Stevie-Ray
Member
You seem to forget that our alternatives were Algore and John Skerry. Surely you're not suggesting.......................robertbank said:
Toronto gripped by US gun violence
- Thread starter kjeff50cal
- Start date
- Status
4RHeritage
Member
Some Canadians
I wish you guys would stop saying Canada this and Canada that. It's the F***in government, not the people and not the country. The government was not democratically elected. The elections are controlled by a voting bloc in Quebec and GTA (Greater Toronto area).
The rest of Canada does not think like them.
And while I would love to have a CCW and constitutionally protected RKBA, I am happy knowing that I don't need to carry in Canada. I have never been the victim of violent crime, I don't know of anyone who has been, and no one I know knows of anyone who has either.
We don't even have cops in our town. We don't need them.
BTW, we are not a socialist hellhole, thats just Toronto. Even out here in BC, we are a lot like Washington. The socialist a**holes are confined to Vancouver and Seattle, the rest of the province/state is pretty conservative.
I wish you guys would stop saying Canada this and Canada that. It's the F***in government, not the people and not the country. The government was not democratically elected. The elections are controlled by a voting bloc in Quebec and GTA (Greater Toronto area).
The rest of Canada does not think like them.
And while I would love to have a CCW and constitutionally protected RKBA, I am happy knowing that I don't need to carry in Canada. I have never been the victim of violent crime, I don't know of anyone who has been, and no one I know knows of anyone who has either.
We don't even have cops in our town. We don't need them.
BTW, we are not a socialist hellhole, thats just Toronto. Even out here in BC, we are a lot like Washington. The socialist a**holes are confined to Vancouver and Seattle, the rest of the province/state is pretty conservative.
geegee
Member
Where to begin...:banghead:
JohnBT said:
Actually, hockey proves that they are pacifists. Only a pacifist would drop a perfectly good stick and fight unarmed. Why go for the 2 minute penalty when you can get the 10 second knockout and take the rest of the night off? I guess that's why they don't let me play. Well, it's either that or my complete inability to play.
Jubei
jacho
Member
Here's an article from my local paper, I think he's got it right.
Gangs to blame, not U.S. guns
John R. Lott
The National Post
Monday, November 14, 2005
With Canada's murder rate rising 12 per cent last year and this year's high-profile rash of gang murders (six shootings two weeks ago in Toronto and a few in Vancouver recently), politicians are looking for someone to blame. The bogeyman, as usual, is America: During his dinner with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Prime Minister Paul Martin claimed Canada's gun crime problem was being caused by weapons smuggled in from down south.
But Martin doesn't have the facts to back up the claim. Despite the $2-billion committed to the Liberals' gun registry, the government does not even know the number of guns seized from criminals, let alone where those guns came from. Nor does Martin's government have any evidence that gun smuggling has recently gotten worse. (In Toronto, which keeps some data on guns, Paul Culver, a senior Crown Attorney, claims U.S. guns are a "small part" of his city's problem.)
Martin's larger mistake is that -- like most politicians in Canada -- he puts his faith in gun control as a means to fight crime, and clearly believes the United States should too. But as Canada's experience with its registry -- which hasn't solved any crimes -- shows, gun control isn't the answer. Getting law-abiding citizens to disarm or register their weapons is easy. The hard part is taking guns away from criminals. Toronto's and Vancouver's gangs have no trouble getting the illegal drugs they sell. Since they are already involved in a criminal trade, why should we expect that the law would keep them from acquiring guns to defend their turf?
The experiences of the U.K. and Australia, two island nations whose borders are much easier to control and monitor, should also give Canadian gun controllers pause. The British government banned handguns in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled from 1998-99 to 2002-03.
Since 1996, serious violent crime has soared by 69 per cent: Robbery is up by 45 per cent and murders up by 54 per cent. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50 per cent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to 1993 levels. The crooks still had guns, but not their victims.
The immediate effect of Australia's 1996 gun-control regulations was similar. Crime rates averaged 32 per cent higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than in 1995. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed an increase of 74 per cent.
Outside of Canada and Europe, skepticism of gun-control laws' effectiveness is widespread. It was the major reason why the recent referendum to ban guns in Brazil was defeated by an almost two-to-one vote. Despite progressively stricter gun-control laws in that country, murder rates rose every year from 1992 to 2002. As in the U.K., the regulations simply tilted the balance of power in favour of criminals.
During the 1990s, just as Britain, Australia and Brazil were regulating guns, the U.S. was going in the opposite direction. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have so-called "right-to-carry laws," which let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check and pay a fee. Only half the states require any training, usually around three to five hours' worth. Yet the murder rate has fallen faster in these states than the national average. Overall, the states in the U.S. with the fastest growth rates in gun ownership during the 1990s have experienced the biggest drops in violent crime.
It isn't guns that primarily drive violence crime, but drugs (and the war fought against drugs). Few Canadians appreciate that over 70 per cent of American murders take place in just 3.5 per cent of counties -- these being the inner-city areas where drug dealers are concentrated. Drug gangs can't simply call up the police when another gang encroaches on their turf, so they end up essentially setting up their own armies.
It's foolish to blame the U.S. for the predictable actions of profit-seeking gangsters: Just as U.S. gangs will always find some way to smuggle drugs in from Latin America, Canadian gangs will find a way to smuggle in weapons to defend their turf.
In other words, if you want to get rid of the murders, stop focusing on the guns and get rid of the gangs.
John R. Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns.
© The Vancouver Sun 2005
Gangs to blame, not U.S. guns
John R. Lott
The National Post
Monday, November 14, 2005
With Canada's murder rate rising 12 per cent last year and this year's high-profile rash of gang murders (six shootings two weeks ago in Toronto and a few in Vancouver recently), politicians are looking for someone to blame. The bogeyman, as usual, is America: During his dinner with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Prime Minister Paul Martin claimed Canada's gun crime problem was being caused by weapons smuggled in from down south.
But Martin doesn't have the facts to back up the claim. Despite the $2-billion committed to the Liberals' gun registry, the government does not even know the number of guns seized from criminals, let alone where those guns came from. Nor does Martin's government have any evidence that gun smuggling has recently gotten worse. (In Toronto, which keeps some data on guns, Paul Culver, a senior Crown Attorney, claims U.S. guns are a "small part" of his city's problem.)
Martin's larger mistake is that -- like most politicians in Canada -- he puts his faith in gun control as a means to fight crime, and clearly believes the United States should too. But as Canada's experience with its registry -- which hasn't solved any crimes -- shows, gun control isn't the answer. Getting law-abiding citizens to disarm or register their weapons is easy. The hard part is taking guns away from criminals. Toronto's and Vancouver's gangs have no trouble getting the illegal drugs they sell. Since they are already involved in a criminal trade, why should we expect that the law would keep them from acquiring guns to defend their turf?
The experiences of the U.K. and Australia, two island nations whose borders are much easier to control and monitor, should also give Canadian gun controllers pause. The British government banned handguns in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled from 1998-99 to 2002-03.
Since 1996, serious violent crime has soared by 69 per cent: Robbery is up by 45 per cent and murders up by 54 per cent. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50 per cent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to 1993 levels. The crooks still had guns, but not their victims.
The immediate effect of Australia's 1996 gun-control regulations was similar. Crime rates averaged 32 per cent higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than in 1995. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed an increase of 74 per cent.
Outside of Canada and Europe, skepticism of gun-control laws' effectiveness is widespread. It was the major reason why the recent referendum to ban guns in Brazil was defeated by an almost two-to-one vote. Despite progressively stricter gun-control laws in that country, murder rates rose every year from 1992 to 2002. As in the U.K., the regulations simply tilted the balance of power in favour of criminals.
During the 1990s, just as Britain, Australia and Brazil were regulating guns, the U.S. was going in the opposite direction. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have so-called "right-to-carry laws," which let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check and pay a fee. Only half the states require any training, usually around three to five hours' worth. Yet the murder rate has fallen faster in these states than the national average. Overall, the states in the U.S. with the fastest growth rates in gun ownership during the 1990s have experienced the biggest drops in violent crime.
It isn't guns that primarily drive violence crime, but drugs (and the war fought against drugs). Few Canadians appreciate that over 70 per cent of American murders take place in just 3.5 per cent of counties -- these being the inner-city areas where drug dealers are concentrated. Drug gangs can't simply call up the police when another gang encroaches on their turf, so they end up essentially setting up their own armies.
It's foolish to blame the U.S. for the predictable actions of profit-seeking gangsters: Just as U.S. gangs will always find some way to smuggle drugs in from Latin America, Canadian gangs will find a way to smuggle in weapons to defend their turf.
In other words, if you want to get rid of the murders, stop focusing on the guns and get rid of the gangs.
John R. Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns.
© The Vancouver Sun 2005
robertbank
Member
Stevie-Ray
Good point though the Republicans did choose the guy and surely there were better choices then Bush.
My sincere hope is the next President can find a way to get out of Iraq with a "win" of sorts before there is complete civil breakdown in that country. Going to be a very long three more years I am afraid.
Thanks Jacho for publising that article. There have been others out of Toronto via the Financial Post.
The Toronto Police Chief wants more Federal money for "education purposes". Apparently he wants to go to the inner schools and teach the kids it is against the law to murder people. Like that is going to solve the cities problems.
God help this country, I fear another minority Liberal Gov't is on the horizon.
4RHeritage If you look at the least election it was the Maritimes and Ontario that got the Liberals in a;ong with a few ridings in Vancouver. Quebec voted for the Bloc.
Stay Safe
Good point though the Republicans did choose the guy and surely there were better choices then Bush.
My sincere hope is the next President can find a way to get out of Iraq with a "win" of sorts before there is complete civil breakdown in that country. Going to be a very long three more years I am afraid.
Thanks Jacho for publising that article. There have been others out of Toronto via the Financial Post.
The Toronto Police Chief wants more Federal money for "education purposes". Apparently he wants to go to the inner schools and teach the kids it is against the law to murder people. Like that is going to solve the cities problems.
God help this country, I fear another minority Liberal Gov't is on the horizon.
4RHeritage If you look at the least election it was the Maritimes and Ontario that got the Liberals in a;ong with a few ridings in Vancouver. Quebec voted for the Bloc.
Stay Safe
svtruth
Member
And yet
The local paper had a story today that the US murder rate is at a 40 year low.
The local paper had a story today that the US murder rate is at a 40 year low.
Cpl.Parker
Member
Mannlicher said:My heart goes out to all those poor, downtrodden, violence challanged canucks. More's the pity that none of it is their fault. George W Bush must be behind this, in retaliation for Canada being a Wussie on Iraq.
I sure hope that none of these comments offend any Canadians. That would be an even more egregious injury than just exporting violence.
I thank God Canada is not involved in the meatgrinder called Iraq. We are involved in the war on terrorism with troops serving in Afghanistan and to date we have suffered, I believe, 5 fatal casualities, only 1 to enemy action the first 4 were blue on blue.
P
- Status
