shot the him (because we know it was a male) to protect her it would be justified and they would deserve a metal. If the teen is caught they should charge him with attempted murder.
So you are saying that you are okay with the innocent people who get killed, often by racists, so long as your buddies (that is, those who act on the policy you support) get to murder people for theft.
Do you have a source about these innocent people often being killed by racists or are you just superimposing your belief about everyone being a racist.
I don't think people should be murdered for stealing however I'm quite unsympathetic to their plight when they are. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
And I am not unsympathetic to victims of crime at all.
I believe you believe you aren't but that's not how you're coming across to me. And I don't think I'm alone, maybe I am.
I have actually posted regularly about measures that can be taken, and which are being taken to actually reduce crime, rather than cause MORE violent deaths. Like the fact there are more police here, like proposed changes to trespass laws, revived community watches and other security measures.
Those all seem like very good ideas. I probably missed it (for which I apologize) because the majority of what you're saying seems to be white racists+ farmers want to murder people. White. Racisim. Murderers. Over and over.
And the fact that some of this alleged crime wave seems to be made up. It certainly doesn't match police statistics, and even SARM said they weren't hearing about it until for some reason someone started lobbying them on the freedom to shoot people. In fact, the problem they were warning about was these farmers staying within the law.
I profess I haven't read much about SARM.
And no, I don't have sympathy for crackers (sorry, I won't shy away from calling racist bullies who rejoice over murder and think the law doesn't apply to them exactly what they are). They are the ones hijacking this issue here in the prairies, and giving them free rein to threaten, intimidate and shoot people is a recipe for murder.
You can use whatever derogotory and racist term you want. It's against white people so it will be overlooked, compared to if I were to use a derogotory term about Black or FN people. Taking a derogotory term and trying to give your own, equally offensive, definition of it doesn't make it any better.
And I am not buying that tactic here either. You care about crime and people's safety? What do you have other than shooting people? Or putting people in a position where they are likely to get killed themselves?Or does the fact you mention other measures (which have already been raised) mean it is something more than just a foil, and you are ready to talk about something other than killing?
I don't know. Shooting someone knowing I took another human life and dealing with the possibly life-altering PTSD (seen it, even from a non-fatal shooting), being charged and having to pay tens of thousands in court and lawyer fees, having my whole life put on trial, social media went over with a fine tooth comb, death threats to me and my family, harassment, my work being dragged into it, possibly loss of thousands of dollars worth of property sure sounds like a good time.
I'll have to get back to you on that one!
I do actually care about crime and people's safety. The amount in which I care is directly proportional to a few things like whether they hurt other people or if they take responsibility for themselves. I realize longer jail terms in itself won't solve the problem. I thought the ideas I mentioned were pretty good. Education, access to work, rehabilitation. Don't have much time for people who don't want to improve.
I have posted a number of articles quoting the police, and administrators which contradict these gun lobby claims.
SARM is the Saskatoon Association of Rural Municipalities. Their responses and actions on this have been central to the issue. I just spoke about their convention which was last weekend. I have been talking about them repeatedly, and if you aren't aware of them I'd suggest going back over that information.
They are the organization who, just months after their president said they hadn't heard much about increasing rural crime, voted 93 percent to call for increased freedom for residents to defend themselves. That was the resolution our justice minister said was completely out of the question.
Like really? You haven't heard much of them? How can that be if you have been reading this conversation?
I asked what their official itemized demands were or if they had some sort of official manifesto (or words to the effect) and you said no. What I gathered were they were farmers that were fed up with being victimized and lack of police support, poor response time, weak tresspassing laws and said they would be taking a more active role in defending themselves.
Do you have a website for the gun lobby you're talking about? Or are you using it in a non-centralized term meaning anyone who's basically a gun owner?
Seriously? You probably are more familiar with the organiations than I am, Paladin. No it isn't just a euphemism for all gun owners and you know it.
And we have been talking about the key issue that they are asking for - a change in the law to allow them to take the law into their own hands and use guns on others, and to carry weapons for that purpose. You have been talking about it yourself. Why are you playing dumb and asking me to tell you?
Farmers with Firearms
Canadian National Firearms Association
Canadian Sport Shooting Associatoin
Gun Owners of Canada
Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights
And the National Rifle Associaion, which has Canadian members.
Then of course there is the active support of political parties from the federal Conservatives to Wild Rose in Alberta.
So no, they aren't just poor hardworking persecuted farmers looking out to protect their homes. And I expect I am missing a few. Care to add to the list?
And we have been talking about the key issue that they are asking for - a change in the law to allow them to take the law into their own hands and use guns on others, and to carry weapons for that purpose.
I think that is what you have been talking about. We have been talking about supporting the laws as they exist today.
You just keep insisting that people here are supporting those organizations or their agenda or that we are falling for it or something.
I support our existing laws. I don't think they need to be changed. I know Paladin has said he is against people driving around with guns.
You haven't been arguing against the gun lobby. You have been arguing against the right of people to use a gun in self-defence. You insist home-invaders are no threat and people shouldn't be afraid of them or should run leaving their families behind rather than take the risk of shooting the invader who might just be a thief.
Yeah, wouldn't want to miss out on the opportunity of killing someone.
You know, I think some of the arguments here are based on the false impression that this is good homeowners versus bad thieves. When in fact the real problem is that when you add guns into the mix you increase the likelihood of people getting killed, whether by accident or intent.
Adding more guns doesn't lessen that risk. I makes it far greater. And there are people who are going to act out of fear and stupidity and malice on both sides of the equation.
I'm not assuming that everyone making that argument is fooled by the gun lobby. I am quite that there are some who are doing so knowing full well what they are promoting. Again, there are people saying thieves get what they deserve, and that the only mistake shooters make is to leave witnesses. That's pretty clear.
Yeah, wouldn't want to miss out on the opportunity of killing someone.
You're an extremist.
You know, I think some of the arguments here are based on the false impression that this is good homeowners versus bad thieves.
Nope. Homeowners versus home invaders.
When in fact the real problem is that when you add guns into the mix you increase the likelihood of people getting killed, whether by accident or intent.
Yes that is absolutely true. Are you arguing that most rural homeowners don't have guns yet?
And there are people who are going to act out of fear and stupidity and malice on both sides of the equation.
But it isn't an equation. An equation implies equal sides. The sides are not equal. One side has the right to be where they are. The other side is a criminal who has no justifiable reason to be there.
I'm not assuming that everyone making that argument is fooled by the gun lobby. I am quite that there are some who are doing so knowing full well what they are promoting.
Making what argument?
Again, there are people saying thieves get what they deserve, and that the only mistake shooters make is to leave witnesses. That's pretty clear.
Not here. I join you in condemning such an attitude and such behavior is illegal.
Oh those groups. They don't behave like the NRA (in my mind) really so I wasn't thinking of them. I'm not super familiar with them and I generally try and steer clear. Some of them seem alright like the sports shooting one, others seem to attract people with very unrealistic and dumb views on firearms. When I was a little more active with that stuff I got called a Liberal, traitor and spy alot. The Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights seem pretty sensible- pushing for education, responsible use, training.
I can't think of anymore of them. If the CCFR decide to goto court to challange the new gun laws I'll join them, drop a substansial donation and during a meeting or whatever mention what's going on out west and see what they say. Everyone wins!
Adding more guns doesn't lessen that risk. I makes it far greater. And there are people who are going to act out of fear and stupidity and malice on both sides of the equatio
Whats the "So what"?
What new gun laws?
And an article at CBC highlighing the cherry picking and misleading stats the Liberals used to justify it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-crime-goodale-canada-1.4585097
for example
"The rate of homicides with handguns in Canada in 2016 was 0.36 per 100,000. Ten years ago, it was 0.38 per 100,000."
So the number of handgun homicides is decreasing despite considerable population growth and drastic firearm and firearm ownership increase.
Yeah, wouldn't want to miss out on the opportunity of killing someone.You're an extremist.
No. Just someone who has been threatened with a gun, and has seen "good people" use them to threaten others vandalize and kill others' animals. And who has family dealing with gun murder, and good friends dealing with murder suicide by gun.
What is extreme is pretending that these crimes, and other shootings and murders are just the bad ones, and have no connection to the overall prevalence of guns, and telling people that it is okay and in fact their only option to use them on other people.
and has seen "good people" use them to threaten others vandalize and kill others' animals.
There's the problem. Your description of what "good people" are.
And an article at CBC highlighing the cherry picking and misleading stats the Liberals used to justify it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-crime-goodale-canada-1.4585097
for example
"The rate of homicides with handguns in Canada in 2016 was 0.36 per 100,000. Ten years ago, it was 0.38 per 100,000."
So the number of handgun homicides is decreasing despite considerable population growth and drastic firearm and firearm ownership increase.
Decreasing doesn't help those who still became victims.
What aspect or aspects of the new law do you find unreasonable or unhelpful?
Nah, pointing out it is a meaningless distinction, hence the scare quotes.
It was my neighbour across the road, Paladin. In fact the person you think should be able to shoot people for coming in his house is the same one who could easily assume he can use that gun in other ways (as if committing murder for theft isn't a crime in itself).
There are some jurisdictions in the states where instead of a stand your ground law there is a duty to retreat, and in Vermont that applies to your home as well. That is to say, if you have any way to remove yourself from the situation and don't take it you have no grounds for self defense.
I still prefer our Canadian system, where assault with a weapon remains illegal, and it is up to the courts whether you have a valid excuse. But a provision saying you must leave if possible or forfeit any defense would be even better.
That would at least weed out some of the gunslingers.
No. Just someone who has been threatened with a gun, and has seen "good people" use them to threaten others vandalize and kill others' animals.
"Good people" rape as well. The good/bad dicotomy is misleading. People are usually both good and bad depending on circumstances. If a generally good person commits a crime it is still a crime. The situations you just referred to are already criminal.
Short of making all guns illegal those situations will keep happening and as long as people are allowed to drive some will drive drunk, or drugged, or fall asleep at the wheel.
Guns are legal so like it or not some people will own them.
And who has family dealing with gun murder, and good friends dealing with murder suicide by gun.
So you think you can prevent 100% of people from owning guns and that will solve the problem?
What is extreme is pretending that these crimes, and other shootings and murders are just the bad ones, and have no connection to the overall prevalence of guns, and telling people that it is okay and in fact their only option to use them on other people.
No one here is saying that other than you. Guns are a last resort (by law) not a first resort and if you can fire in the air rather than at the criminal it is the better option.
In no way am I telling people or encouraging people to go out and get guns. I said that I am guessing most people living in rural locations own at least a shotgun.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p2.html
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).
I would be interested to know the percentage of people living outside towns or cities that have guns.
Note, I am not suggesting they go out and buy more guns. I'm saying most of them already have guns.
"The rate of homicides with handguns in Canada in 2016 was 0.36 per 100,000. Ten years ago, it was 0.38 per 100,000."
So the number of handgun homicides is decreasing despite considerable population growth and drastic firearm and firearm ownership increase.
Per 100,000 is a ratio so the numbers have likely increased while the ratio has slightly decreased.
0.36 per 100,000 is the same as 3.6 per million.
3.6 per million would work out currently to approximately 133 homicides with handguns in Canada per year.
What aspect or aspects of the new law do you find unreasonable or unhelpful?
It might be too much to post in here and bring the thread off topic (though it could be relative considering firearms and rural crime). I'll try to keep it relative to the thread.
The Liberals are promising to throw money (which they're good at) at ambigious organizations like border security and police that deal with gang crime. I think that's awesome BUT I'm not very confident how much of the money will actually go to areas that are helpful (opposed to admin over head, like the united way).
Closer to home gun owners like me will once again have to jump through more red tape and hoops to bring guns to shooting ranges, repair shops, post offices. I already have a licence to own and shoot these guns. The Conservatives got rid of the extra paperwork but the Liberals are bringing it back. It doesn't make anything safer, just fucks us around. (Good, right?) Because really if I own a gun and I want to go shoot up a school or my work I'm not going to call the RCMP and wait on the phone for an hour or two to get a number that acts as permission to move the gun, right?
The classification is the big issue. There are 3 classes of licences in Canada. With one you can shoot guns on a farm or in the woods hunting. A second one you're only allowed at expensive (often full) government approved shooting ranges. The 3rd is like the second but you need to call and ask permission to go shooting every time and certain guns are allowed to shoot and certain guns you're allowed to own but not shoot. Plus some other stuff.
The Liberals are making it so the police esentially make the laws. People here won't give a shit because it's about guns (thats fine but I suspect if police started making laws with other areas that hit closer to home they would take issue). So now the police can take a rifle that people can hunt with and make it restricted. No more hunting. There's an estimated People who own them are required to upgrade their licence (which doesn't include more security checks) and have to find a shooting range to use and pay for it, from $200 to $2000. They can also take restricted guns and make them prohibited which can include people not being allowed to use them anymore and not passing them on to kids. They can also decide a gun is banned so owners have to turn it in to the police, in the case that just happened a couple years ago around 1000 or more Canadians were about to turn a certain gun in and lose $4000.
A similar comparason might be if the police decide Honda civics are used by too many street racers so owners have to give them to the police. Except there wouldn't be stats backing up that claim, they just make it.
Now I have a few quite expensive guns I can hunt with which the police will most assuredly make restricted or prohibited. Will it make Canada safer? I don't think so. None of them have been used in crime in Canada to date, there is no discrenable difference between them and hunting rifles (mine's less powerful maybe) and the chances of a criminal buying a rifle and scope worth $5800 are pretty slim. On the black market it would be worth a lot more but criminals won't pay that much for because there's cheaper stuff that works.
Will the classification system effect the firearm crime going on out west? I don't think so. Unless a farmer shoots competitively or for target practice they're not going to own one of the expensive scary looking guns I have. The guns on most farms are basic hunting style rifles and farm guns which won't likely be reclassified.
The Liberals keep saying they won't bring back the long gun registry however some of the new rules and guidelines are basically a back door gun registry under a different name and people recognize that.
The Liberals were keeping gun laws as an ace up their sleeve to break out when they needed a boost in the polls. They played this card too early and it's too fragmented and full of errors. Trudeau himself tweeted incorrect information about buying a guy when they released this and just looked like a fool.
The only thing these changes will do is inconvienence legal gun owners, cause a surge in firearms purchases (you wouldn't believe the number of guns being sold out) and making people getting ready to hid their stuff and find loopholes - but the Liberals want votes to make up for the stupid moves they;ve been doing lately.
so the numbers have likely increased while the ratio has slightly decreased. 0.36 per 100,000 is the same as 3.6 per million. 3.6 per million would work out currently to approximately 133 homicides with handguns in Canada per year.
I wish I knew the breakdown of that stat as in how many of those homicides were committed with legally owned handguns and how many were by criminals who had stolen or smuggled guns.
It was my neighbour across the road, Paladin. In fact the person you think should be able to shoot people for coming in his house is the same one who could easily assume he can use that gun in other ways (as if committing murder for theft isn't a crime in itself).
Can I ask what happened with your neighbour across the road? If I missed it I'll apologize and go back through your posts to find it. I've mentioned at least one example of a teen breaking into a gun owners house. The guy beat up the teenager who broke in and the home owner was charged with assault because the judge felt it wasn't reasonable force for self-defense. I'm in agreement with our courts figuring out whats reasonable and whats not but the home owner will always be on the hook for thousands and thousands of dollars for a defense lawyer.
Vernmont does have a duty to retreat law which I'm fine with due to the clause about if you can't retreat you can use deadly force. They also don't require you to have a firearms licence to buy OR carry a handgun there. In fact you and I could buy and carry a handgun in Vermont, openly or concealed. Every been to Vermont? Everyone the has a gun it seems. Vermont is the 2nd lowest violent crime rate state in USA. Among the least amount of gun control, 2nd safest state.
Of course I get that your logic that this is an argument for less law, but it doesn't really matter if you are shot by a good gun or a bad gun. You are just as dead. And it can be criminal whether it is a legal or illegal weapon.
Though do you count those guns that people didn't register 20 years ago as bad ones because they were also illegal, or good ones because you consider it a bad law? And does it make any difference that a lot of those bad guns got stolen because people had them legally in the first place?
Like your good and bad people, it is kind of a nonsense distinction, even though I understand why you are making it.
The Liberals are promising to throw money (which they're good at) at ambigious organizations like border security and police that deal with gang crime. I think that's awesome BUT I'm not very confident how much of the money will actually go to areas that are helpful (opposed to admin over head, like the united way).I agree.
Closer to home gun owners like me will once again have to jump through more red tape and hoops to bring guns to shooting ranges, repair shops, post offices. I already have a licence to own and shoot these guns. The Conservatives got rid of the extra paperwork but the Liberals are bringing it back. It doesn't make anything safer, just fucks us around. (Good, right?) Because really if I own a gun and I want to go shoot up a school or my work I'm not going to call the RCMP and wait on the phone for an hour or two to get a number that acts as permission to move the gun, right?I get your point on traveling with a weapon but when I was a kid we had to have bike licences. I don't see why registration should be arduous or expensive for regular guns.
The Liberals are making it so the police esentially make the laws. People here won't give a shit because it's about guns (thats fine but I suspect if police started making laws with other areas that hit closer to home they would take issue). So now the police can take a rifle that people can hunt with and make it restricted. No more hunting. There's an estimated People who own them are required to upgrade their licence (which doesn't include more security checks) and have to find a shooting range to use and pay for it, from $200 to $2000. They can also take restricted guns and make them prohibited which can include people not being allowed to use them anymore and not passing them on to kids. They can also decide a gun is banned so owners have to turn it in to the police, in the case that just happened a couple years ago around 1000 or more Canadians were about to turn a certain gun in and lose $4000.
Polticians wold be worse so what would you suggest? That is who should determine gun classifications?
Are there ways to make the laws more effective in preventing the misuse of firearms including for crime?
He showed up at my door and threatened me with a gun. This was a very long time ago and I did not report it. He is also very likely the same person who took a neighbour's dog out of its kennel and shot it in a field.
I have no problem with someone who beats someone who breaks into their house being charged if it is excessive force. You don't have the right to gratuitously torture someone, and you aren't the law. I think a lot of these idiots don't seem to have learned that lesson.
And no, I'm not fine with the rest of those Vermont laws. I do like the one that spells out that you must leave if you have any chance to do so.
He showed up at my door and threatened me with a gun. This was a very long time ago and I did not report it. He is also very likely the same person who took a neighbour's dog out of its kennel and shot it in a field.
Did that happen before or after you didn't report it?
Can't remember Magoo. It was back in the early 90s. Can't even recall if it was that I didn't think to call the cops, or that I was just concerned about escalating a situation with a volatile neighbour, which is also a reality of rural life. I know the latter definitely played a part of it. And it is also why I question your take on this situation. There are many people who should not have guns, and they often seem to be the ones who want them most.
Fair enough. If you weren't eager to provoke a neighbour with a gun, that makes sense, and I'm not being facetious.
Yup. It was a weird, and scary situation.
so the numbers have likely increased while the ratio has slightly decreased. 0.36 per 100,000 is the same as 3.6 per million. 3.6 per million would work out currently to approximately 133 homicides with handguns in Canada per year.I wish I knew the breakdown of that stat as in how many of those homicides were committed with legally owned handguns and how many were by criminals who had stolen or smuggled guns.
I wonder how many were "crimes of passion" or gang or drug related.
Much of the rise here in the prairies is gang on gang violence.
Well, the more info we can have, the better (or at any rate, none the worse).
But if a killer is an aggrieved and jealous ex-husband or an itchy tweaker, what difference would that make to how we interpret the numbers?
Much of the rise here in the prairies is gang on gang violence.
I know some people in Regina who've told me that gangs control whole city blocks in the North Central area. Crime, drugs, racism, and poverty seem very intertwined there. I spent a few nights in the area and was told not to go in certain areas of the neighborhood as people can get mugged in broad daylight. That being said, the people in that neighborhood are generally very good people.
Well, the more info we can have, the better (or at any rate, none the worse).
But if a killer is an aggrieved and jealous ex-husband or an itchy tweaker, what difference would that make to how we interpret the numbers?
I think it might indicate how effective gun control laws could be at lowering homicide rates. I think enacting gun control laws to control gang violence is not very effective as gangs are very adept at getting around gun control laws. On the other hand it seems that gun control laws that make it easier to take guns away from jealous ex-husbands who have threatened the lives of their ex-wives could be very effective at lowering homicide rates.
On the other hand it seems that gun control laws that make it easier to take guns away from jealous ex-husbands who have threatened the lives of their ex-wives could be very effective at lowering homicide rates.
If you want to make it harder for them to legally purchase a gun, OK. Not sure how we'll go about identifying "jealous ex-husbands", but let's give it the ol' college try.
But if we can do that, why can't we seem to do the same for gang members? Do jealous ex-husbands just have a big red asterisk on their foreheads? Or are legal guns not really the problem? If, as you suggest, "gangs are very adept at getting around gun control laws", is there anything we can do about that, or have they just rightfully won?
